Are Democrats pro-infanticide?

Democrats are playing coy on the issue of abortion. Democrats nationwide have made their campaigns all about abortion all-the-time. When asked if they support any limitations on abortion, Democrats dodge the question.

A spokesperson for John Fetterman replied "John has been clear that he believes that the Supreme Court and Republicans should have left Roe the hell alone, and the whole point is that these decisions should be between a woman, her doctor, and a God if she prays to one — not politicians. Dr. Oz, on the other hand, said he supports banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. These dangerous views are deeply out of step with the people of Pennsylvania."

According to the article, a "spokesperson for Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto referred Fox News Digital to a Reno Gazette Journal article which stated that 'abortion up to the moment of live birth is not a thing, according to obstetricians.'" Then there's this:

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Maggie Hassan, N.H., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wa., Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., D-Nev., Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio., Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., D-Penn., Lt. Gov., Mandela Barnes, D-Wis., and North Carolina Senate candidate Cheri Beasley, who all expressed their support for the Women's Healthcare Protection Act (WHPA) of 2022, did not respond to Fox News Digital.

The WHPA is the pro-abortion legislation introduced by Democrats that would codify Roe and "permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations." Many Republicans have interpreted the legislation as opening the door to late term or even partial birth abortions, since it makes it impossible to place restrictions on abortions in the first two trimesters of a pregnancy, and would make it difficult to restrict abortions after viability.

Abortion services without limitations sounds like it'd include infanticide. That language is exceptionally vague. I suspect it's intentionally vague. This sounds exceptionally evasive:

Democrats say that they want to codify Roe into law. That's an outright lie. Roe prohibited abortion after the first trimester. The WHPA wipes out that provision of Roe. In fact, as I said earlier, the WHPA would permit "abortion services without limitations."

As for Fetterman's reply, he hasn't read the Dobbs decision. That ruling has put the decision back in the hands of the states, not the federal government. Then again, Fetterman doesn't seem too bright. He's avoided debating Dr. Oz, perhaps because he's incapable of debating anyone beyond the age of 16 after his stroke. Does this guy look coherent? I don't think so:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more