(Mercator) Think what you like about the rest of yesterday’s debate (Sept. 10) between Vice-President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on ABC, the moderator’s treatment of abortion was anything but even-handed.
Trump asserted that the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz in is favour of “execution after birth” for aborted babies. But one of the moderators, Linsey Davis, “fact-checked” him, saying: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.”
Trump’s phrasing was clumsy, but Ms. Davis was wrong. Here’s Roger Severino, of the Heritage Foundation, on Walz’s record:
Trump was 100% correct. Post-birth abortion is real and Harris-Walz support it. At least 5 babies were born alive after botched abortions and left to die under Walz’s watch. Two of these struggling babies were given “comfort care” instead of medical care allegedly in violation of state law. How did Walz respond? By repealing the very law exposing and outlawing this horror and replacing it with abortion-on-demand on the front end, and infanticide on the back end.
Tweet This: "Post-birth abortion is real and Harris-Walz support it."
This is not just an American issue. How should doctors and nurses treat aborted babies who are born alive? The same issue is being debated in Australia. Two states, NSW and South Australia, require that babies born alive after an abortion must receive medical care. The state of Queensland is studying a bill which would require doctors, midwives and nurses to care for babies born alive after abortions. It is fiercely opposed by the abortion lobby.
Dr Joanna Howes, one of the country’s most persuasive foes of abortion, was furious. She is a mother of five, a professor of law, and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. She recently appeared on The Outsiders , a Sky News current affairs program, where she revealed that babies in Australia are being deliberately born alive before they are left to die because it’s “cheap, easier and quicker” way of killing a baby than having a normal abortion. Dr Howes said:
What astounds me is that Dr Elisha Broom, a chief abortionist in this country, said that we do this on purpose. We deliberately induce these babies alive. That’s the method of abortion.
I had always thought, I think all of us had thought, this is an unintended consequence of abortion up to birth. And in reality what we now know is these aren’t failed abortions.
This is a deliberate strategy. A cheap, easier, quicker strategy to kill babies. So they induce them alive. They leave them to die.
Now this was outlawed for baby calves in Australia in 2022. This was banned. We don’t even do this to baby cows yet we do it to human babies...
Shockingly, we now know that in Australia, on average, one baby is born alive and left to die in Queensland and Victoria every week after a failed abortion.
What has become clear is that the Australian parliament not only endorses late-term abortion but has also given its tacit approval to infanticide. This is a national disgrace and people should be up in arms that this atrocity is occurring in our country. Dr Howes went on to say:
Maria Kovacic who is a senator from the Liberal Party. She got up two weeks ago in the Australian Senate and she justified this practice.
Essentially it was her and the other three liberals—Simon Birmingham, Andrew Bragg and Jane Hume—all four of them siding with the abortion industry. Instead of being like the dairy industry who owned up to the appalling treatment of little baby calves, these four Liberals, the Greens and Labor are siding with the abortion industry and covering up the plight of these very vulnerable Australian newborn babies.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media have been largely silent on the issue.
The murderous policy of leaving newborn babies to die is not healthcare and it is not reproductive rights. No amount of Orwellian Newspeak can deceive the public for what it really is.
Tweet This: The murderous policy of leaving newborn babies to die is not healthcare and it is not reproductive rights.
After years of political agitation, William Wilberforce was instrumental in putting an end to the inhumane practice of slavery. Surely inducing pregnant women to subsequently kill their child is infinitely more barbaric.
And yet, progressive academics have itself clearly articulated what medical ethicists are prepared to justify. For instance, in 2011, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva from the University of Melbourne, published a peer reviewed paper entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” The abstract itself made the following unambiguous admission:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that so not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The blood of tens of thousands of children cries from stainless steel kidney dishes and medical waste bins every year. How many politicians in Australia or the United States care? How many are even listening? As the Rev. Dr. Peter Barnes, the former Moderator General for the Presbyterian Church of Australia, recently wrote:
“It takes a special kind of hard-heartedness to look upon the weak and the vulnerable, and not be moved by some kind of compassion.”
Editor's note: Mark Powell is the Minister at Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, in Hobart, Tasmania. This article was published by Mercator and is reprinted with permission.
