Two misleading attempts to minimize prolife swing in public opinion and the horror of non-treatment of born-alive abortion survivors

By Dave Andrusko

For the last post of the day I’d like to take a look at two stories, one attempting to prove that the increase in pro-life self-identification is only an “illusion” and the other a classic case of stacking the deck in favor of refusing to treat babies who survive abortions.

What did the Marist poll find? A huge up-swelling in pro-life self-identification (“pro-life” and “pro-choice” are now tied) and a 71% agreement that abortions should be banned after 20 weeks.

You can read Ed Kilgore’s pretend debunking of the Marist poll results here. The funniest part is his first snarky put down of the Knights of Columbus, which commissioned the poll: “The Knights have had a history of finding what they are looking for in polls on abortion policy.”

Talk about the pot and the kettle. The weasel wording of abortion polls for 40+ years has allowed the Abortion Industry and their comrades in arms in the “mainstream media” to pretend that the public overwhelmingly supports Roe (which they consistently misrepresent).

His only other point, which is sliced and diced, is to tell us that the Marist poll wording is not only replete with “double- or triple-loaded question[s] on a particular type of abortion,” but “more likely the ‘dramatic and sudden move’ is attributable to statistical noise.”

In other words, whatever is in the news will move opinion, but it’ll all fall back to what it’s always been, at least according to Kilgore.

Two quick things. I’m not sure anyone disagrees that public opinion permanently moved in a more pro-life direction during and following the debate over partial-birth abortion. And as for those areas on which public opinion has not changed, they are exactly what the Ed Kilgores hate: support for parental involvement, informed consent, and not allowing tax dollars to pay for abortions except in the “hard cases.”

Second, by talking about the small number of abortions a year after 24 weeks (most of which he falsely states “are for fetal anomalies”), Kilgore manages to conveniently overlook that there are at least 11,000 to 13,000 abortions and probably a lot more, performed after 20 weeks. And even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute concedes the explanation for these abortions is not fetal anomalies but relationship issues and a failure to decide.

The other story, which I will return to in more depth tomorrow since I am running out of time, was written by New York Times science reporter Denise Grady. It’s supposedly the “facts” behind pro-life President Trump’s tweets about late-term abortions and infanticide, following the Democrats success at preventing a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

In her hurry to write off President Trump’s observations, Grady, who has done some really fine work on experimental in utero surgery, makes some rookie mistakes. Dr. Daniel Grossman is a leading mouthpiece for the Abortion Establishment who counts it a day lost when he hasn’t offered a misleading comment about abortion and pro-lifers.

That’s fine. But according to Grady, he is practically a saint who happens to perform abortions “and is a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where he leads a committee on health care for underserved women.” Just guessing, I would suspect a consider emphasis of this “health care” is access to abortion.

By the way, would anyone from NRLC be treated with such kid gloves?

She also mixes what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is intended to accomplish—treating the abortion survivor as you would any other preemie of a similar gestational age–with what takes place a non-abortion setting when the child is born early. In other words when the intent is not to kill the baby but to save the child.

More tomorrow.