By Dave Andrusko
Under the category “Screenshots are forever,” National Review’s intrepid Alexandra DeSanctis captured a screenshot from abortion activist Calla Hales in which Hales questioned whether an “infant younger than 30 days” can be a “legal person.”
Hales’ astonishing comments were in the context of legislation moving through the North Carolina legislature that would require equal treatment for abortion survivors.
The typical pro-abortion response—in Congress or in the states— is there is no medical neglect of abortion survivors (which is patently untrue) so no legislation is needed. Hales takes the logic of infanticide to the next step.
The unborn child is not only not a legal person at birth, he or she is not a legal person until they are 30 days old! After Hales got blowback, she took her account offline, making it accessible only to “confirmed followers”—people she allows to read her tweets.
Hales is on the board of directors of the North Carolina affiliate of NARAL and “ also the director of Preferred Women’s Health Clinics, a chain of abortion clinics in North Carolina and Georgia.”
Coverage by the local Associated Press correspondent illustrates to a “T” how pro-abortionists and their media cohorts are trying to spin what is, after all, infanticide.
Not mentioned during the debate: a federal judge this month declared unconstitutional a North Carolina law banning women from having abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy except in an urgent medical emergency.
But the proposed laws are not about abortion. They are about medical neglect of aborted babies born alive. The refusal to honor the distinction is a measure of how dishonest the anti-life lobby truly is.
Likewise on the motivation of those seeking to require equal treatment (not “futile” treatment) of abortion survivors. Robertson adds
The measure, based on the premise that doctors could allow newborns to die following late-term abortions, builds on recent pushbacks by activists opposed to abortion-rights efforts in other states. Members of the judiciary committee that approved it clashed over whether the bill was necessary to protect survivors of abortion, or simply an anti-abortion strategy clothed in misinformation.
Where to begin? The “pushback” is to proposals that go beyond legalizing abortion through all 40 weeks to withdrawing protection for babies who avoid the abortionist’s best efforts to kill them.
This is precisely the kind of law that passed in New York and is proposed in other hotbeds of pro-abortion militancy.
“Or simply an anti-abortion strategy clothed in misinformation” is an absolutely classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Those abortion advocates who have moved the goalposts from beyond birth to after-birth and even far after the baby is born (as does Hales) want to make a honest discussion over infanticide into just another debate over abortion.
It is not, although that is precisely what congressional Democrats opposed to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have the public believe.