When attempting to justify abortions in the second and third trimesters, the argument frequently centres on the rarity of such procedures. Consequently, when the reality of a political party – the Democrats – has been demonstrated by both their words and their actions to be unwilling to accept any limitations, the typical defence shifts to the assertion that the child is being aborted for her own good, with the implication that she is fatally ill.
On Tuesday, former New Jersey Governor and presidential candidate Chris Christie made a statement on Morning Joe that was met with strong criticism from co-host Mika Brzezinski. Christie had stated that New Jersey allows abortion up to nine months, a claim that Brzezinski deemed to be false.
The following exchange took place:
“Okay, it’s not a nine-month abortion, and there’s no doctor who would do it, and it’s only done in extremely severe circumstances. You can come back and bring me the evidence of women all over the state of New Jersey having abortions at nine months. It doesn’t happen, Chris, come on.
She reiterated her previous assertion, stating, “You said this the last time you were on, and I let it go. I cannot let it go again.” It is not possible to terminate a pregnancy in the ninth month of gestation.
In a subsequent article for Mediaite, Isaac Schorr provided a compelling account of the evidence. It is evident that the text in question has been underlined.
If that’s true – if no one would ever consider an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy – then why did the New Jersey state legislature pass and the governor sign a bill last year ensuring that abortions could be performed at any stage of pregnancy?
The Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act of 2022 argued that “government restrictions on reproductive choice, by their very nature, impinge on the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy” and included a provision stating that “any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or order in effect on or adopted after the effective date of this act that is determined to have the effect of restricting the constitutional right to freedom of reproductive choice and that is not consistent with the provisions and express or implied purposes of this act shall be deemed invalid and of no force or effect.”
Let us now proceed to a more detailed examination of the subject. It is accurate to state that the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Nevertheless, when the number of abortions performed annually in the country is high, the number of late-term abortions, which Americans emphatically oppose, can still be dispiritingly high, as Schorr notes.
The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute estimates that about 930,000 abortions will take place in the United States in 2020. An earlier estimate by the same organisation put the proportion of abortions performed after viability at about 1.3%, which would mean that about 12,090 late-term abortions would be performed in 2020. Compare that number with the 13,620 gun homicides recorded by the FBI in the same year and you might begin to understand the problem.
Would any Democrat eager to tout the rarity of late-term abortions in America be similarly eager to shrug off the number of Americans victimised by gun violence?
It is worth considering this astute observation.
Brzezinski’s anger at Christie for merely citing legislation championed by Garden State progressives highlights the inconsistencies between those working for pro-choice advocacy groups, elected pro-choice politicians, and thinly veiled activists in the media.
Schorr’s conclusion is a masterful synthesis of the preceding arguments, offering a compelling and comprehensive overview of the subject matter.
All of this is playing out to the frustration of pro-life advocates and elected Republicans, and rightly so. But it should also provoke the anger of a wider public that so many in the media do not respect enough to trust with the truth.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
