"There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," said ABC debate moderator Linsey Davis, as she smugly "fact-checked" the Republican nominee. "Madam vice president, I want to get your response to President Trump."
"Well, as I said, you're going to hear a bunch of lies," eagerly agreed Kamala Harris. And then she proceeded to tell a bunch of lies.
But in this exchange, the first lie was told by ABC's Linsey Davis. And either ironically or coincidentally, one of the places where babies can legally be killed post-birth is in the state of Minnesota -- where her running mate, Tim Walz, is currently governor.
The Daily Signal examined several years of data from the Minnesota Department of Health: At least eight babies who survived abortions -- and were thus born alive -- were later killed, or left to die.
In fact, during the narrow timeframe of January 1, 2021, through December 21, 2021 (one year), five babies were born post-abortion operation. Of those five infants:
No one tried to save the first baby, who was allegedly born with "fetal anomalies" and died shortly thereafter.
The second and third babies were given unspecified "comfort care measures" on their first (and last) birthdays. Neither baby survived.
The fourth and fifth babies were deemed "previable," which is defined as the stage of fetal maturity when there's a much lower probability of survival outside of the uterus, but thanks to medical advances, the range of previability is shifting; it's often considered a "gray zone" for ethical decision-making. Regardless, no efforts were made to save either baby.
The Daily Signal also uncovered Minnesota's records from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019 (one year): Three babies were born alive after an attempted abortion, and three times these babies were allowed to die.
One suffered from "fetal anomalies," yet had "residual cardiac activity" -- medical slang for a beating heart -- for two solid minutes. Alas, the doctors opted to forego any attempt to save the baby's life: According to the records, "the infant did not survive."
Of the last two, one baby passed away while being given "comfort care measures." The other was deemed previable; no attempt was made to help the infant.
It's unclear if 2019 and 2021 are the only two years where Minnesota's medical data is still publicly available.
...
Either Linsey Davis -- and by extension, ABC News -- is guilty of an astonishing level of incompetence and flubbed a critically important fact during a presidential debate, or they were deliberately lying to the American people, hoping to trick us into voting for their preferred candidate.
If the former is true, then they're airheads who deserve to be fired. But if the latter is true, then they've become the literal embodiment of Fake News and misinformation. This is approaching Goebbels-level propaganda.
Telling lies to obscure the deaths of innocent babies is kinda difficult to defend. ABC, we await your response.
This gets to my complaint about leftist liars literally always denying a specific but making that denial sound like it's denying the general point. It may be illegal to kill a baby -- but it's not illegal for a doctor to abort a baby and then, when the little survivor clings to life, set it on a cold metal instrument table and let it bleed out without providing any necessary medical aid.
In fact, it happens every fucking single day, and the left knows this.
If ABC "News" were honest brokers, it would have provided the context of its denial. They might have said, "It's illegal to kill a baby. What you're talking about is letting an aborted baby expire without taking aid, which is a different question."
But they know that all normal people would be horrified by that, and would not see much point in splitting hairs over "actively killing" and "deliberately allowing to die without rendering aid," so they pretend that what Trump was talking about is illegal and never happens.
I'm so fucking sick of the endless lies-- especially by those who presume to check the "facts" and then who lobby to censor anyone telling the truth.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to: Why doesn't someone start running ads on ABC pointing this out and calling ABC "News" liars to their very faces? Bring some needed accountability to the "fact" checkers for once!
I think -- though I don't know why I think this -- that FEC rules require networks to run most political ads. I think the grounds for rejecting an ad are slim.
Again, not sure why I think that, but that's the impression that I've gotten.