This Sunday, July 8, 2018 photo provided by the Missoula County Sheriff’s Office shows a 5-month-old infant with dirt under their fingernails after authorities say the baby survived about nine hours being buried under sticks and debris in the woods. The Missoula County Sheriff’s Office says the baby is in good condition at a hospital and calls it a “miracle” that the child survived the weekend ordeal. Authorities say they were called about a man threatening people in the Lolo Hot Springs area of western Montana’s Lolo National Forest. Deputies apprehended the man who indicated that the baby was buried somewhere in the woods. (Missoula County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
This article is for fetuses.
That would be, fetuses that were born.
And grew up.
And learned to read.
On Tuesday, CNN served up an article about fetuses that were born, too.
Ahead of a Senate vote on two bills — the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — the outlet ran a piece referring to a human that has been born as a “fetus.”
This is really next-level, as previously, the liberal/conservative argument was over whether it’s a fetus or a baby in the womb.
Now, it seems, that debate will continue on the other side of birth.
Here’s how the article put it:
The second bill to be considered Tuesday is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, that would require abortion providers to work to “preserve the life and health” of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby, or face up to five years in prison.
As I sit here in my rocking chair, I recall a time when we had a different word for that.
Ben Sasse must remember as well. At an earlier hearing, he’d expressed high hopes:
“Before senators and journalists write this hearing off as another messy and long-standing fight about abortion policy, I want to humbly ask that we not retreat into the fortified and familiar trenches our parties have occupied for the past 47 years. … This hearing is not about overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, this hearing is not about limiting access to abortion at all. … This hearing isn’t a debate about first-, second- or third-trimester abortions. This hearing is about making sure that every newborn has a fighting chance — whether she’s born in a labor and delivery ward or whether she’s born in an abortion clinic.”
But all that optimism was crashed against the ruthless rocks of the revolution: CNN described the Born-Alive bill as an “abortion restriction bill.”
In a way, it adds up — if he/she is still a fetus after being born, it makes sense that it should be possible to abort the person.
Here’s the @CNN coverage of today’s votes, referring to the born-alive bill as an “abortion restriction bill” even though it places no limits on when or whether women can obtain abortions but merely requires care for newborn infants. https://t.co/r4Z5Z1n4xX
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) February 25, 2020
In my estimation, we have a considerable language problem in this country. People are fighting over words that make no difference and change nothing, while ones with profound implications are glossed over.
And if we can’t even agree upon what the thing is that came out of a pregnant woman’s belly — with 10 fingers and 10 toes, two ears, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and the breath of life — we’ve really got some work to do.
A whole lot of work, people.
I mean, fetuses.
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.