‘Feminists’ Soon to Be Hardest Hit by an Accidental Pro-Life Admission From the New York Times

AP Photo/Steve Helber

When proposed pro-life legislation or existing pro-life laws are in the national news – as has been the case over the last week after the Democrat meltdowns commenced over the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 procedural ruling on the Texas Fetal Heartbeat law, inevitably the discussions and heated debates get around to the issue of when the life of an unborn child begins.

Though there are some exceptions to the rule, the general consensus with pro-life conservatives is that life begins at conception. For those on the pro-abortion left (including those in the mainstream media and on the editorial boards of left-leaning newspapers), life either begins when the baby can survive outside of the womb or when the baby is actually fully born (opinions vary on this for some bizarre and ghoulish reason).

With that in mind, a headline and subheadline from the New York Times in a piece touting the ‘Democrats’ ambitious social policy plan’ that will cost American taxpayers $3.5 trillion made what was surely a rather accidental admission for the unabashedly far-left paper as to when life begins.

One wouldn’t catch it if they only saw the tweet the Times posted which included the link:

You have to click on the link to see it, and boy was it something else (bolded emphasis added):

From Cradle to Grave, Democrats Move to Expand Social Safety Net

The $3.5 trillion social policy bill that lawmakers begin drafting this week would touch virtually every American, at every point in life, from conception to old age.

A number of Twitter users screengrabbed it for good measure, including Daily Caller social issues reporter Mary Margaret Olohan:

The opening paragraph contained very similar writing:

When congressional committees meet this week to begin formally drafting Democrats’ ambitious social policy plan, they will be undertaking the most significant expansion of the nation’s safety net since the war on poverty in the 1960s, devising legislation that would touch virtually every American’s life, from conception to aged infirmity.

People who may not see this as a big deal may not be aware of the war “feminist” forces at rabidly pro-abortion organizations like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the like have waged on media organizations over the last several decades regarding word choices in stories related to the abortion “rights” debate, right down to the quotation marks. For instance, notice how you never see people who are pro-abortion described as “pro-abortion” in mainstream media articles? They’re called “pro-choice” or “women’s rights activists” or something similar. You also don’t see pro-lifers described as “pro-life”; rather, they’re labeled “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice.”

Their recommendations over the years have by and large been welcomed by the pro-choice MSM, which is not surprising at all considering how “news” outlets like the Associated Press frequently update their style/rule books to mesh with whatever the left is calling for at the time (them changing how they used the word “riots” in stories about the BLM/Antifa-led riots late last year comes to mind).

In any event, though the New York Times’ piece above with their “every point in life, from conception to old age” description was no doubt unintentional, pro-lifers can take some delight in the gnashing of teeth and pearl-clutching it is likely to cause among the Usual Suspects, including rabidly pro-abortion celebrities like Bette Midler, who just may expand her “sex strike” campaign to New York Times reporters and editors as well.

Who knows? Stay tuned…

Related: Slate ‘Journalist’ Shows How *Not* to React After Their Wi Spa ‘Hoax’ Story Completely Falls Apart