Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) — Over the past two years in the leadup to Roe’s fall, the mainstream media has gone into overdrive to terrify the public with the horrors of what might unfold should abortion be banned anywhere in the United States. Lies about pre-Roe America were again trotted out to assure everyone that post-Roe America would look much the same. As we saw in the abortion referendums in Michigan and elsewhere during the 2022 midterms, the public was hammered with dire stories about women dying in back alleys and being denied necessary, life-saving treatment. The press is using the same playbook they used in Ireland, where the death of Savita Halappanavar was used to legalize abortion in Ireland despite having nothing to do with abortion.

But far more grotesque is the flood of stories featuring what I refer to as “compassionate eugenics”: heartbreaking stories of parents who, after their pre-born child was diagnosed with a disability or life-limiting condition, decide to have an abortion. In almost every story, the writer makes clear that the child was wanted; in every story, the abortion is portrayed as an act of love — a heartbreaking decision made not to avoid facing a child with a disability or a short life, but for the child’s own good. The underlying eugenic premise — that the baby is better dead than disabled — is never addressed.

These stories are heartbreaking but also sinister. Their purpose is to persuade readers that later-term abortion should be available in case a child is diagnosed with an anomaly, or a disability, or a deformity. The logic is simple and brutal: If we ban abortion at any stage, mothers will not be able to have these children killed. The pregnancy may be wanted, but these specific children are not, which is why their parents choose abortion over letting their children live out their short lives surrounded by the love of their families. Abortion is not the only choice, and it is grotesque that it is presented as such.

Children with life-limiting conditions are particularly targeted — the perverse pro-abortion logic is that if these babies will not live long, their lives should be shortened further. It is a strange inversion of how we usually approach a limited amount of time with loved ones — by treasuring every precious moment precisely because there are fewer of them. Pro-abortion logic, however, dictates that if the child cannot be loved long, she should not be loved at all — and indeed, that she should be brutally killed before birth to spare her parents grief (a dubious proposition, anyhow). This is the logic that Irish pro-life activist Vicky Wall, who lost her daughter to Trisomy 18, seeks to fight every day with her beautiful ministry Every Life Counts.

That brings me to this ugly story, in The Guardian, which is so disgusting it deserves dissection.  Titled “Florida couple unable to get abortion will see baby die after delivery,” the article mourns the fact that an unborn baby will not be dismembered in the womb before birth:

In a few weeks, a Florida couple will have to bid farewell to their child shortly after the baby is delivered, a gut-wrenching reality created by the US supreme court’s elimination of nationwide abortion rights last year. Because of a new Florida law that bans abortion after 15 weeks except under certain circumstances, Deborah Dorbert has become one of many women having difficulty accessing necessary abortion procedures after the supreme court overturned the rights granted by the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

A report by The Washington Post chronicles how Dorbert and her husband, Lee Dorbert, are expecting their second child and have been told by doctors that the baby has been diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality known as Potter syndrome. But, they have said, the doctors could not perform an abortion because of their interpretation of a Florida law that took effect after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade.

The article goes on to state that the couple is very “angry” because they would “do anything to have this baby” — except, apparently, allow the child to live out his or her short life in safety. The headline of the article insinuates that it is somehow the fault of the pro-life law that the child will die, and that parents are being victimized due to their inability to victimize their child. The column closes by blaming everything on Ron DeSantis, quoting his statement in support of a six-week abortion ban: “We’re for pro-life. I urge the legislature to work, produce good stuff, and we will sign. That’s what I’ve always wanted to do.”

The Guardian — and all other press outlets currently pimping for eugenics — need to reread their own stories and take a good, hard look in the mirror. They are on the wrong side of history — the side piled high with the corpses of those deemed imperfect.

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.