Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, media outlets around the world have been fixated on the American abortion wars. The storylines are predictable and follow specific patterns. There are the stories claiming that women will die due to lack of healthcare if abortion is not accessible; human interest stories about women unable to abort disabled babies with ableist storylines insisting that it is cruel and tragic to prevent this; and stories with cherry-picked polling data claiming that pro-life laws are opposed by the vast majority of Americans.
And then there is the incessant parade of abortionist profiles, presenting them as beleaguered heroes on the front lines of feminist healthcare.
The Guardian, for example, recently published a long form essay lionizing Alabama abortionist Leah Torres. Torres, you might recall, is the woman who once responded to a tweet asking her if she could hear fetuses screaming while she aborted them by saying this: “You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord 1st so there’s really no opportunity, if they’re even far enough along to have a larynx. I won’t apologize for performing medicine. I’m also a ‘uterus ripper outer,’ if that’s how you’d like to describe hysterectomy.” The profile mentions the comments; Torres claims that it was taken context. Reread it and judge for yourself.
Ms. Magazinegave the same treatment to Dr. Curtis Boyd, who began aborting babies before Roe and continued for decades, killing so many pre-born children that his count actually made up a percentage of those who were legally murdered under the Roe regime. What the profile did not mention is that Boyd himself admitted he was killing: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.” The journalists writing these profiles admit no such thing.
KETV Omaha published an article noting that some abortion providers were having “an increase in women seeking help with their pregnancies.” One of the two providers the article cites as being there for women to “help with their pregnancies” is notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart. The article, unsurprisingly, does not include Carhart’s own characterization of what this “help” consists of — in his words, “crushing” the skull of a baby. He uses the world “baby” himself — when a stunned BBC journalist interviewing him asked him why he used the term, Carhart was unapologetic.
“I think that it is a baby, and I use [the word] with patients,” he said.
“And you don’t have a problem … with … killing a baby?” the journalist stuttered.
Carhart: “I have no problem if it’s in the mother’s uterus.”
They are very lucky that Nuremberg-type trials are not permitted under the US Constitution.
Indeed. Their own words testify against them.