NRL News

The rhythm of pro-abortion lies on display in Virginia and New York

by | Feb 4, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

There is always, always, always a rhythm to the debate that ensues whenever pro-abortionists stop pretending they have the least compunction about aborting babies five nanoseconds before delivery.

The latest example in Virginia is so revealing because it tells you where more and more “progressive” Democrats are on abortion. They don’t even blink when they’re asked if their proposals would allow abortions up to and including when a woman is “dilating.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” replied Virginia State Delegate Kathy Tran to a query from Todd Gilbert, chair of the subcommittee, as you can clear see and hear on the video.

Well…..what do we do with that (at least for a few days)? If you’re the Washington Post, you pull a trick out of your anti-David Daleiden playbook: “An edited video of Tran’s testimony was circulated and went viral on social media,” writes Antonio Olivo.

To be clear, “edited” suggests something is left out that would change the meaning of what is shown. Even Tran doesn’t say her remarks were distorted. Her fallback position is that she “misspoke.”

“Tran said Thursday that she ‘misspoke’ during a legislative hearing earlier this week about a bill that would have loosened restrictions on late-term abortions,” according to Olivo. She lamented that she wasn’t “quicker on my feet,” and “corrected herself,” telling the Washington Post

“I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’ ”

Morally and ethically, of course, it is, indeed, infanticide. But the baby still is “in the woman’s body,” not out.

It was pro-abortion Gov. Ralph Northam, embroiled in a separate scandal, who explicated what Tran was saying and carried Tran’s logic forward.

This pediatric neurologist implies this late-late abortions are only performed in cases where the baby has “severe deformities” and/or is “not viable.” Even the abortion industry’s think tank doesn’t pretend that is true. There is a myriad of reasons but not these reasons.

Northam told a radio audience, “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Note the baby is only resuscitated if the abortionist and the aborting woman agree. THEN they discuss what (if anything) to do next.

To return to the beginning, when Tran proposes a jaw-dropping, radical by any standards abortion bill, she is described as a “mother of four.”

When Republicans are aghast at what Tran and Northam say and imply, they are “seizing” or “pouncing” for political purposes or “conjuring” up imagery that reminds people of the debate over partial-birth abortions. They can never, ever be heart-broken that something as hideous as this could not only be proposed, if temporarily sidetracked in Virginia, but passed in New York! Speaking of which…

“The party of Trump is relying on lies and fear to try to strip women’s rights,” Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the newly installed Democratic leader of the New York State Senate, told the New York Times last week. “New York will not be intimidated and we will continue to fight for women’s health and be a progressive beacon to the rest of the nation.”

A “progressive beacon”?The so-called “Reproductive Health Act” expands abortion on demand past 24 weeks–when the baby is viable, and suffer during the course of an abortion – up to birth; allows non-physicians to perform abortions; strips abortion from the penal code which “decriminalizes all forms of abortion in New York, even in domestic violence cases where an attack on a woman leads to the loss of her fetus,” according to Karen DeWitt of WRVO reported; and makes abortion a “fundamental right.”

In addition to distorting the present, pro-abortionists in the media mangle history. Here’s Wang’s snide, snarky summary:

The debate is similar to the impassioned battles that took place in the mid-1990s, when conservatives, led by the National Right to Life movement, coined the term “partial birth abortions” to describe a rare procedure known as “dilation and evacuation,” which can be deployed in later-term abortions under dire circumstances, like when a mother’s life is at stake.

NRLC didn’t “coin anything.” The debate was “impassioned” because we’re talking about stabbing almost delivered babies in the back of the head and sucking out their brains.

These grotesque abortions weren’t “rare” and overwhelmingly (as even the head of the abortion industry’s trade association eventually admitted) they were not performed “under dire circumstances, like when a mother’s life is at stake.”

Stay tuned. We will continue to tell the truth.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: pro-abortion
Tags: abortion