The staff over at The New York Times – taking a brief break from writing about the evils of Donald Trump – decided to update their lamentations on the decline in infant slaughter should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
The former newspaper – no doubt saddened by the appointment of a successful Catholic mother of seven to the Supreme Court – bemoaned the resulting "inequality in abortion access" that might be in our nation's future. They opined what might happen if states chose for themselves whether to sacrifice their children at the altars of opportunity, money, fear, career, and self.
"Without Roe, abortion would probably become illegal in 22 states," said the Times. "Forty-one percent of women of childbearing age would see the nearest abortion clinic close, and the average distance they would have to travel to reach one would be 280 miles, up from 36 miles now."
Yes, the trash-heap-that-was-once-a-respected-paper wants you to know, dear friends, how sad and evil it would be to make murder more difficult by increasing the drive time to abortion mills. What kind of cold, inconsiderate person places burdens and roadblocks between the abject slaughter of millions?
Detailing this frightening premise, the writers at the Times created a map to show how abortion rates might fall off a cliff should ACB help enact a Handmaid's Tale – you know, one where millions of unborn children get to live, laugh, and love:
The map notes that many major metropolitan areas in the Midwest and South would see a decline of 30-40% in abortions, which would massively reduce the 1,000,000+ American children murdered in utero annually.
The number of legal abortions in the United States would be at least 14 percent lower... That could mean about 100,000 fewer legal abortions a year," said the Times.
To this, I have only one response:
Well, maybe two responses:
I'll give the Times one credit. They actually quote a pro-life leader (calling her an "anti-abortionist" of course) and present her argument that overturning Roe would actually allow the people to make their will and voices heard.
"It would be a whole lot better for abortion policy if the states were allowed to have their regulations stood up and unchallenged," said Charmaine Yoest of the Institute for Family and the Heritage Foundation. "You would have the laws reflecting the folks in those states, and that's what American federalism is supposed to be."
Yes, believe it or not, the same newspaper that brought you the steaming pile of "journalism" called The 1619 Project actually allowed the term "American federalism" to be published.
While the Times may be saddened at the prospect of a nation with less baby murder, at least a few leftists are fine with the idea:
I'll leave you on a good note: the reality of a vast network of pregnancy centers and ministries willing to step in where abortions take place, helping the thousands of women who don't want to abort their child, but feel immense pressure to do so – often from partners, family members, and a society that tells them it is "empowering." We can't simply decry abortion as murder, as right as that title may be. We must also stand in the gap and show a better way – a way of life and of hope.
What a time to be alive...
