opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Brent Bozell
L. Brent Bozell
10 Feb 2016
The Media's Softness for Sanders and Socialism

At the start of the Democratic presidential race, the media viewed the contest as a cakewalk. The … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
White Rapper Confesses 'White Privilege'

Macklemore is the stage name of a white rapper from Seattle named Ben Haggerty. He and his publicists are … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Iowa Ruins the 'Inevitable'

The results in the Iowa caucuses are a rebuke to the notion that the national media have all the influence … Read More.

The Left's War on Babies


In the wake of the Obama administration dictate that private insurance companies cover contraceptives and abortifacients, supporters have defined anyone who would oppose this mandate as waging a "war against women." Obviously, no opponent of this policy is actually bombing, shooting or stabbing women to death.

The same cannot be said for what the cultural left favors — a war against babies. The latest front of "advanced" leftist medical ethics has emerged from the experts at Oxford University. They don't just favor abortion, even partial-birth abortion. They favor "after-birth abortion."

It is stomach-turning stuff. Killing babies is no different than abortion, these academics argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Ironically, pro-lifers would agree and have long pointed to this logical progression in the face of laughter. The "ethicists" now explain it somewhat differently. Parents should be allowed to kill their newborn babies because they're still "morally irrelevant."

The article carries the chilling title "After-Birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue newborn babies aren't "actual persons" but "potential persons."

How this qualifies as "science" or "ethics" is anyone's guess. It qualifies as a quintessential example of the culture of death. Giubilini also gave a talk at Oxford in January titled "What is the problem with euthanasia?"

Team Oxford argued it was "not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense." They explained that "what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

These "ethicists" also argued that parents are somehow cheated when only "64 percent of Down syndrome cases" in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing. Once such children were born, there was "no choice for the parents but to keep the child," they complained.

All this should cause us to return to what Rick Santorum was trying to say — and our pro-abortion media could only scorn as politically disastrous — about amniocentesis being used as a death panel. The Santorum family's decision to have a disabled child — as well as the Palin family's decision — have been disdained by the liberal media as freakishly weird, dangerously religious.

It's an "alternative lifestyle" that the "compassionate" liberals cannot comprehend.

The same people who casually spew about a "war on women" have no time to discuss the "termination" of most pregnancies when disabilities like Down Syndrome are discovered. These people argue capital punishment is wrong because an innocent life may be taken. But they have no moral qualms about "parents" slaughtering their innocent but somehow subhuman babies that don't pass prenatal tests for normalcy.

They have yet to speak about post-natal death sentences.

The same people who wouldn't countenance talk of a "war on babies" expect the national media to continue their near-total blackout of Barack Obama's record advocating against a Born-Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois in 2001, 2002 and 2003. This article out of England ought to spur reporters to ask Obama about "after-birth abortion" as a 2012 campaign issue.

How could the president who led the effort to prohibit the care of infants surviving abortion oppose those who would want to kill them a minute after birth?

There was a terrific pro-life speech delivered a month ago before the Susan B. Anthony Fund by Sen. Marco Rubio, who addressed the same "viability" argument on a moral slippery slope. To the argument that the fetus is not viable without the support of the mother, he answered, "a newborn isn't viable without the mother, either. A 1-year-old child, a 2-year-old child — leave a 2-year-old child by himself, leave a 6-month-old child by himself, they are not viable either."

This is why Rubio declared, "The issue of life is not a political issue, nor is it a policy issue. It is a definitional issue. It is a basic core issue that every society needs to answer. The answer that you give to that issue ends up defining which kind of society you have." You can have a society defined by sexual libertinism and abortion for convenience — or you can respect a right to life.

Rubio drew a standing ovation for concluding with this:

"There is nothing that America can give this world right now more important than to show that all life — irrespective of the circumstances of its creation, irrespective of the circumstances of its birth, irrespective of the conditions of that they find themselves in — all life, in a planet where life is increasingly not valued, in a planet where people are summarily discarded, all life is worthy of protection. All life enjoys God's love."

But somehow, the left and their media allies define Rubio's view as a "war on women" — no matter how many female babies are discarded as medical waste.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



6 Comments | Post Comment
Being only weeks away from the birth of my first child, this article disturbs me very much. I actually regret reading it. If this is really the way of thinking this country is going, I want no part of it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Mar 7, 2012 9:35 AM
Re: Brent

You are mixing frozen chicken quarters with Loreal hair color, one has nothing to do with the other, your description of the ethicists, if correct, is of course brutal and appalling. I am not going to take the time to research it, I'll assume you are being forthright. Attaching that horror to pro-choice, plan B, birth control, and legally obtained abortions is hyperbolic and hysterical, a common tactic used by the right wing extremists. I know of no one who advocates killing newborns, I would think that everyone, except for Jeffrey Dahlmer, agrees. Late stage abortions were approved and should be approved in cases of non life sustaining cases, some clear examples would be anacephalia and major organ birth defects. This decision should be made by the family and the Dr., not a politician or journalist in bed with the Tea Party extremists. To let a newborn suffer unnessarily, when the end result will be death in any case, is inhumane. A gut wrenching decison should be out of the hands of those seeking to enamor themselves politically. To advocate taking this heartbreaking decision away from the parents is government intrusion at it's worst. I thought less goverment was the conservative mantra. Why we would not allow animals to suffer inhumanely, but the Christian right would force unbelievable suffering on humans makes no sense to me, I don't get it.

Rubio has sold his immortal sole to the tea party, he is going for the extemist vote in a crucual electoral state, and he is being primed as a serious candidate for VEEP. Remember these guys will say and do anything to pander to the religious right. This group is so psychotic that members of the tea party are now seeking personhood protection for sperm. That's right, sperm, the government should monitor that you will not spill your precious seed, after all those million sperm spilled are a million potential lives, they need federal protection. The masturbation police will raid your 12 year old sons bedroom at 2am, to make sure he isn't dumping God's precious cargo.

Don't let Brent mix whack job ethicists with rational birth and population control policies. His purporse is to inflame irrational action against rational laws.

As I mentioned, frozen chicken quarters have nothing to do with Loreal hair color.

PS RE: Euthanasia, If the time ever comes that my life is no longer worth living, for my own reasons, the answer is so simple, that decision is between me and me.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Wed Mar 7, 2012 10:54 AM
"...the last thing we need is Catholic breeders." - Bloom Hilda. 3/6/2012

Are Catholics allowed to make decisions, or is that also between "me and me." ?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom
Wed Mar 7, 2012 12:34 PM
Re: Tom
Re: Tom

Oh, all right Tom, I'll bite, I'm having fun, so I'll respond to the Catholic bait, even though I was clear on earlier posts as to exactly what I meant. You have followed me from article to article like a pit bull puppy with a chew toy in it's mouth, beseeching me to grab the other end and play with you. Even to the point that you are cross posting unrelated quotes to new sites that have nothing to do with the quote. But, like any softie looking at those sad puppy eyes, I will pick up the toy and play with you.

Catholicism: I have nothing against Catholics or any other organized religion, I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want. When it affects me and my earth, my medical care, and my bedroom, I have to get involved. I am not going to redirect my quote to the original article and post what I wrote, I don't have time or the inclination to bore other readers with old news. I believe that no one has the right to unlimited breeding, I don't care who you are or what religion you follow. The earth is completely overwhelmed and in crises, multiple breeders of any kind are completely irresponsible. I totally respect the 95% of Catholic women who use birth control and ignore the insanity about sex that the Catholic church and Santorum preach. It is reckless, If you need more data, I suggest you look up over population and famine on Wikipedia.

Comment: #4
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Wed Mar 7, 2012 12:39 PM
Funny how Broom doesn't want the Catholic Church involved in her healthcare which is completely made up because even if she worked for a Catholic organization and wanted birth control she could get it for $9 per month at Target, yet she has no problem with a bunch of elitist, incompetent, fools in the Government intruding more and more in our healthcare decisions. The worst part is that these elitist, hypocrite politicians want to make rules for us to live by that they themselves are unwilling to live by. Broom did it bother that the second that Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd got sic, two of the biggest proponents of Government run healthcare, they cut the line and went to the best doctors in the world? These hypocrite, elitist politicians count on useful idiots like Broom for their corruption.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:52 AM
Bloom, I have been busy at work, I did enjoy the first paragraph of your reply, you sound palyful and did not resort to slurs nad namecalleing, the jokes were subtle and I can appreciate them.

PARAGRAPH 2: 'When it affects me and my earth, my medical care, and my bedroom, I have to get involved." In other words, your personal beliefs, Ie. what you deem important for liberty and happiness. Would you deny that right to others? You cite Wikipedia as a source for information about famine and overpopulation. You are merely citing your bible, chapter and verse. What if someone doesn't recognize Wikipedia as the source of all truth, I have never seen it cited in a Doctoral disertation. Is Wikipedia merely your go to "bible". What if it is not everybody's bible? Why you Wikipedia thumping evangilical. How dare you tell me what to believe and how to act in my bedroom, I will procreate if I darn well want to because you and your wikipedia bible are not the Gods I believe in.

Bloom, don't be what you claim to hate.

Comment: #6
Posted by: Tom
Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:34 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
L. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Veronique de RugyUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Larry Elder
Larry ElderUpdated 11 Feb 2016

10 Feb 2016 The Media's Softness for Sanders and Socialism

8 Oct 2008 Saving Liberal Fannies

23 Sep 2009 Omnipresent Obama