BLOG4 of the Most Absurd Responses Defending Abortion Extremism

By Marissa Mayer Posted on: | February 12, 2019

It’s been two weeks since New York passed one of the most extreme abortion laws in the country. The move set off a firestorm. Other pro-abortion lawmakers saw it as the excuse they needed to propose their own extreme bills. Meanwhile, America watched in horror as the abortion lobby showed just how out of step it is with public opinion on abortion—especially late-term abortion.

At the time, I thought surely public outcry would be enough to rally some sense into these people. Sadly, I was mistaken.

The remorse and apologies were practically non-existent. Instead, the abortion lobby has doubled down, largely distorting the truth in an attempt to make their extremist proposals more palatable to the public. Here are four of the most absurd responses defending recent abortion extremism.

1. Mischaracterizing What Abortion Is

Dr. Jen Gunter is a former late-term abortionist and active abortion proponent. She wrote a blog post after the New York news claiming that, “There have been a lot of lies circulating about abortion.” In the post, one thing in particular stood out to me: her claim that pre-term inductions and c-sections are abortions. Color me surprised.

Gunter argues that induction “terminates a pregnancy”—therefore it is an abortion. This argument conveniently leaves out one key thing—the life of the baby. There is a big difference between actively ending the life of a child in the womb (either by injecting it with poison or forcibly removing it from the womb in pieces) and delivering a child early (when either the mother or child is having medical issues).

But let’s imagine for a minute that she’s right about her claim. I have a couple of questions:

Planned Parenthood says its “core mission” is abortion. It regularly commits more than 300,000 abortions each year. So what if a mom is pregnant with twins, and she needs to induce labor early for some reason—to give her babies the best chance at life? She certainly doesn’t run to Planned Parenthood, does she? No one would expect those twins to leave the abortion facility alive. Why? Because abortion isn’t “terminating a pregnancy”—it’s decisively ending a life.

Following that same train of thought, many have claimed that extreme state abortion laws like New York’s are necessary in case Roe v. Wade is overturned. Do you think overturning Roe would outlaw inductions? Do you think a woman needing an emergency c-section to deliver her distressed baby after being in a car accident would have to bleed out on the table because abortion was no longer the “law of the land?” Of course not!

Dr. Gunter’s purposeful mischaracterization of abortion may be what some people want to hear. It may make them feel better—but it’s simply not true.

2. Arguing over Terminology

President Donald Trump is a favorite target when it comes to mainstream media fact checking. Following his State of the Union Address, The New York Times took the opportunity to claim that Trump misspoke about late-term abortions.

The writer’s big scoop was that President Trump was wrong to describe late-term abortions as ripping a baby from the womb because doctors use the phrase “late-term” to describe babies delivered after 40 weeks.

Deflect much?

For years, abortion activists have used a war of words to try to make abortion acceptable. “Clumps of cells” and “reproductive health” have been long-term favorites to describe unborn babies and the barbaric practice of abortion. Abortion survives on useless euphemisms. And these latest games and debates over terminology are just more meager attempts to distract the public from the truth.

3. “They didn’t say what they said.”

“The New York law only allows late-term abortion if the mother could die...” “The Virginia law doesn’t legalize abortion up to birth…” “No one said anything about killing live babies…” Following public outcry toward recent abortion extremism, it didn’t take long for the abortion lobby and their cronies in the media to start circulating these alternative facts. (Something they have a habit of doing.)

No need to be alarmed they claimed. The law doesn’t say what it says. And certainly those people didn’t say what they said.


  • Kathy Tran, who introduced the extreme Virginia bill said it herself—her bill would allow abortion as the mother is giving birth.
  • In his controversial comments, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam was describing what would occur after a live child was delivered.
  • And the New York law makes a vague reference to the mother’s “health” (which could mean a wide variety of things)—not her life.

4. Silence

That brings us to the timeless classic of all responses: silence.

Democratic lawmakers were perhaps most notorious for their blackout on the issue. For days following Governor Northam’s apparent infanticide remarks, Democratic lawmakers in Congress claimed they had no idea what was said and couldn’t comment on it. Riiiight.

To solve the problem of their apparent ignorance, Senator Ben Sasse decided to take a more direct route and give every lawmaker the chance to speak out against infanticide.

Sasse called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. “I’m going to ask all 100 senators to come to the floor and be against infanticide. This shouldn’t be complicated,” he said.

But instead of speaking up and protecting abortion survivors, Democratic senators blocked the bill. Then the GOP Whip, Representative Steve Scalise, gave it a try in the House. There too, Democrats blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Their silence is deafening—and telling.

The reality is that these lawmakers don’t want to talk about it—they don’t want to think about it. They don’t want to discuss poisoning children in the womb, or scraping and suctioning living babies outside of their mothers’ bodies. They don’t want to reflect on screaming babies left on the table to die. And they certainly don’t want to risk losing the support of the abortion lobby if they vote for anything that resembles pro-life legislation.

But there’s no ignoring it this time. The pro-life generation has no intention of going away. In fact, recent events have re-energized many in the pro-life camp. And the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is just the start.

Abortion extremism simply has no place in America.

Marissa Mayer

Senior Web Writer

Marissa Mayer is an Arizona native who fell in love with the written word at a young age.

More from ADF View All

Meet the Kentucky Photographer Standing Up for Free Speech

Meet the Kentucky Photographer Standing Up for Free Speech

Chelsey serves everyone, but she cannot promote all messages.

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 02/28/2020 19:00:00 Read More

14 Parents File Lawsuit to Stop This Terrifying School District Policy

14 Parents File Lawsuit to Stop This Terrifying School District Policy

These parents in Madison, Wisconsin have done their research, and they don’t ...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 02/26/2020 18:50:06 Read More

These 3 Horrifying Stories Show Why the Supreme Court Should Protect Women

These 3 Horrifying Stories Show Why the Supreme Court Should Protect Women

Women deserve better than substandard care from medically incompetent abortio...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 02/27/2020 20:18:33 Read More

How 2 Ninth Circuit Cases Can Protect Life and Religious Freedom

How 2 Ninth Circuit Cases Can Protect Life and Religious Freedom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently issued a ruling that k...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 02/28/2020 17:01:20 Read More