Stacey Abrams: Inflation Wouldn’t Be So Bad If You’d Just Let Us Kill More Babies
Democrat gubernatorial candidate and erotic romance novelist Stacey Abrams suggested on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that if women could abort their children, they wouldn’t have to be so worried about the rising costs of gas and groceries.
“Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Abrams said. “For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child.”
Abrams put her rejection of prenatal science on full display last month by denying that unborn babies have heartbeats at six weeks of gestation, making the conspiratorial assertion that ultrasound technology instead uses “a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.” A few weeks later, she falsely claimed that “it is a fallacy we know exactly when the pregnancy starts.”
Now her blatant admission that babies would be better off murdered — rather than living in families that are suffering the inflationary effects of Democrats’ policies — reflects the new mainstream in her party, which has long abandoned the abortion talking points of “safe, legal, and rare.” As American leftists actively celebrate the act of baby-killing and invite women to “shout your abortion,” candidates such as Abrams are increasingly willing to say the quiet part out loud. In this case, that means suggesting American parents kill their children to make their paychecks go further.
Abrams isn’t the first leftist to advance such a cold, Malthusian solution to economic woes. Just last week, Yahoo! Finance suggested that pro-life pregnancy centers, which empower women to keep their babies, were partially to blame for diaper shortages. Headlined “America is facing a diaper crisis, and the anti-abortion movement is making it worse,” the hit piece waved away the fact that pro-life groups handed out 1.2 million diapers in 2019, and landed on the conclusion that women worried about a diaper shortage should instead be “supported” in choosing to abort their babies.
Back in May, shortly after the Supreme Court’s draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked, Monica Hesse at The Washington Post made this observation, which implies abortion could alleviate the effects of a baby formula shortage for women:
…the formula shortage came to a head around the same time that a draft opinion leaked from the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. On one hand, women would be forced to birth children. But on the other hand, once those children arrive, there might not be food to feed them.
By insinuating that women should be able to abort their babies to avoid dealing with shortages of formula, Hesse is pushing the same narrative as Yahoo! Finance and Abrams: that the solution to economic ills is to eliminate human beings, particularly unborn babies who cannot advocate for themselves. Despite the fact that a majority of voters support abortion restrictions at least as early in a pregnancy as the law at issue in the Supreme Court’s Dobbs case, the radical position of abortion up to birth for any reason has become the de facto platform of Democrats like Abrams.
Post a Comment