Reading Time: 4 minutes
Charlotte, NC — On Thursday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was labeled an extremist by one mainstream media outlet. The Guardian ran an article that criticized Barrett’s stance on abortion, attempting to drive fear about her potential nomination. It also tied to her to “extreme” views that they indicate would be unacceptable on the Supreme Court.
In the article, The Guardian reports that Amy Coney Barrett’s name appeared on a document in the South Bend Tribune that was produced by an organization called St Joseph County Right To Life. In that document, Roe v Wade was referred to as barbaric and called for an end to abortion.
Barrett and her husband supported the measure, where the group argued that life begins at fertilization, otherwise called conception. The article not only argued that she was against abortion, but that she would also most likely ban IVF treatment. IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is used by many couples who may have reproductive difficulty.
The basis of the article is to drive fear of Amy Coney Barrett. The mainstream media wants to incite violence against her nomination to try to prevent her from taking the court. There are so many issues with their arguments.
First, there is nothing in Amy Coney Barrett’s past to indicate that she has any desire to outlaw IVF. She has made no such statements, and this is simply reading into the ad and attempting to push a hate narrative. She has indicated she is pro-life. Many couples have children through IVF.
The big issue that they will want to argue is the abortion topic in general and the suggestion that life begins at conception. This is a typical argument from the left that argues life does not begin until a baby is out of the womb. They refuse to call a baby, or child, anything other than a fetus until it is out of the womb.
This argument attempts to dehumanize the child. It attempts to cause a disconnection between the fact that this is not just a clump of cells or a fetus. This is an actual living being from fertilization on. The left hates that very suggestion.
Life beginning at fertilization is not a new concept. Democrats tell us that we need to trust the science and the healthcare professionals. So perhaps we should take a closer look at it.
The American College of Pediatrics, one of the nations leading organizations that includes pediatricians and family practitioners, says that life begins at conception. On their website, they lead with the following words in their abstract, “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.”
So if healthcare leaders support it, what does science say? I found this great reference list of multiple experts in the field of science and healthcare that agree that life begins at conception. So if we follow the science and the healthcare experts, life begins at conception.
If science and healthcare support life beginning at conception, then what is the problem? The problem is that it does not go along with the liberal desires and talking points. It does not promote the progressive agenda.
Since it goes against what they want and their agenda, they want to argue that it is extreme. After all, there’s no way that anyone could believe anything other than the left-wing agenda. Except, there are millions that are against abortion.
The left wants to argue that this is a religious argument, so we can place those aside here for a few moments. My question becomes, where do the rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution, begin and end?
We claim that we believe that all people are given unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, the others do not exist. So when does a person gain the protections of the United States regarding their life?
We happily charge someone with murder for killing a child that is 2 days old, but we will not consider doing the same for someone that aborts a child that looks the exact same 2 days before birth. Nowhere in the Declaration or Constitution does it say that breathing is required to qualify for those rights. There are no stipulations in the documents, in fact, it says that those are unalienable rights, meaning it cannot be given or taken away.
What else would we expect from the mainstream media and the left than this type of response? After all, their self proclaimed leader could not even get ” you know, the thing” right.
To hear more of my thoughts on the accusation of Amy Coney Barrett being an extremist, be sure to listen to my latest podcast episode. You can find the link below, or anywhere you like to listen to podcasts.
Jared Dyson is the Editor-in-Chief at The Liberty Loft and host of The Jared Dyson Show. Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft’s daily newsletter. If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft so we can continue to deliver great content.
In a recent article, The Guardian tries to label Amy Coney Barrett as a right-wing extremist. The article claims that she is unacceptable for the Supreme Court because she will work to overturn Roe v. Wade and suggests that she may want to outlaw in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Subscribe to The Jared Dyson Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, Pandora, or iHeart Radio.
View original post