When media shared an excerpt of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s book, it made national headlines as “shocking.” The story tells about how Noem shot one of her dogs, which she described as aggressive and untrainable, while living on a ranch two decades ago. The View dubbed her “Governor Cruella” and called her a “sociopath” while Politico called the dog’s death a “slaying.” CNN published an op-ed titled, “Kristi Noem shot her ‘untrainable’ dog. If she thought we’d be impressed by her toughness, she was wrong.”
Human compassion naturally causes many people to be horrified by such a story. And yet, the media’s hypocrisy is stark when it comes to valuing other innocent life.
Heavy criticism of Noem
Noem’s dog, Cricket, was 14 months old, was said to be acting aggressively towards people, had killed a local family’s chickens, and was deemed “untrainable” and “less than worthless” by Noem. These are the reasons Noem says she decided to take the dog to a gravel pit and end its life by shooting it in the head. After the story spread, Noem doubled down on X. “The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down,” she wrote. “Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.”
It was legal for Noem to end the dog’s life in this manner. But as the outraged public seems to feel in this case, just because Noem’s act was legal does not make it moral.
Joan Payton, of the German Wirehaired Pointer Club of America, told ABC that Cricket was just “a baby” and that this particular breed of dog isn’t mature enough to be fully trained until age two or three.
Amid typical election-time disagreements, both left-leaning and right-leaning media voices disagreed with Noem’s actions.
In an article for Not the Bee, Ian Haworth wrote (without mentioning the dog’s alleged aggression), “My wife’s family are farmers in California, and wherever I go, I speak with farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers across the country. I have yet to meet a single person who a) decided to ‘put down’ animals because they’re not good enough at hunting or they smelled bad, or b) boasted about doing so like it is in any way heroic or virtuous.”
Puppies vs Babies
What struck most people about Noem’s story was the age of Cricket as a “puppy” and the fact that for many Americans dogs “are like your children.” But it’s difficult to overlook the fact that the very same media that understandably reacts with disgust at the shooting of a puppy also vigorously defends the literal dismemberment and poisoning of preborn children without limitation — and calls it “none of your business” or “my body, my choice,” “reproductive freedom,” or even, shockingly — as Vice President Kamala Harris called it — “a woman’s most fundamental right.”
Most people appear more horrified at the idea of a puppy being shot than a baby in the womb being dismembered, and this story is further proof of that.
But it’s also a good time to remind the public that just because killing preborn children is legal doesn’t make it moral. Regardless of how you personally feel about it.
If we cared about babies as much as we care about dogs we’d have long since abolished abortion. https://t.co/CrungCCoRC
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) April 27, 2024
Last year, Live Action filmed Man on the Street interviews, asking people, “Would you guys want to sign a petition to stop puppies from being killed in a shelter?” People were ready and willing to sign that petition, saying, “I’m for the dogs. I treat my dogs like kids.” But when they were then asked immediately after about signing a petition to end the killing of babies in the womb, the same people balked. “I’m not gonna get into all that,” said one man.
It is, of course, justified and good to want to protect animals from harm. But human beings — innocent children in the womb — deserve even more respect than dogs get, yet they are receiving far less.
Shooting vs Dismembering
It’s likely that a sad and horrible picture appeared in the minds of those who read the story about Noem shooting Cricket. Perhaps now is the time for anyone who believes shooting Cricket was horrifying — but abortion is acceptable — to truly look at abortion for what it is. Shooting a puppy is a violent act. So is killing a defenseless human being in an abortion. And yet, the same people who defend abortionists as heroes are the ones calling Noem an evil person for what she did.
WARNING: Disturbing images.
In a first-trimester D&C abortion, a powerful suction is used to remove the preborn baby, rapidly tearing him or her to pieces. In a second-trimester D&E abortion, the baby is dismembered as the abortionist uses a Sopher clamp to pull off her arms and legs before crushing her skull. It’s brutal and horrifying.
In March of 2022, a horrific discovery was made when a medical waste bin was obtained outside of a Washington, D.C., abortion business. In that bin were the remains of 110 aborted babies, most of the first-trimester age. There were also the bodies of five aborted children who appear to have been old enough to survive outside the womb, raising questions about potential legal and serious ethical violations by the abortion facility. But major media outlets remained silent.
Two of the babies, whom pro-life activists named Holly and Angel, appear to have been killed by dismemberment D&E abortions. Why isn’t everyone who opposes Cricket’s shooting also against the dismemberment of Holly and Angel?
Baby Holly was dismembered by a D&E abortion in a Washington DC abortion facility. Photo courtesy of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising.
Baby Angel was found in a medical waste bin. Experts believe he was possibly exsanguinated and dismembered alive.
Some in the media suggested that instead of killing the dog, Noem should have given it to an animal rescue or called the breeder for help. Cricket was too young to understand, and didn’t deserve to die because she was so young, argued the aforementioned Joan Payton.
In contrast, when pro-lifers suggest adoption as an alternative to abortion, abortion advocates argue that this would be too traumatic for the woman (completely ignoring the trauma of abortion) and that the suggestion of adoption ignores her “right” to kill her preborn child. And when pro-lifers suggest offering help to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy so that she can raise her child, abortion advocates work to shut down the very organizations created to do just that. Abortion advocates are also quick to downplay children in the womb as “clumps of cells,” discriminating against them because of their age and level of development, even though they are entirely human.
So to recap:
Dog’s young age = reason not to kill. Baby’s young age = reason to kill.
Shooting a dog = bad. Dismembering a preborn baby = a woman’s right.
Rehoming a dog = good. Adoption of children = trauma.
Seeking help to keep a difficult dog = commendable. Offering a woman help to keep her baby = manipulation.
Both acts — killing Cricket and dismembering Holly and Angel by abortion — were legal in the states in which they were carried out. That doesn’t make either act automatically moral.
What was done to Cricket was, at best, questionable — and at worst, incredibly cruel. And what was done to Holly and Angel is an unspeakable act of evil.
The sole purpose of an induced abortion is to produce a dead baby. It’s never neat and clean, and the woman isn’t magically “unpregnant.”
There’s a dead body at the end of an abortion procedure belonging to an innocent child. But instead of lying in the bottom of a gravel pit, she’s stuffed into a medical waste bin — in the name of freedom.
