Following his interview with Donald Trump on Sunday, Fox News host Howard Kurtz attempted to fact-check the former president on his podcast, Media Buzz Meter, regarding Trump’s comments on abortion. Newsweek reported on Kurtz’s fact-check, adding its own commentary on the matter.
The abortion topic was mentioned by Kurtz, who asked Trump if he would support nationwide protections for preborn children after 16 weeks, should he win the presidency. Trump replied that he wants to “make both sides happy.” While this seems to sound “reasonable,” when you consider that one side wants to kill preborn human beings without limitation and the other side wants preborn humans afforded the equal protection they deserve, it becomes obvious that “making both sides happy” is simply rhetoric.
There should be no compromise on when it becomes “acceptable” to kill innocent human beings.
According to the Endowment for Human Development, at 16 weeks post-fertilization, preborn children make complex facial expressions (beginning at 11 weeks), touch their hands to their mouths up to 50 times an hour (beginning at 12 weeks), are growing teeth (beginning at 13 weeks), respond to a light touch to the mouth (beginning at 14 weeks), and give a hormonal stress response to invasive procedures (beginning at 16 weeks).
Human at about 16 weeks gestation.
Trump told Kurtz that his Democratic opponents for president in the current election support abortion “after the baby is born.” In doing so, he cited remarks once made on a radio show by former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat.
“[N]umber one, the Democrats are the radicals on this issue because it’s okay to have an abortion in seven, eight, nine months and even after birth,” Trump said. “We want to help women. With Roe, you take a look at what was going on: abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth month. One thing that you say is nobody wants that killing of a baby after the baby’s born.”
This statement is in reference to former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s 2019 comments in which he stated with regard to a preborn child with a disability, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Late abortions
Kurtz took issue with Trump’s reference to Northam’s comment, saying, “When [Trump] pivoted to late-term abortions and some remarks that former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam did make about what to do with a baby that’s born, maybe has deformities or other reasons, I had to do the fact-checking and say, ‘Yeah, Northam did say those things and then backed off.’ And also I had to say that less than one percent of abortions — of all abortions — are performed at seven months or later as opposed to this being a rampant practice.”
Newsweek added, “Late-term abortions, those taking place in the third trimester, are also exceedingly rare, despite how often they are invoked by anti-abortion advocates, being undertaken mostly in severe and emotionally fraught cases where dangerous fetal abnormalities, non-viable fetuses, or threats to the mother’s health are discovered.”
Perhaps both Kurtz and Newsweek should have refrained from commenting at all, because they got some things wrong.
Estimates indicate that there were over a million abortions in the United States in 2023 — a number not seen in a decade. Statistics have shown that about 1.3% of abortions take place after 21 weeks (specific percentages beyond this gestational age range are not reported by agencies, so it’s curious that Kurtz arrived at a “1% after 7 months or later” claim). This 1.3% statistic means we can estimate that about 12,000-13,000 babies were killed by abortion in 2023 alone after they could have potentially survived. To claim that the possibility of 12,000 preborn babies being killed so late in pregnancy every year is not a high enough number to label it “a rampant practice” is misguided, at best. That’s an average of at least 1,000 every single month. Even one would be too many.
And seven months is equivalent to about 28 weeks, when the survival rate for preborn children is 80-90%. Some states have enacted laws allowing abortion throughout pregnancy, for virtually any reason — like Maine and Minnesota — and some have made it a constitutional right.
It’s also both inaccurate and discriminatory to argue that it’s acceptable to have killed these 12,000 babies because they supposedly had “severe” and “dangerous fetal abnormalities” (as if intentionally killing a preborn child isn’t dangerous to him or her??) or were “non-viable” (the meaning of which is subjective). It’s inaccurate, because research indicates that most abortions carried out late in pregnancy are not committed due to a preborn child’s diagnosis or for a risk to the mother. A 2013 study from pro-abortion researchers Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport, says that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” A 2016 report by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute revealed that at least 75% of abortions at 13 weeks and beyond were elective — meaning the mother chose to abort her baby after 13 weeks without any indication of medical necessity. It’s important to understand that abortion — the direct and intentional killing of an undelivered child — is not a medically necessary act.
In addition, such statements are discriminatory because a child’s prenatal diagnosis of a health condition should not make her a target for death. It should be an opportunity for her parents and doctors to prepare for her birth and future.
To argue that late abortions are acceptable when the mother’s life is in danger is also pointless, because at least from 21 weeks and beyond, the child can be delivered alive and doctors can attempt to save both lives. Preterm delivery for an emergency is not an abortion if the intent is not to kill the child.
And it should be noted that these 12,000 babies killed late in pregnancy every year don’t just vanish. They die by either dismemberment (D&E abortion), induced cardiac arrest (induction abortion), or preterm delivery to be intentionally left to die.
‘After-birth abortions’
Newsweek also argued that what Northam really meant to say (and later clarified) was that leaving a child to potentially die after an abortion “would only be done with a severely deformed nonviable fetus, an infant that was stillborn or would die imminently.” Again, this is clear discrimination and an attempt to justify killing babies by labeling them as “severely deformed” or “non-viable.” It’s eugenics, and it’s Nazi-esque logic.
But oddly, Newsweek also claimed that, despite Northam’s comments, “No lawmakers support the killing of an infant after it is born for reasons pertaining to their support of the medical procedure” (emphasis added). By “medical procedure” the author means “abortion” — the intentional and deliberate killing of preborn children. In other words, Newsweek appears to be claiming that lawmakers support ‘after-birth abortion’ (read: infanticide) but not for the same reasons they support regular old abortion.
So… apparently abortion is fine for any reason but infanticide (‘after-birth abortion’) is fine just for babies with disabilities?
Recent legislative efforts reveal that some lawmakers do find this to be an acceptable stance. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Colorado Governor Jared Polis both signed laws into effect that would prohibit prosecution regardless of “pregnancy outcome.” And in Michigan, Prop 3 did the same. The language of the legislation could allow for abortion survivors and babies born with disabilities to be left to die, and could prevent the prosecution of infanticide.
It has been argued by experts that under these laws, if the mother doesn’t want the newborn to be given the care to help him or her survive, then doctors could be legally allowed to leave those babies for dead. This would be true if the baby had been born with a health condition that went undiagnosed during pregnancy or if the baby had survived an attempted abortion.
California’s law, Assembly Bill 2223, states:
Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause. (emphasis added)
Because the bill failed to define “perinatal death,” there is concern that there will be no investigations into any newborn’s death.
Colorado’s law, HB-1279, states that it would prohibit anyone from:
Depriving, through prosecution, punishment, or other means, an individual of the individual’s right to act or refrain from acting during the individual’s own pregnancy based on the potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or on the pregnant individual’s health. (emphasis added)
This law, legal experts have argued, could provide a loophole to allow abortion survivors to be left to die, and could also affect babies born with a disability or genetic condition that was not discovered until late in pregnancy or at birth.
In Michigan, Prop 3 prohibits the state from “penaliz[ing], prosecut[ing], or otherwise tak[ing] adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes.” Again, the state is prevented from filing charges against anyone because of a “pregnancy outcome.”
Based on these three laws alone, it is clear that there are some legislators who support allowing newborns to die without penalty to a medical professional or a mother. Whether this is because they are pro-abortion or not is a pointless argument for Newsweek to make.
