citizen winston smith
2024-09-11 21:31:52 UTC
Trump showed bitterness and lies.
Commiela is the liar:https://washingtonstand.com/news/the-10-kamala-harris-lies-moderators-let-slide-at-the-abc-news-debate
Here are a few of Kamala Harris’s misstatements that the ABC News
moderators let her get away with.
1. Late-term abortion is a myth?
Kamala Harris attempted to deny President Trump’s charge that the
Democratic Party supports late-term abortion by denying such abortions
take place. “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term
and asking for an abortion,” Harris dodged.
In reality, 21 states allow abortion until birth: Six states have no
legal limit protecting unborn children, and the rest allow abortion
after the point of viability thanks to a vague and expansive “health of
the mother” exception.
Late-term abortions are well-documented. In 2022, pro-life advocates
found the remains of five babies whom abortionist Cesare Santangelo
aborted late in their term or possibly after birth at the Washington
Surgi-Clinic in Washington, D.C. The Biden-Harris Justice Department
advised the District of Columbia to destroy the evidence.
“In 2013, New Mexico abortionist Shelley Sella faced medical board
sanctions after she committed an abortion on a child at 35 weeks,”
reports Carole Novielli of Live Action. “In 2003, abortionist Charles
Rossmann gave abortion pills to a woman who was past 30 weeks.”
Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque’s website advertised that
“abortion services are available through 32 weeks. Exceptions after 32
weeks are provided on a case-by-case basis.”
A 1981 Philadelphia Inquirer article documented that, in abortion
facilities, “unintended live births are literally an everyday
occurrence,” but they are “hushed up” instead of treated as “a problem
to be solved.”
More than 56,000 abortions took place after 21 weeks, according to the
most recent CDC report.
2. Abortions after birth don’t happen?
The issue of infanticide cropped up during the debate, as President
Donald Trump cited comments made by a former Virginia governor about
allowing babies born alive during birth to die — a position Trump called
“execution after birth.” Lindsey Davis responded to Trump’s comments on
abortion by saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal
to kill a baby after it’s born.”
It is true that during a 2019 interview, then-Virginia Governor Ralph
Northam (D) said, if a baby is born alive during a botched abortion, “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” about the child’s future.
His comment was not an outlier. In 2013, a lobbyist representing the
Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Alisa Lapolt Snow,
testified before the Florida House of Representatives that even if a
baby is alive, breathing on a table and moving, “We believe that any
decision that’s made” about administering treatment to the newborn
“should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician. … That
decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Whistleblowers have noted abortionists regularly allowed children to be
born alive, then die by neglect. Jill Stanek, who served as a nurse at
Christ Hospital in the Chicago area, testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in 2020:
“In the event a baby was aborted alive, he or she received no medical
assessments or care but was only given what my hospital called ‘comfort
care’ — made comfortable, as Governor Northam indicated. One night, a
nursing co-worker was transporting a baby who had been aborted because
he had Down syndrome to our Soiled Utility Room to die – because that’s
where survivors were taken. I could not bear the thought of this
suffering child dying alone, so I rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about
the size of my hand.”
Some accounts are more gruesome. Multiple employees accused “Texas
Gosnell” abortionist Douglas Karpen of twisting the heads off live
babies after birth.
Yet the Democratic ticket has not lifted a finger to require infant
lives be saved. In 2019, then-Senator Harris voted against the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires
abortionists to provide potentially lifesaving care to babies born
during botched abortions. There is no federal requirement to provide
medical care to an infant born during an abortion. As governor of
Minnesota, vice presidential candidate Tim Walz signed a bill which
removed a requirement that abortionists “preserve the life and health of
the born alive infant.”
Although only eight states currently require that the data be reported,
official statistics show 277 babies were born alive during abortions.
Pro-life advocates Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden survived botched
abortions.
Only eight states require abortionists to report infants born alive
during a botched abortion (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.). Two states — Tim Walz’s Minnesota
and Gretchen Whitmer’s Michigan — repealed those requirements.
Abortionists are not known as for being conscientious about reporting
their own botched abortions.
Numerous Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to legalize
“perinatal death,” which an official analysis confirmed would bring
about the “unintended” legalization of infanticide.
Summing up the evidence, Family Research Council’s Mary Szoch said that
the Democratic Party’s “attack on life begins at fertilization, but it
continues throughout the entirety of pregnancy and does not even stop
after the baby is born. Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim
Walz have actively worked to ensure that babies born alive following
abortions do not receive the help that they desperately need.”
3. Pro-life protections prevent miscarriage care?
Harris repeated the lie that state pro-life protections prevent doctors
from treating women suffering from miscarriages. Harris said she had
spoken to women “being denied care in an emergency room, because the
health care providers are afraid they might go to jail.”
No pro-life law in the nation prohibits doctors from caring for
miscarriages. Even Project 2025, which Harris repeatedly invoked as
extreme, states, “Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy
treatments should never be conflated with abortion.” Pro-life advocates
blame confusion created by the abortion industry with causing doctors to
deny women treatment. To help women’s health, the abortion industry
should stop promoting that lie, they say.
4. Donald Trump would have the government monitor pregnancies and
miscarriages?
Harris asserted that Trump would preside over the installation of a Big
Brother-style surveillance of every pregnancy in America. “In his
Project 2025 there would be a national abortion — a monitor that would
be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages,” Harris said, without
any moderator’s intervention.
This statement had been repeated at the Democratic National Convention,
and the Harris-Walz campaign has claimed in TV spots that Trump has
endorsed “requiring the government to monitor women’s pregnancies.”
But Project 2025 — which is not Trump’s platform — contains no such
provision. Presumably, Harris is wrenching out of context its reasonable
proposal that states report abortion statistics accurately. The Biden
administration’s most recent annual report on abortion — known as the
Abortion Surveillance — excludes statistics from four states including
the most populous state: California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New
Jersey. Project 2025 calls on the federal government “to ensure that
every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its
borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the
mother’s state of residence, and by what method.” The government would
“ensure that [state] statistics are separated by category: spontaneous
miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child
(such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion.” That’s a far
cry from a “government monitor” peeping in on women’s ultrasounds.
Even legacy media fact-checkers have denied this claim. FactCheck.org
noted curtly, “Trump has not made such a proposal.” Reuters reported,
“Fact Check: Project 2025 did not propose a ‘period passport’ for
women.” Harris’s allegation “significantly overstates the nature of the
monitoring called for in Project 2025,” reports USA Today.
5. National abortion ban?
“If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion
ban,” claimed Harris. Trump removed the Republican Party platform’s
historic commitment to passing a Human Life Amendment, aspirational as
it was, and has repeatedly said he opposes any further national
legislation on the issue. “It’s the vote of the people now,” Trump said
at the debate.
6. Trump called for a ‘bloodbath’?
In one of the more egregious statements allowed to slip into public
consciousness without any pushback, Harris falsely asserted that “Donald
Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath,
if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.”
Trump used the economic term “bloodbath” while contrasting his tariff
policy with the Biden-Harris administration’s pro-China electric vehicle
policy during a March rally near Dayton, Ohio. “We’re going to put a
100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re
not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now if I don’t
get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole” industry, he
said. As this author noted at The Washington Stand:
“The term ‘bloodbath’ is regularly used in the financial sector to
describe an industrial contraction. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists
one of the definitions of ‘bloodbath’ as ‘a major economic disaster.’ …
Democratic campaign operatives pounced on Trump’s use of the term
‘bloodbath’ to insinuate he wanted to foment a blood-drenched revolution
if he lost the election. … The [then-]Biden campaign promptly wrenched
the president’s remarks out of context to create a digital campaign ad
titled ‘Bloodbath,’ which recycles other erroneous statements, such as
falsely claiming Trump praised rioters at the Charlottesville and
January 6 D.C. riots.”
ABC News moderators let the Democrat’s baseless allegation of
revolutionary violence go unchecked.
7. Are Americans better off today than they were four years ago?
Muir opened the debate by asking Harris, “Do you believe Americans are
better off than they were four years ago?”
Harris responded, “So, I was raised as a middle-class kid” and spoke for
two minutes about her economic plans, ignoring the question completely.
Unlike numerous questions in which the moderators demanded an answer of
President Trump, Muir asked no follow-up of Harris.
Harris boasts of being the tie-breaking votes for the American Rescue
Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, which economists credit with
setting off historically high inflation rates that exceeded 9%. The cost
of a gallon of gasoline more than doubled during the Biden-Harris
administration and is still $1.29 higher than the day President Trump
left office. Staples such as groceries have risen nearly 20%, and new
houses have more than doubled on her watch.
8. Project 2025 is Donald Trump’s plan?
Harris continually attempted to tie Trump to Project 2025, a
now-inactive project of The Heritage Foundation, which the former
president has repeatedly disparaged.
Trump replied, “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” referring to
its commonsense conservative proposals as “out there.”
“I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it,” he added.
The plan’s authors have acknowledged Trump had nothing to do with their
conservative vision for the next four years. “Project 2025 is not
affiliated with any candidate, and no candidate was involved with the
drafting of the Mandate for Leadership, which was published by Heritage
in April 2023,” Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for Project 2025, told CNN.
9. Trump praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists?
Kamala Harris repeated misinformation that, as president, Donald Trump
praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists at the Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville. “Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob
of people carrying tiki torches, spewing anti-Semitic hate, and what did
the president then at the time say? There were ‘fine people’ on each
side,” Harris claimed.
In reality, Trump said, “You had some very bad people in that group. But
you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” But
Trump promptly stated, “And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the
white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you
had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white
nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
… There were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the
statue of Robert E. Lee. … They had some rough, bad people — Neo-Nazis,
white nationalists.”
“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down
of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park
from Robert E. Lee to another name,” because of Lee’s role as military
leader of the Confederacy. But many Founding Fathers were also
slaveowners. “Are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? How
about Thomas Jefferson?” he asked. “You’re changing history. You’re
changing culture.” Trump also pointed out the presence of Antifa
protesters there to cheer on the tearing down of America’s historical
monuments, who — unlike those opposed to tearing down U.S. history, did
not have a permit to meet. “Now, in the other group also, you had some
fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with
the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats. You got
a lot of bad people in the other group, too.”
Even Snopes.com ran an article titled, “No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis
and White Supremacists ‘Very Fine People.’”
10. Trump is above the law?
Harris attempted to raise fears that President Trump would break the law
with impunity in a second term. “The United States Supreme Court
recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune
from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again,” said
Harris, while claiming Trump would weaponize government against his
political enemies in a second term.
“The [p]resident enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not
everything the [p]resident does is official,” stated the court ruling,
written by Chief Justice John Roberts. “The [p]resident is not above the
law.”