Dave Pellowe
goodsauce.news
Secretary of the “Reason Party”, Emma Sinclair, has presented a poor-performing video claiming to debunk George Christensen’s Children Born Alive Protection Bill.
For context, the “Reason Party” was formerly called the “Australian Sex Party”, and was established in 2009 by Fiona Patten, the then CEO of Australia’s national adult [prostitution and pornography] industry association. In a PR attempt to disguise the obviously radical fringe agendas in their political platform, the Sex Party changed its name in 2017.
In the video, feminist Emma Sinclair indulges in a pedestrian recitation of all the usual abortion-apologist propaganda clichés before getting to her attempted “debunking” of the popular Federal Member for Dawson’s actual bill.
Let’s fact-check them all — after all, she does constantly claim to now value “reason”, science & human rights; and not just a postmodern, hedonistic moral relativism rationalised by little more than truly radical self-supremacy.
The Good Sauce · FACT CHECK: Does George Christensens Bill Force Medical Intervention With No Chance Of Survival
First Quote
Sinclair claims:
“People accessing abortion care late in pregnancy do so for a range of complex, personal and in most cases, health-related reasons. So why is George Christensen talking about babies being born alive during an abortion? Probably to propagate abortion myths and misconceptions on behalf of the religious zealots who follow him. And because he’s a dick.”
“Abortion care” is a euphemism abortion-trade PR experts have crafted to make us think abortion is kind, gentle, benign, has no significant impact on the mother, and there is no second person to be considered in the medical procedure.
According to Dr. Anthony Levatino (a board certified, practicing obstetrician-gynecologist with 40 years of medical experience who has taught as associate professor of OB-GYN and personally performed over 1,200 abortions in the first and second trimesters), late term abortions require the abortionist to first kill a fully developed baby who could usually survive outside the womb. Due to the size of the baby, the mother’s cervix must be dilated for two to three days before the baby can be delivered or its dismembered parts can be surgically vacuumed from her womb. Late term abortions carry a high risk of hemorrhage, lacerations and uterine perforations, and sometimes even maternal death, as well as future pregnancy complications.
Sinclair claims the reasons for seeking a late term abortion are “complex, personal and in most cases, health-related“. ‘Complex’ and ‘personal’ are feelings, not rational reasons for taking the life of another living human. As to the claim late term abortion is in most cases “health related”, that is rational, but is it true?
According to Victorian government’s own late term abortion figures, 140 babies in 2017 and 173 babies in 2018 were aborted after 20 weeks gestation, not for health reasons, but for “maternal psychosocial indications”, which is just social or psychological reasons.
Another 179 babies in Victoria alone were aborted for “suspected or confirmed congenital anomaly”, which is a disability such as cleft palate, Down Syndrome or potentially fatal conditions. Of these, 16% were born alive and would be subject to the provisions of the federal “Children Born Alive Protection Bill 2021” if legislated.
Based solely on her debunked claims, Sinclair then presumes to be qualified to infer Christensen’s motivations for putting up this bill for debate, a debate in which she clearly has much to fear from engaging with facts & science. Instead, she reveals the strongest card in her hand is not reason, but personal attacks based only in her partisan bias and anti-Christian prejudices.
Second Quote
“Scans during pregnancy will sometimes reveal that a fetus has a fatal anomaly. This means there’s a high risk of miscarriage or of stillbirth. These anomalies can also cause pose significant health risks, or even endanger the life of the mother if she proceeds with the pregnancy. This leaves her and her family with a horrific decision: terminate and lose a child long awaited for, or risk the life of the mother. These decisions…are informed by a wealth of medical science and clinical knowledge.”
Speaking of “a wealth of medical science and clinical knowledge“, and inconveniently for the “Reason Party’s” spokesman, over a thousand experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology have affirmed that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. Abortion apologists would like you to simply dismiss the medical care experts who plainly contradict their propaganda.
The clinicians and researchers who signed The Dublin Declaration uphold, “there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
Third Quote
Finally and only after much gaslighting, misinformation and feminist vitriol, Emma Sinclair’s attempt at debunking the bill finally addresses the content of the bill itself:
“The reality of what Christensen is suggesting is… that medical intervention should be used to prolong the life of an infant who has no chance of survival.”
Emma Sinclair seems determined to personify the Stalinist maxim, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.” It is demonstrably false by any reasonable, fair-minded person taking a few seconds to read the bill that Christensen is suggesting that.
The bill only ensures there is equality for all born children regardless of the circumstances preceding the child’s birth, stating the “duty owed by a health practitioner to provide medical care or treatment to a child born alive as a result of a termination is no different than the duty (including a duty under the law of a State or Territory or the general law) owed to provide medical care or treatment to a child born alive other than as a result of a termination.“
Let me put this in less words for those demagogues who claim to value “reason”.
Every child born alive should be given the same standard of care as any other child born alive — no more, no less — regardless of the prior intention to kill that child while it was in his or her mother’s womb.
If a baby was born with conditions that in any circumstance would make it incompatible with life, cruelly extraordinary measures would not be offered, and this bill would change absolutely nothing about that for children born after a botched abortion.
All the bill does is ensure that the same standards of compassion and care are applied to all children born alive, without discrimination, as per the International Convention on the Rights of a Child. It not only states that every child has the inherent right to life (Article 6) but also that no child shall be deprived of medical treatment (Article 24).
There is no possible chance that a literate person could honestly infer George Christensen’s bill is suggesting “that medical intervention should be used to prolong the life of an infant who has no chance of survival“.
Conclusion
Both the foundational and summative claims made by the “Reason Party” spokesman Emma Sinclair are consistently and demonstrably FALSE in every instance. The only thing this video has successfully debunked are the presenter’s and producers’ own claims to “reason”, compassion, civility or sincerity.
Sinclair’s closing remark that, “Government ministers, including Amanda Stoker, the Assistant Minister for Women, put their support behind this attempt to muddy the waters around abortion and to paint abortion procedures as inherently cruel and immoral,” serves as an ironic summary of the video’s own purpose: to muddy the otherwise crystal clear waters around the equal rights to health care of all babies born alive without discrimination.
It is abundantly obvious the “Reason Party”, and other abortion industry apologists and lobbyists are desperate to cover up the cruelty and immorality of current clinical standards in contravention of international human rights conventions with their own unique brand of snarky, confected outrage.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD.
