Hounds unleashed after ‘horrific’ NY Times op-ed links abortions to miscarriages

Democrats may claim to be the party of science, but time and again their agenda lines up closer to science fiction, and ultimately fantasy, as the latest New York Times op-ed proved through reality-bending lengths as it strove to equate the evils of abortion to the tragedy of miscarriage.

With woke activists promoting gender theory to toddlers and politicians denying widely accepted metrics to soften the perception of the economic disaster unfolding from their policies, the lows the narrative-pushers will stoop to in the name of their favored cause should come as no surprise. Yet, The Times really outdid itself when it published the work of two on-demand abortion peddling professors titled, “Why do we talk about miscarriage differently from abortion?”

Not only do they ask that question in all seriousness, their apparent takeaway isn’t just to blur the lines between these disparate experiences, but to blur the lines of all reality making it, like beauty, solely in the eye of the beholder.

“The line between abortion and pregnancy loss has always been blurry. But over the past few decades, the anti-abortion movement has forged a cultural bright line between the two experiences, promoting dueling narratives of ‘bad’ mothers who voluntarily cause fetal death versus ‘good’ mothers who grieve unpreventable pregnancy loss,” the authors argue.

The scholars behind this piece that at one time described expectant mothers who suffered a miscarriage as “women who believe they lost their child in utero,” are University of Pittsburgh Law School associate professor Greer Donley, who specializes in abortion law, and University of Arkansas School of Law professor and associate dean of research and faculty Jill Wieber Lens, who specializes in stillbirth law.

“It does not damage the movement to admit that some people become attached to their children in utero and that attachment has value,” they argue as they bounce between admitting that personhood begins at conception and the favored pro-abortion stance that a fetus is merely a “clump of cells.”

They lament that “abortion and pregnancy loss are generally perceived as two different things, at least in part because of anti-abortion strategy” they claim looks to “weaponize grief” to “promote the concept of fetal personhood.”

Warning: Language

As it turns out, Wieber Lens has herself experienced the tremendous loss of a miscarriage, and the position that she is arguing from, like so many inane progressives, is that the child in the womb should only be considered a person if the mother chooses to believe that for the purposes of obtaining a birth certificate for stillborn babies. Much like gender is a construct, liberals are not pushing for life itself to be a construct with no actual definitive standard.

As a result, many were more than happy to point out similar conflated arguments that could be made using the “logic” of these professors.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Kevin Haggerty


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles