New York Times Wants To Use Pandemic To Kill More Unborn Children

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash


It is not beneath a Democrat to try and take advantage of an awful situation to further their agenda.

The Coronavirus pandemic has been a troubling time for American citizens, and with so many people dying you think liberals would support life-saving measures.

Well, think again.

Economic distress, health complications, and extreme party line differences has put this country in one of the worst positions this generation has seen.

While we have seen many people rally together and support one another through the isolation and illness, we have also seen the left try to push irrelevant and damaging policies as a ransom for the well-being of American citizens, as Mommy Underground has previously reported.

The New York Times editorial board is not concerned with saving personal protective equipment for the selfless medical personnel who have been putting their lives on the line to battle COVID-19, or the safety of women who run increased physical harm by killing their child in the womb during the pandemic.

Abortions were rightfully declared “non-essential” by many states, as Mommy Underground explains, leaving the industry of death frazzled and grasping for any means to continue their perverse deeds.

Drag queen story hours, LGBT propaganda in cartoons, and the Girl Scouts now supporting transgender youth are all evidence of attacks on our children.

But the New York Times didn’t think that was enough.

Now the Times editorial board is pointing the finger at the states restricting abortion, saying they are “exploit[ing] a pandemic that’s already cost hundreds of American lives” in order to “restrict women’s bodily autonomy.”


So their argument is that because the pandemic has taken lives we should allow mothers to kill their children in the womb?

How backwards is the liberal media giant’s position?

And how did “bodily autonomy” become synonymous with the “right” to kill your child in the womb when without coercion or external influence (like a piece of medical equipment being inserted into your body) you would likely have a healthy child?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists even got involved in the state’s decision to declare abortions “non-essential” in a statement that urged government to view abortions as “an essential component of comprehensive health-care.

Health care is the perpetuation of life, not to end it.

The Times editorial board then wrote how making abortions non-essential is a way to “put abortion out of reach for those who need it”; disregarding the fact that necessary PPE is being wasted in the atrocious procedure.

The Times solution? To have the FDA relax its regulations on mifepristone (the abortion pill).

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

They write about receiving the medication:

Doing so would allow many women to get a prescription for abortion-inducing drugs from a doctor via telemedicine, at which point the medications could be mailed to the patient. Unfortunately, 18 states effectively ban abortion care via telemedicine — measures that also ought to be lifted, at least for the time being.”

So, the Times wants women to receive a dangerous medication that risks the lives of mother and baby to be delivered to their home so they can take it with no supervision or follow up.

It is not surprising that this is the New York Times’ position seeming the New York governor, who has shown his monstrosity in other areas of pro-death policies, has also been vocal with his concerns on abortion availability, as Mommy Underground has discussed.

We can hope the lives of thousands of children will be saved by the closing of abortion clinics in various states.

And, God willing, the facilities that have been a catalyst for death and despair among so many families will not be able to open back up after the coronavirus pandemic has ended.