Important: This story is categorized as an opinion piece. This means it bypasses ordinary fact checking and is likely based entirely on the authors opinion. Please see disclosure in author bio below story.

Op-Ed: The New York Times v. Human Life

In a May 6 editorial from the The New York Times Editorial Board, the paper wrote that “America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade,” File photo: Báo chí: dennizn,, licensed.

If you thought Roe v. Wade itself led to discord and division, just wait until it’s gone. – The New York Times Editorial Board1 

BROOKLYN, NY – It’s been a week since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked. Since then, churches and pro-life pregnancy centers have been vandalized, one pregnancy center was bombed and the Supreme Court Justices have been doxed. There are protests going on in front of the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But the New York Times de-emphasized these stories or they were not highlighted on their main page.   

The Times Editorial Board op-ed, “America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade,” compares the decision to end baby killing with racist miscegenation laws, when the comparison is not valid.2   

There is a crucial difference between the laws that prohibited intermarriage between blacks and whites, and the Roe v. Wade ruling. With every abortion, there is always a third person involved: A defenseless, tiny, living and vulnerable human being who cannot voice objection and is silenced forever simply because of his or her age, size, sex, disability and location. Not because the unborn child is any less human than you or I.

Miscegenation laws were wrong and discriminated against black Americans. But legal abortion kills black Americans, and all of the 63 million unborn people victimized by Roe v. Wade. Non-Hispanic black American women have the highest abortion rate in the United States.  

The Times published a guest essay by Alison Block, an abortionist who proudly specializes in second-trimester abortions.3 Here is how she describes her abortion experience in medical school: 

“As we were examining the pregnancy that we had just removed from the patient, my mentor went on to explain that we do this work because people need us, and we do it because it’s the right thing to do.”  

This explanation is not the way late-term abortionist Dr. Lisa Harris described her experience as she dissected a living, breathing infant in the second trimester of pregnancy. Harris was pregnant when she committed the abortion, and wrote this journal article in 2008: 

“I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier.  With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg.” 

Harris then goes on to say how she felt a sudden “thump, thump” in her uterus, which was her own unborn baby kicking and that “tears were streaming from my eyes.” She described her emotional reaction as a “brutally visceral response.”  

However, Lisa Harris continued killing babies in abortions. There is a disconnect with what she is doing and what she is experiencing in her gut. She didn’t get the message from G-d that she was committing murder with every abortion she performed. 

In response to Justice Alito’s draft, New York Times opinion journalist Maureen Dowd wrote a remarkable column with a juicy title: “Marilyn Monroe v. Samuel Alito.”5 The article has nothing to do with Monroe (I wish it did, I’m a major Marilyn fan) but is the perfection of pro-abortion gaslighting, replete with innuendos as facts. 

Ms. Dowd says of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:   

“Thomas — married to the off-the-wall right-wing activist Ginni — got on the court with the help of Republican senators who smeared Anita Hill as a pervy liar when they knew all along that Thomas was the pervy liar.”  

Those who were not born or not old enough to remember Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings should know that he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, a lawyer who worked for Justice Thomas at the U.S. Department of Education. Hill’s defense was pathetic and caused a national stir when she alleged under oath that Justice Thomas asked her why there were pubic hairs in his Coke bottle. Incredible, right? But the left believed her. Oh, and Anita Hill continued to work for Justice Thomas for years and never filed a formal complaint against him for harassment, until his Supreme Court confirmation hearings came up. 

Justice Thomas was right when he said the entire fiasco was a “high tech lynching.” It was a libelous character assassination then, and it continues today. 

But there’s more.  Ms. Dowd calls it “outrageous” that “five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.” Isn’t that what happened in 1973 when seven unelected Justices – all men – decided women can kill their babies? 

Dowd further states that the conservative Justices can be compared to the “holier-than-thou preacher” who wants to “turn America into Saudi Arabia.” Perhaps Ms. Dowd isn’t aware that we are one of only six countries on the planet that allows abortion up to birth, and those other countries include North Korea, China and Vietnam. Is that where she wants American jurisprudence to hang out?   

The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be horrified at what has happened to America, the fact that 63 million unborn babies were slaughtered for choice and that high-paid columnists that represent New York’s newspaper of record glorify the grisly trade. 

But it wasn’t always that way. An article from the New York Times archives published on August 23rd 1871 spoke out against abortion. Aptly entitled, “The Evil of the Age,” the Times referred to abortion as “Slaughter of the Innocents.”6    

“Thousands of human beings are thus murdered before they have ever seen the light of this world, and thousands upon thousands more of adults are irremediably ruined in constitution, health and happiness.” 

But could even a portion of the facts that have been detected in frightful profusion, by the agents of the TIMES, be revealed in print, in their hideous truth, the reader would shrink from the appalling picture.” 

The Times column conferred praise on the “fearless and eminent of the clergy.” 

“They have declared the existence of these great evils in social life- alike denounced and forbidden by the law of God and man.” 

The 19th century New York Times had more insights into G-d, medicine, morality and sin than their journalists have today.   


Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to [email protected] and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)