Washington Post: Best Place to Raise Your Family is Where You Can Kill Kids in Abortions

You can’t pretend this came as a surprise. Where else but such stalwarts of the Legacy Media as the Washington Post would you find abortion as a pillar of an article headlined “What’s the best place to raise a family”?

You could be thrown out by the graphic—a stork carrying a baby bundle over a map of the United States. Or certainly by the first sentence from Youyou Zhou’s analysis of the data:

The United States is reaching its lowest birth rate in history.

If this appeared anywhere else, you might be lulled into thinking it’s a pronatalist story. Not so.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

What is conductive to parents having children, according to Youyou Zhou?

In our search for the best place for raising children, we gathered data for every county in the United States across four metrics: affordability, quality of education, neighborhood safety, and state policies on abortion access, parental leave and LGBTQ rights. All these factors are important for the well-being of parents and children.

Not discussed, for obvious reasons, are those 1,000,000 + babies who, we can assume, didn’t contribute “to the well-being of parents.”

Affordability is cited by many as the top reason they “avoid or delay having children.” Good schools in a safe environment. Both make sense.

Then, out of the blue, this:

And do people feel safe to conceive given the varying level of abortion access? Research shows that in states where abortions are banned mothers are more likely to die from unwanted pregnancy and infant mortality increased due to birth defects.

This is wrong on so many levels it makes you want to scream. If protecting unborn babies will “cause” more mothers to die and/or deliver babies with “birth defects,” then surely pro-life laws aren’t really pro-life at all, right?

Our own director of education, Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, has debunked these deeply (and deliberately) misleading claims. So, too, has Secular Pro-Life and the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Live Action News.

All four parse out the truth from the propaganda. Pro-abortionists have a habit of using stories of medical neglect to attack pro-life laws. As Dr. O’Bannon has written

Clearly, the story told by members of the press has been to spin a false narrative about women’s lives being put at risk by harsh, rigid, unrealistic laws that keep even the most basic medical emergencies from being addressed.

But what this false narrative obscures is not just the careful legislation that exists to protect both unborn children and their mothers, and the wise safeguards it puts in place for medical situations like these, but also what the real cause of these medical crises is.

Or, as Dr. Ingrid Skop has written,

Every state with strong pro-life laws allows doctors to intervene to save a woman’s life in a medical emergency.

The article makes the same “tradeoffs” in several places, coming to the same conclusion. For example, Zhou writes,

It’s hard to find a place equally great for everyone to raise children because prioritizing one factor often means compromising another. An area that offers great education may be expensive, for example, while a more affordable place may restrict abortion rights.

Or, in the same vein,

If you are not concerned about state policies restricting personal liberties, then some areas of Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and Texas might be appealing.

The smug sense of East Coast elitism is everywhere.

You can read the article here. If the reader’s eyes are even partially open, Zhou’s pro-abortion bias is transparent.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.