What an infuriating, despicable headline, though the story is equally bad. If abortion supporters—yes, it’s the Democratic Party exploiting the issue—weren’t “squeamish” about what they so indignantly and self-righteously support they wouldn’t have spent the past 70 years trying to figure out ways to avoid directly admitting what they are advocating. “Baby? What baby?”

The argument for abortion, that is, terminating a developing unique human life distinct from that of its mother before it can grow to be born and go on to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, has been, and still is, deliberately clouded by misleadng rhetoric about “choice” and “reproductive care,” the current dodge. Wait, how is that other human life in the equation assisted with his or her “reproduction”? Is it “care” to have that life’s own chances of reproducing taken away from it?

And what choice does the victim of an abortion have?

If Democrats weren’t “squeamish” about having to deal with those questions, they wouldn’t be trying (and, tragically, thanks to the abysmal level of attention, critical thought and ethical competence of the average American, largely succeeding) to avoid them.

This typical Democratic Party puff-piece by its cheerleading propaganda organ, the New York Times, is truly shameless. Its screams “Go team!” because Ohio voters just endorsed the concept of a million legally snuffed-out lives a year in the United States, but was itself too “squeamish” to point that out.

And, as usual, the Times lies. “Deeply personal and explicit, the ads [pro-abortion campaign ads unveiled in campaigns for last week’s local elections] signaled a new tone in Democrats’ messaging on abortion rights, one that confronts head-on the consequences of strict anti-abortion laws.”

But they did not acknowledge the consequences of abortions, which is what Democrats are too “squeamish” to be honest about. A human being dies. Can they admit that? No, in fact, they want to make sure nobody even thinks about it.

After all, it might make them “squeamish.”

“Historically, it has been Republicans who used dire warnings and shock value in advertising to make their case on the issue — graphic images of bloody fetuses, medically unsubstantiated claims of fetal pain, charged accusations of infanticide, and testimony from women who said they regretted their abortions,” says the Times, reveling in “advocacy journalism,” which isn’t journalism, but advocacy. Bloody fetuses? Foul! Why should voters know what they are voting for? “Unsubstantiated claims of fetal pain”! Ooh, good point: when a murderer says that his victim didn’t suffer, that means nobody was killed, right? “Infanticide”? Don’t those evil Bible-beating Republicans know that there are no infants, only “choices” involved in abortions? Women saying they regretted their abortions? Shocking! What kind of wacko would regret the choice to get rid of a parasite?

“At the same time, many Democrats for years treaded carefully around the topic,” the Times then spins. “Some, including President Biden, avoided even using the term “abortion,” casting their views broadly as a matter of women’s rights.” “Some?” Try “almost all.” Hilariously, the article later informs us parenthetically that long time abortion shill NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, has recently changed its name to Reproductive Freedom for All. Huh! Why is an abortion advocacy organization squeamish about using the term “abortion”?

The Times is applauding the proliferation of ads like this one, hammering at the alleged cruelty of not treating the human beings created from rape or incest as being less worthy of a chance to live than others:

That ad is an outlier, though the Times says otherwise. I saw one pro-abortion ad after another in Virginia where I live. Many pounded on the rape and incest fallacy, but most still used the approved, subject-avoiding euphemisms “choice” and “reproductive health.” Apparently the Times reporters, Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Nick Corasaniti, nice, young, attractive thirty-somethings who cherish their irresponsible sex, can’t comprehend that the rape and incest argument is an admission that abortion advocates don’t care about the terminated human beings’ rights at all, just the convenience of the ex-parents.

What do we call the belief that one’s origins determine one’s human worth? That would be bigotry. And what do we call it when an individual’s origins alone are deemed a justification to kill that individual? That’s genocide.

Yes, I suppose that Democrats aren’t squeamish about advocating that, their just squeamish about admitting it.