The mainstream media and Democrats weaponize “fact-checking.” They never apply it fairly.
But when this Obama official tried to fact check JD Vance, he immediately regretted it.
Republican strategist Scott Jennings and former Obama administration official David Axelrod had a heated exchange on Tuesday night, debating a Minnesota abortion law after the vice-presidential debate between Democratic Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota and Republican Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio.
The source of the disagreement stemmed from a controversial 2023 law signed by Walz, which recognized a constitutional right to abortion without restrictions and rolled back previous requirements for physicians to provide care to infants who survived abortion attempts. This law, and the broader implications for both unborn and newborn life, have ignited debates on both sides of the political spectrum.
During a discussion on The View, co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin lamented the Republican approach to the abortion debate, particularly the accusations of infanticide aimed at Democrats. “I wish that Republicans would stop saying, ‘Oh, they’re allowing babies to be k*lled once they’re born,’” Farah Griffin remarked.
Her point, though critical of her own party’s rhetoric, acknowledged the significant advancements in neonatal care, noting that babies born as early as 23 weeks can now survive with the help of NICUs. Farah Griffin also suggested that Republicans should start the conversation from this scientific reality, if they seek to propose restrictions on abortion.
This acknowledgment of medical advancements serves as a crucial starting point in arguing for the sanctity and protection of life at every stage of development. As science continues to demonstrate the viability of infants at earlier stages of gestation, it strengthens the case for limiting abortion beyond certain points.
However, David Axelrod criticized Senator Vance’s defense of pro-life policies, claiming that he showed undue concern for “victims” of these laws. The clash between Axelrod and Jennings intensified when Jennings brought up the cases of infants who survived late-term abortion attempts, only to die afterward.
“There were eight deaths among infants who survived abortion attempts during Tim Walz’s tenure as governor, it happened,” Jennings asserted. “They don’t want to talk about the fact that it happened but there were children-”
Axelrod, however, quickly interrupted, challenging Jennings’ portrayal of these tragic events. “Let me ask you a question… What were the condition of these babies when they were born?” Axelrod asked. His line of questioning implied that the condition of these infants and the decisions of their families may have been based on medical realities, rather than a casual disregard for life. Axelrod further pressed Jennings, suggesting that the families may have been acting out of concern for the suffering of their children.
This back-and-forth reveals a deep divide in how both sides perceive the issue of infants surviving abortion attempts. The very fact that there were eight documented cases of such infants in Minnesota during Governor Walz’s term points to a larger moral issue: these were children who survived an abortion attempt, yet were left to die without the care they needed. Pro-life advocates argue that every human life, regardless of its health or condition, deserves dignity and medical attention. Axelrod’s focus on the condition of the infants misses this larger moral point.
Jennings’ frustration became palpable when former Biden campaign aide Ashley Allison joined Axelrod in dismissing his concerns. Allison accused Jennings of being “disrespectful” for highlighting the cases of babies who survived abortion. She echoed a common pro-choice argument, stating, “This is what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz believe: That it’s none of your business what women do with their body and so stay out of our doctor’s offices and stay out of our bedroom.”
Jennings, however, held firm, offering a sobering response: “I guess I’ll have to speak up for the babies. They’re not here to speak for themselves.”
Jennings’ remark encapsulates a core belief many Americans have: that the most vulnerable, those who cannot advocate for their own survival, must be protected. Whether the debate centers around unborn infants or babies born alive after a failed abortion, pro-life advocates see this as a battle for those who have no voice. The Minnesota law, which removed requirements for doctors to intervene in these cases, has raised alarm among pro-life circles, who view it as a dangerous step toward further devaluing human life.
At the heart of this debate is the question of whether a society should allow infants — no matter how they came into the world — to be left to die without medical care. For those who are pro-life, the answer is a resounding no. Every life has inherent worth, and it is the duty of society to protect the most innocent among us, even when others may deem their survival unlikely or burdensome.
Babies who need extra love and care to be given a chance are not a burden, even if it’s going to be painful to watch babies endure suffering to be given a chance to grow up into kids and hopefully adults. Ending the sufferer does not address the suffering.
The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major pro-life news.
