If there’s a Democrat in trouble, you can be sure there’s a newsroom nearby, ready to clean up the mess.
Take, for example, the energy that the Washington Post has dedicated this week to rehabilitating the image of Virginia Del. Kathy Tran. Tran became a viral sensation for all the wrong reasons after she unveiled a bill allowing for late-term abortions up to birth, even in cases where the mother is dilating.
“Del. Kathy Tran was known for nursing her baby on the House floor. Now she’s getting death threats,” reads the headline to an article published Thursday. That’s an updated version of the original headline. The original version read, “Until this week, Del. Kathy Tran was known for nursing her daughter on the House floor. Now Republicans are calling her a baby killer.”
Oh, please.
Just imagine the following headline for a moment: “Until this week, Rep. Steve King was known for being a kingmaker in GOP politics. Now Democrats are calling him a racist.” No serious newsroom in the country would run such a public relations operation for someone who embraced positions so odious. But if you’re a Democratic lawmaker pushing for up-to-the-moment-of-birth abortions, well, that’s a different story.
The Post’s article on Tran is careful to include the fact that she is a mother. The reader is reminded of this detail no fewer than eight times throughout the story. The public relations — er, news — article makes sure to stress that the viral video of Tran explaining her bill, which was shared first on social media by Republican operatives, was “edited.” The reader will be reminded of this one more time before the article’s conclusion. Nice to see we’re back to being skeptical about edited videos (the Covington Catholic students say “hi,” by the way). The Post is also careful to include no fewer than three photos of Tran holding her daughter, Elise.
The article even opens with Tran claiming she “misspoke” during the legislative hearing wherein she explained the limits (or lack thereof) of her bill.
Current Virginia law allows for late-term abortions, but only in cases where the mother’s life and/or health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by taking the pregnancy to term. State law also requires that three physicians sign off on the procedure. Tran’s bill seeks to remove the “substantially and irredeemably” language from state law. It also seeks to make it such that late-term abortions require the approval of only one physician. Lastly, Tran’s bill would allow for second-term abortions to be performed in clinics, as opposed to only hospitals, as the state law currently requires.
“I wish that I was quicker on my feet and I wish that I was able to be more agile in that moment,” she told the Post. “And I misspoke, and I really regret that. I should have said: ‘Clearly, no because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’”
These remarks should come as a major blow to all the pro-abortion enthusiasts who have defended Tran this week, arguing that what she described in that legislative hearing was actually not the textbook definition of infanticide. Sorry, she’s just gone wobbly on you, whether or not she’s telling the Post the truth about her impressions.
When Tran went before her colleagues to explain her bill, she was pressed by Republican lawmakers to clarify just how far the legislation goes in terms of removing restrictions on third-trimester abortions. “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” asked House Majority leader Todd Gilbert, a Republican.
Tran responded, “So, I mean, through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”
“Okay? But to the end of the third trimester?” asked Gilbert.
“Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” said Tran.
Later, Gilbert asked, “Where it’s obvious the woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She is dilating?”
“Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point,” said Tran.
Gilbert pressed, “I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.”
“My bill would allow that. Yes,” said Tran.
These are straight “yes” or “no” questions. Tran answered them in the affirmative, stating clearly that her bill would allow for abortions even at the point of birth. That’s not a “misspeak” at all.
It would have been nice had the Post pressed Tran to explain what, exactly, was unclear in her responses, rather than simply hand her a platform to say so. She would probably have to switch parties first.
The Post article includes details about the criticism that Tran has received over the bill. It repeats her claim that she has received death threats. It recounts her rise to the Virginia House of Delegates as the daughter of immigrants. It ends with a second reminder that the video of Tran giving clear “yes or no” answers about her bill was “edited” by political operatives.
This isn’t reporting. This is a public relations effort. Democracy is aborted in darkness.
