The Washington Post is irrevocably and unequivocally in support of killing babies.
On Tuesday, The Post released a disturbing piece titled, “An abortion ban made them teen parents.” The story walks through the life of a young couple and the struggles they've had after becoming parents as teenagers. WaPo alluded that all of their life, marital and emotional struggles are because they couldn’t abort their now two-ish-year-old twin girls when pregnant.
The story walked through the life of Brook and Billy High who got pregnant in high school. The pair was living in Texas and when Brook found out she was pregnant, she was already three months along.
Supposedly at the time in Texas, you couldn’t kill a three-month-old baby in utero…likely because the baby, or in this case babies, had developed his or her skeleton, has positioned ears, is able to move all his or her joints and has an obvious beating heart, a fact that even WaPo noted. Nonetheless, Brook would have had to travel 13-hours away, to New Mexico, if she really wanted to kill her babies.
Thankfully, Brook and Billy welcomed their twins, Kendall and Olivia, six months later. While this is a beautiful and wonderful testament to how sacred life is, WaPo used nearly 5,000 words to talk about all the struggles the High family endured as a result of these two babies NOT being aborted.
Billy had to join the Air Force to provide for his family and Brook never finished high school which, according to WaPo, was the twin’s fault. The marital arguments that Billy and Brook had stemmed from having their children at a young, immature age. The idea of divorce loomed, because of the kids. Brook felt isolated and alone while Billy worked, because they had the children and Brook was a stay-at-home mom - that is, according to WaPo.
“Now, with two children, they are permanently linked,” the piece read.
Much of the piece had a sour attitude about the girls’ existence. WaPo noted and harped on the fact that sometimes Billy and Brook think about the “new laws that led them to this moment.” Billy explained to the outlet that “if you’re not planning on having a kid, abortion is a much cheaper option than raising people.” He also added that the laws, since Roe’s overturn, “create a not good situation to be in.” WaPo included one portion where Billy looked at his girls after explaining how much harder life is since he couldn’t abort his kids and said, “I don’t know. I’m tired.” The framing of the piece made it seem like Billy was regretful at that moment.
Later in the piece, Brook spoke on how she decided not to go to New Mexico to have an abortion and even commented how her babies were and are people.
“If I would have had the abortion…” she said and then paused. “I can’t even think of it that way now. Those are our babies, and they’re people.”
Yet, WaPo lamented how “at least 9,000 extra live births” occurred because of a Texas abortion ban, “making Brooke and Billy an early example of a family compelled into existence by an abortion ban.”
Geez, Louise! Can’t we just be happy these beautiful babies got a chance at life!
I’m not alone in that request. Users on Twitter, or X, were disturbed with WaPo’s lament on life.
“Really disgusting attempt by the Washington Post and @CAKitchener to make you think these parents should have aborted their twin daughters, Kendall and Olivia, who will one day read this story,” The Daily Caller’s Mary Margaret Olohan tweeted.
Nick Givas, another conservative commentator said, “The editors and reporters who wrote this are twisted and sick.”
Another made a great point saying, “I’m pretty sure it was NOT the abortion ban that 'made them parents.' Wow WaPo. Wow.”
And one more asserted, “WaPo going at this same story again with the nebulous 'is it good these kids are alive?' framing is just wild…”
It’s shocking, but not surprising for WaPo to allude to every issue that this couple has to deal with to be the result of not getting an abortion. The outlet has this disturbing idea that people’s lives will be ruined if they don’t abort their kids.
Follow Us On Twitter