It’s Real, It’s Legal, and It’s Happening: Infanticide in America


Americans are bi-polar when it comes to abortion.

On the one hand, 74% of the states in America have laws defending the unborn, at some stage of gestation, against acts of violence. These states declare it an act of homicide if the child is killed. Twenty-one of these states consider a nonfatal attack on the unborn a criminal offense. Fully half of the states also have passed Born Alive Infant Protection Acts, requiring that physicians treat an infant that is born alive at any stage of development.

These are but a few of the many laws that protect the unborn and treat them as human beings with “inalienable rights.”  That is, if they are wanted.

If they are not wanted, they can be killed by lethal injection, dismembered in utero, or put to death after birth. If they are not wanted, abortion at any point in pregnancy is considered an acceptable means of “terminating a pregnancy.”

What could be more schizophrenic than deciding someone’s worth solely on the basis of subjective opinion? If the child is killed when the mother intended to keep it, it is considered homicide. If the child is killed when the mother does not intend to keep it, the abortionist in question can use the most brutal means imaginable, and no one (except us pro-lifers) bats an eye.

Even when the child is born alive after a failed abortion, this murderous sentiment does not change. The child was not meant to live, why help it survive? What is wrong with killing it outside the womb if it was supposed to die in-utero? Even the passage of Born Alive Infant Protection Acts do not always protect babies in this precarious circumstance. Infanticide is common.

slaughter 2How common? Consider the recent examples that have been brought to light in the abortion industry, first in the Gosnell trial, then in the undercover videos from Live Action. Gosnell saw no problem in snipping the spines of the survivors of his late-term abortions. He is being charged with murder in these cases, but he obviously sees no difference between tearing the child apart in the womb, or beheading it a few minutes later after it is born.

In the first of Live Action’s undercover videos, one of the clinic workers very nonchalantly speaks of putting a baby in a toxic solution to ensure its death. The abortionist in the other video reassures the patient that he would not help the child live if it were born alive, comparing the baby to a terminally ill patient in a hospital who is “going to die anyways.”

Those interviewed assure the woman that 911 will not be called if the baby is born alive, and that it assuredly will not be taken to the hospital. Why? Because, as they revealingly say, the hospital is required to try and save the child’s life. The implication is that “We here at the abortion clinic will make sure the child dies.”

The legalization of abortion in America has thus become the legalization of infanticide.

If we want to stop the Gosnells of the world from murdering innocents, we must protect life from conception. Life in the womb is either protected or it is not. There is no middle ground. And if it is not protected, we will continue to have infanticide in America.


image: stained glass window at Cathedral of Amiens (


Elizabeth Crnkovich is the Media Coordinator for the Population Research Institute and a graduate of Christendom College.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Michelle Marie Allen

    Although I understand your passion regarding abortion as being heinous in thought,word and deed,I seriously am appalled and offended at your twice referencing and using the analogy to such people supporting this absolute horror in society as being mentally ill ie Bipolar and schizophrenic.

    Supporting abortion and procuring one is intrinsically EVIL while being mentally ill is not.

    Please in the future have respect for those who suffer this painful cross (mental illness) and quit perpetuating the myths that inflict wounds to those who also have feelings. I suggest you educate yourself more before you flagrantly compare people who have mental illness with being similar to those who commit murder on innocent children through the sin of abortion. By the way, character assassination is also a sin…”Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

    I have Bipolar I and am also a mother to five wonderful children and 14 grandchildren.

    God Bless you and in the future may the Holy Spirit guide your hands on your keyboard as you start writing any article.

  • BillinJax

    I am quite sure the author of this article had no premeditated
    intention of directly relating the fanatical actions and policies of the
    abortion rights worshipers to the unfortunate and painful disabilities some of
    us face with our physical or mental disorders. Unfortunately we have to realize
    that much of our language has been altered by those who wish to have us accept
    abnormality as the new normal and I believe this is simply the point the author
    might be bringing to light for us. Here is my basis for this view from Webster:


    : having or marked by two
    mutually repellent forces or diametrically opposed natures or views.

    I have lived with physical problems, out
    of site but certainly not out of mind for me or my doctors and family for
    seventy years, and have learned to accept jokes about it in social conversations
    without taking it personally

    Peace to You

    God Bless Michelle

  • Michelle Marie Allen

    I appreciate your sympathy BillinJax. However, lately though I have read many authors of different types of articles use these particular words to describe many current events.

    Perhaps the use of the neoglism “doublespeak” coined by George Orwell would best describe the new political views you are alluding to. Sensitivity to those who suffer from conditions they never asked for is always appropriate in any types of journalism. I would expect this type of “lazy” journalism in the secular news but not on a Catholic website. Words carry an impact that most people inadvertently pick up and begin to continue in their own private conversations. Using the terms Bipolar or schizophrenic out of proper context is truly just downright cruel. Yes, maybe the author had no direct intention of insulting those who are mentally ill but using the terms she did use was meant to give “shock” value to her article at the unfortunate expense of a group of people who are very stigmatized in the social media as well within their own communities.

    I may have a mental illness, but saying ‘don’t take it personally’ is a cliche I have grown tired of in the past 40 years. It is simply an excuse to choose words which can inflict a very definite degree of emotional distress to another group of people or an individual.

    I will always speak out on this matter as it is proper and just to do so. After all, with so many other words to choose from, why resort to slurs ?

    Peace to You

    God Bless You too

  • Richard III

    I can totally understand your objection at Mrs. Crnkovich’s casual use of terms for mental disorders, but abortionists and pro-choicers are far less charitable in this department. Many babies are killed simply because they are found to have Down Syndrome, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, or any number of other mental and physical disabilities. Also, the abortion industry is openly racist. PP clinics in different parts of the country have gotten anonymous phone calls offering donations specifically for the aborting of a black baby. All the clinic that got these calls accepted the money without batting an eyelash. More than half of all PP clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods, and founder Margaret Sanger worked closely with many of the leading racists and eugenists of her day.

  • Dad_of_11

    BillinJax and MMA,

    ‘74% of the states in America have laws defending the unborn’ and
    ‘abortion at any point in pregnancy is considered an acceptable means of “terminating a pregnancy.”’ definitely fit the phrase ‘having or marked by two mutually repellent forces or diametrically opposed natures or views.’ By your own definition, the term bipolar certainly fits our current American views.

    The author did not write that abortion advocates were bipolar or mentally ill.The author wrote, ‘Americans are bi-polar when it comes to abortion.’ She is correct.

    The outrage here is that we live in a society that condones violence against the most innocent and vulnerable.

    I pray that God will open the hearts and minds of our world to the evil of abortion. I pray for your health and spirit. Please pray for mine. God bless.

  • Lee

    Planned parenthood has chosen select words to describe our unborn human beings to help us be more accepting and comfortable with their evil intent to take any life brought before them. Aren’t we a defensive bunch! But what are we going to do about the real problem we keep putting up with, and for who and why!God must be looking upon us, disabled and not, wondering what has happened to our Christian Will.

  • Michelle Marie Allen

    I did not intend to detract from the seriousness of Mrs. Crnkovich’s article to be on my own “soap box”. I agree totally with your comment. Politics coupled with eugenics is in the process of creating a “Frankenstein attitude” for those who are not deemed as being worthy to life. I fear for my grandchildren and ALL children, those alive now and those who have yet to be born. Who knows, the children and also the parents of the unborn will be made to have genetic testing against their will and if found to have any genome related to mental illness or any other form of genetic disease, that their lives would be in peril. I pray this will never happen.

    God Bless you Richard III

  • My father, who was involved in WW II, always said that we label the enemy as nonhuman so that we feel better about destroying them. He said to watch out when you see nonhuman labels being used; such as “fetus” for baby. We need to be careful to call people what they are.
    Of course it’s even worse when they call call it a baby and still speak of killing it.

  • Elsie

    And we need to be very cautious about using the word “it” to describe babies, pre- or post-birth. I noticed that descriptor at least 3 times in this article. No one would refer to a toddler or an adult as an “it”. When we do so with babies, we fall into the trap of recognizing them as something less than human beings. We should work very hard at using terminology such as “him or her” as we would do when speaking of any other person.

  • Richard III

    Well, maybe a more accurate term than “bipolar” for describing pro-choicers would be “bare-faced hypocrisy”.

  • Richard III

    Thank you, Mrs. Allen. My apologies for misreading your post. God Bless you too, your children, your grandchildren, and all children of this deadly age.

  • GrayJaeger

    *Yawn* Your religious garbage bores me. Go argue on something that actually effects US, you know, the people who are actually able to argue for our lives? Not an infant, which is easily replacable and has no soul, just like everyone else. Think for yourself, you blind sheep. ;D

  • GrayJaeger

    …or die already and let us atheists get a slice of the pie, either one is fine.