Trump’s “execute the baby” lie has a dangerously effective history.
On Saturday, at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Donald Trump repeated his absurd claim that pro-choice women and doctors are “executing” newborns and therefore must be stopped by stricter laws. The most recent version of Trump’s ginned-up nightmare, which the president has taken to conjuring on the campaign trail this year, referenced a bill advanced by state Republicans that would make doctors liable if they withhold medical care from a fetus that had survived an abortion attempt. Because doctors would already provide that care in such an (extremely unlikely) event, the Democratic governor has promised to veto it. But Trump’s fantasy brooks no facts: “The baby is born,” he declared. “The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.” (Cue righteous boos from the audience.) How can the reality-based community, where it is understood that mother-doctor infanticide conspiracies are not real, even respond to a story like this? One response is: Tell the truth about the difficult circumstances around nonviable pregnancies. This time around, a former NICU nurse wrote a viral Twitter thread about what happens in a hospital after the birth of a baby too disabled to live. The last time Trump told this crazy story, in February, while discussing recent New York state legislation to expand abortion rights past the 24thweek in cases where the fetus isn’t viable or the mother’s life is threatened, OB-GYN and writer Jen Gunter described her own experience giving birth to a “son who was born to die” in a New York Times op-ed, titled “I Didn’t Kill My Baby.” But none of these earnest and well-meant counternarratives are going to change the minds of people who already believe that women and doctors might actually do something like this. That’s because the story is much more than “bullshit,” a “lie,” or a “falsehood.” Trump’s abortion story is a piece of atrocity propaganda. It draws on a centuries-old trope—the cruel and capricious murder of infants—to confirm his supporters’ beliefs that the liberals and feminists living among them are, secretly, selfish monsters. And for those who’ve deployed it in the past, it has proved dangerously effective. This is why, out of all the terrifying crap that comes out of his mouth, I think it might be the scariest. Here’s the history Trump is tapping. The most durable murdered-babies lie ever is the blood libel. Anti-Semitic accusations of Jewish ritual murder of children have fueled pogroms since at least the 12thcentury. (The Holocaust Encyclopedia finds mention of such charges against Jews as far back as the second century B.C.) Over the years, this idea that Jews kill children for their blood has found purchase in writings by people as integral to the “Western tradition” as Geoffrey Chaucer and Martin Luther. The Nazis made extensive use of the theme. In 1939, the cover of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer featured a medieval depiction of a group of Jewish adults draining blood from a toddler while the bodies of five already-murdered children lie at their feet. Nor are such blood libels a relic of the past. As Talia Lavin has observed, the manifesto allegedly written by last weekend’s synagogue shooter contained a reference to Simon of Trent, a 2-year-old Christian boy who died in Italy in 1475 and whose death was used as pretext for a wave of anti-Semitic violence. Even as Jews have borne the brunt of the baby-killing myth, propagandists for other causes have used it to their advantage. After the Irish Rebellion of 1641, in which Irish Catholics attacked Protestant settlers, depositions of witnesses to the events were published in London, shifting the tide of British opinion against the Irish. The witnesses often mentioned hearing of—but never seeing—Irish Catholics ripping open pregnant women, pulling out their babies, and beating them to death against rocks. In 1782, Benjamin Franklin, of all people, put together a counterfeit newspaper with an article supposedly describing atrocities committed by the Seneca Indians against colonial frontier families at the behest of the British government. (By telling this story, Franklin wanted to turn the British public against their government and give the new United States purchase at the peace negotiations that were ongoing at the time.) In this grisly fiction, a Seneca representative mailed a British agent a bunch of scalps of American frontier families, including scalps of boys and girls, as well as “29 little infant Scalps of various sizes; … a little black Knife in the middle to shew they were ript out of their Mothers’ Bellies.” Anti-German propaganda during World War I was full of violently murdered babies. After the war, Arthur Ponsonby, a liberal member of Parliament interested in exposing the way such propaganda helped shape the public’s will to fight, published a report called “Falsehood in War-Time”(1929), which included a chapter titled “The Belgian Baby Without Hands.” In it, Ponsonby collected the many times that this story—that German soldiers invading Belgium had cut off babies’ and children’s hands and arms, often leaving them alive to serve as warnings to the populace—appeared in French, British, American, and Italian newspapers. In France, Ponsonby found, newspapers even embellished the story by “depicting German soldiers eating the hands.” The story of the handless baby or child traveled even further than the other tales of babies impaled on bayonets or nailed to doors, despite the fact that it seemed physically improbable that any child could survive such mutilation. “Everybody wanted to believe the story,” Ponsonby writes, “and many went so far as to say they had seen the baby.” Despite the modicum of caution Americans and British people felt toward anti-German propaganda after the baroque excesses of the run-up to the First World War, 1940s Americans were much more comfortable consuming propaganda that demonized the Japanese. And so the baby killers migrated east. Historian John Dower notes that, in an American propaganda film made during World War II, actors playing Japanese soldiers tossed Chinese babies onto bayonets. The baby-killing fable still works to foment war. Most recently, in the run-up to the Gulf War, the American PR firm Hill & Knowlton, hired by the Kuwaiti government in exile, helped spread a dubiously sourced atrocity story about Iraqi soldiers ripping premature babies from incubators in a hospital so that they could carry off the machines, then leaving the infants on the floor to die. The story really went early-1990s viral when the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States gave “testimony” about the incident, which she at first claimed to have witnessed (and later said she’d heard about from others), in front of a congressional committee. But here we have a president (who, always remember, probably doesn’t actually care whether anyone has an abortion) spreading baby-killing propaganda against his own people. In so doing, he’s contributing to what scholar Carol Mason calls “the apocalyptic narrative of pro-life politics.” Mason surveys books, pamphlets, speeches, and ephemera produced by and for anti-abortion activists between the 1960s and 2000s, and shows how they depicted the abortion debate as an epic battleground between good and evil. Through these stories, Mason writes, pro-life Christians came to see themselves as “a chosen minority facing a satanic majority hell-bent on providing abortions.” Trump’s story, clumsy though it may sound to the uninitiated, fits right into this cosmology. In 1984, sociologist Kristin Luker observed, after interviewing activists on either side of the abortion debate, that large amounts of “surprise, outrage, and vindictiveness” occur within conversations on this issue because it calls people’s “world views” into question—those ideals that are so deep inside us that we don’t even know how to name them. “Denying that one’s opponents are decent, honorable people is one way of distancing oneself from the unsettling thought that there could be legitimate differences of opinion on one’s most cherished beliefs,” Luker wrote. For the anti-choice activists Luker interviewed, the possibility of choosing abortion strikes at the heart of their understanding of women’s purpose: to become mothers. That’s why the detail of the blanket in Trump’s story—“They wrap the baby beautifully”—sticks in the mind, as it’s meant to do. These baby-killing liberals, this story telegraphs to Trump’s base, are coldblooded and unnatural, offering care one minute and turning on their infants in the next. Possibly, the story says first, they aren’t even women. Possibly, it implies next, they aren’t even human.Popular in News & Politics
- 最近发表
-
- NASA's new plan keeps Starliner astronauts in space until 2025
- 诺基亚x6和摩托罗拉哪个更好(是买诺基亚X6好还是摩托罗拉me511好给个建议我是女生)
- 诺基亚5230和5530(诺基亚5611与5610哪个好)
- 索尼爱立信lt18i怎么样在网上买(最近想买手机 犹豫 索尼爱立信LT18i(Xperia arc S)和索尼爱立 ...)
- 微视频广东:在推进中国式现代化建设中走在前列
- 诺基亚手机5610(我问一下关于诺基亚5610和诺基亚5611的问题)
- 期货会把本金亏光然后负债吗?(期货的本金会亏完吗)
- 步步高身份验证在哪里设置(为什么我的步步高K201不能登录手机腾讯网和腾讯空间)
- Abrar Ahmed returns as Pakistan names squad for second Test against Bangladesh
- 手机里怎么查征信报告(手机上怎么查征信报告)
- 随机阅读
-
- If aliens harnessed solar power, could we detect them? NASA investigated.
- 联想td30t手机版怎么看txt(联想TD30t手机功能)
- 信用卡最低还款后剩下的钱怎么还(信用卡最低还款后剩下的钱怎么算利息)
- 2009年买的BBK k201手机经常死机最近每5秒重启一次根本做不到
- How do you make safe, cheap nuclear reactors? Bury them a mile deep
- 期货会把本金亏光然后负债吗?(期货的本金会亏完吗)
- 诺基亚5610上市价格(诺基亚5611上海有卖么)
- 股票交易未成功资金被冻结是怎么回事(股票交易未成功资金被冻结怎么办)
- Deceased K
- 诺基亚x3怎么样(诺基亚X3和诺基亚5611哪一款比较好)
- 买房要交维修资金什么意思(买房要交维修基金吗)
- 诺基亚5611XM(诺基亚5611现标价是多少)
- 高燃!哨响表停赛不止,2024广东“村BA”开赛在即,一分钟带你重温高光瞬间。
- 信用卡还剩几期怎样查(信用卡还剩几期怎么查)
- 南航明珠积分兑换机票(广州南航明珠白金卡如何兑换南航机票)
- 一个方一个令读什么(诺基亚:三星:S60第三版、1300元以内手机)
- Expanded police surveillance will get us “broken windows” on steroids.
- 碳交易市场的股票(全国碳交易市场上线利好哪些股票)
- 步步高k202好吗(步步高k202手机怎么样我买了款相机效果比K201还差)
- 步步高x20电池多少钱(有谁知道步步高手机K201的电池板多少钱一块吗)
- 搜索
-
- 友情链接
-