WaPo Blames Limitations on Abortion for Ruining Teen Girls’ Lives. They Should Blame Themselves Instead.

The paper that spends half its time promoting abortion, The Washington Post, recently published a piece entitled “This Texas teen wanted an abortion. She now has twins.”  If you are wondering how that can be interpreted as a pro-abortion message, you are not alone.

The subject of the article is a Texas teenager, Brooke Alexander, whose plan to end her unexpected pregnancy was “thwarted” by a “conniving” woman working for a crisis pregnancy center.  The “evil” pro-life social worker had a temerity to inform Brooke that abortion was not her only option.  After seeing the sonogram image of her twins, Brooke opted to carry her beautiful and healthy baby girls to term.

Washington Post goes on to document how Brooke’s life is now very, very difficult.  Her teenage husband is now away for military training, and she has to take care of two babies on her own with very little financial support.  The paper laments how Brooke “didn’t get to lead the life she wanted” because she chose to be a mother.  The real point should’ve been: “How girls like Brooke don’t get to lead the life they deserve because of the pro- life policies we push.”

As you find out later in the article, Brooke had an extremely unfortunate childhood.  She came from a broken family bouncing between two very chaotic homes.  Her father was a drug addict, and her mother was bordering on being abusive.  Brooke never finished high school, dropping out at age 15.   Before getting pregnant, Brooke spent most of her time hanging out at skate parks with teenage boys.  She lacked any parental guidance or structure.  Stating that all Brooke needed to become a happy and successful adult was to get an abortion seems quite a leap to make.

But that does not deter the author of the article from claiming that Brooke was right on track to become a very successful real estate professional, and the only thing that stood in the way of that was that she chose motherhood. WaPo seems to completely disregard the fact that Brooke was a high school dropout way before she got pregnant. The paper claims the reason why Brooke would never become a successful career woman is the Texas abortion law that “forced” her to have her babies.

Brooke is a poster child for the deterioration of the American nuclear family.  Drug addiction, divorce, abusive parenting, failure of American education – all of those are the causes for Brooke’s predicament.  Getting an abortion would not make Brooke’s life any better.  In fact, getting married and having her babies were probably the best way to get her life back on track.  But WaPo’s solution to all the trouble girls like Brooke are having is to let them have as many abortions as they like.

WaPo does not care about girls like Brooke.   If they did, they would seek real solutions to the problems Brooke was facing.  WaPo would be highlighting the drug addiction epidemic that causes child abandonment and abuse.  They would be calling for mentorship programs to help trouble teens.  They would support programs that educate young men on importance of fatherhood.  They would call for “living skills” courses that promote healthy life choices instead of “how many pronouns can you name?” and “how to pick your own gender” lectures.    But WaPo thinks that deterioration of American nuclear family is a great thing, because it leads to “equity.”

Growing up in a broken home deeply affects a child’s wellbeing.  Kids that come from stable homes are less likely to have mental health issues.  They are more likely to go to college and make a good living.  Growing up without a family structure puts a child at a disadvantage that no government would be able to correct – no matter how much Joe Biden taxes “the rich.”  But good parenting is not something that the government can dictate, and that puts many kids at a disadvantage.  WaPo is not interested in addressing that problem, especially that most kids who come from broken homes are black.  WaPo’s solution to the problem is to allow those kids to have as many abortions as they like and pretend that abortion on demand leads to happy and productive life.

That, of course, is a big deception.  Abortion or no abortion, kids who come from broken homes with no parental guidance, in their majority, will not prosper.  Their lives, for most of them, will be chaotic and destructive, and most of them will end up in poverty or suffer abuse.  Having abortions will not help them in life.

Many states now placing limitations on abortion will make young women think twice about their life choices.  They must learn that a promiscuous lifestyle is a road to self-destruction that can’t be “fixed” by abortion on demand.  Fixing your behavior – not getting rid of “an inconvenient” product of that behavior – is a way to overcome poverty and chaos.

That said, I’d like Brooke Alexander to know that my real estate agent has three wonderful kids.  Despite what WaPo says, motherhood is not a barrier to getting a real estate license.  Brooke is a stand-up young lady, and we wish her well!

If you found this article informative, please consider a small donation to our coffee cup to help support Conservative Journalism – or spread the word. Thank you.

 RWR original article syndication source.

Share this:

What do you think?

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Written by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in Bay Area for 30 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.  I am currently a resident of Florida.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.

My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.

Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?

Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.

For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.

And for everything else, thanks to my family.

Why Did the Navy Close its Bywater Base, Now a Magnet For Squatters and Crime?

Food Riot

Chart of the Day: World Food Prices Hit an Inflation-Adjusted 62-Year High – Food Riots Coming?