Blog

Tucker Carlson: NYT Renamed Fetal Heartbeat ‘Embryonic Pulsing’ to ‘Hide the Truth’ from Readers

Craig Bannister
By Craig Bannister | June 6, 2019 | 11:20 AM EDT

Tucker Carlson (Screenshot)

Replacing the medical term “fetal heartbeat” with a fabricated one, “embryonic pulsing,” to advance a pro-abortion agenda is “just another day at the office at The New York Times,” Tucker Carlson said Wednesday on his Fox News Channel program.

Carlson noted that, while the left claims science on its side on the abortion issue, “remarkable advancements in ultra-sound technology” provide scientific proof that the opposite is true – so, The New York Times has resorted to making up a scientific-sounding, dehumanizing term:

 

The left calls itself the party of science but, at this point, that seems more like a sarcastic description than anything else. Consider the issue of abortion. If you cared about science, you would have been following the remarkable advances in ultra-sound technology over the past 40 years. We know incalculably more about the developing child than we did in 1973 when Roe v. Wade became law. Scientifically, the early 1970’s were the Dark Ages. Look at the pre-natal images available today. Go ahead, seriously. Assess them for yourself. Is that just another piece of flesh, like a spleen or an appendix? Look at the picture. No, it’s not. It’s a human being obviously.

And, it’s far too obvious, actually, for the purposes of the left. The abortion lobby doesn’t want you to think about the reality behind their slogans. You might be horrified, if you thought about it. So, once again, they are suppressing science.

Lawmakers in Louisiana just passed a bill banning abortion after doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat. The New York Times didn’t want you to know that. They were worried you might agree with it.

So, their propagandist, a man called Alan Blinder, removed the term “fetal heartbeat” entirely from his story and replaced it with the phrase “embryonic pulsing.”

Haven’t heard that term before? Well, keep in mind that “embryonic pulsing” is not a scientific term. You won’t find it anywhere in medical literature. It has no place in journalism. It is pure nonsense. Blinder, apparently, made up the term himself in order to hide the truth from his readers. That is called fraud. It’s also just another day at The New York Times.

As NewsBusters reported on June 1, a May 29 New York Times article coined the term “embryonic pulsing” in an attempt to dehumanize an unborn child with a beating heart:

A Wednesday story by Times reporter Alan Blinder -- listed by the paper as an "American South Social Justice expert" for students -- is pulling out weasel words instead. It began:

On the heels of a spate of anti-abortion legislation passed in recent months across the South, Louisiana lawmakers voted on Wednesday to ban the procedure after the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart can be detected....

Several other states have passed versions of so-called fetal heartbeat bills this year...

Then Blinder tossed in the term "embryonic pulsing," like it's not quite a human yet. This is more philosophical than medical:

A State House vote on Wednesday moved the abortion measure to the governor’s desk, after lawmakers rejected a series of amendments including an exception for cases of rape or incest. The measure would require an ultrasound test for any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and forbid abortion if the test detects embryonic pulsing — which can occur before many women know they are pregnant.

 

Sponsored Links