Topic: WorldNetDaily
CNSNews.com wasn't the only ConWeb outlet laboring to distance President Trump from the fetal stem-cell origins of the Regeneron antibody cocktail he was given to help him recover from coronavirus. Michael Brown devoted his Oct. 12 WorldNetDaily column to fretting over this:
How should pro-life Trump voters respond to these concerns?
Let's say that Regeneron was actually developed with the help of fetal tissue. Does anyone actually think that doctors came to Trump and said, "Mr. President, we have an experimental drug that was tested and developed using tissue from an aborted baby from the 1970s. How do you feel about using this?"
Only the most hardened anti-Trumper could imagine such a scenario. In the world of reality, the very thought of it is absurd. And, even if the fetal tissue charges are true, who knew about this? Was this something that any of the doctors would have been aware of? I very seriously doubt it, especially when, as we shall see, Regeneron itself denies the charge.
It is therefore completely ridiculous to claim that Trump is being hypocritical in using Regeneron, as if he knew the alleged history of the drug.
Like CNS, Brown invoked people with the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute to further distance Trump from any fetal-cell links, concluding: "I'm not a medical doctor or a scientist, but it seems clear from these descriptions (and from what I could glean from Regeneron's technical article published in the journal Science, also cited above) that there is hardly a direct connection between the drug and an aborted baby." Brown then spun further on hypocrisy claims:
My answer to those accusing the president with hypocrisy is threefold. First, as stated here, it's unlikely in the extreme he had any idea of the alleged abortion connection. Second, scientists from Regeneron deny any connection to human fetal cells, and Trump would presumably take them at their word. Third, if Regeneron had been developed with the help of an aborted baby, there would then be a serious ethical debate as to its use.
Still, with all that being said, it is grasping at straws to question the pro-life commitment of these organizations (along with that of President Trump). That's because we are comparing the willful killing of more than 60 million babies in the womb, often out of convenience, with the possible, distant connection of a life-saving drug to a baby aborted in the 1970s. Who would seriously make such a comparison?
Brown -- an incessant Trump apologist and excuse-maker -- concluded:
My answer to those accusing the president with hypocrisy is threefold. First, as stated here, it's unlikely in the extreme he had any idea of the alleged abortion connection. Second, scientists from Regeneron deny any connection to human fetal cells, and Trump would presumably take them at their word. Third, if Regeneron had been developed with the help of an aborted baby, there would then be a serious ethical debate as to its use.
Still, with all that being said, it is grasping at straws to question the pro-life commitment of these organizations (along with that of President Trump). That's because we are comparing the willful killing of more than 60 million babies in the womb, often out of convenience, with the possible, distant connection of a life-saving drug to a baby aborted in the 1970s. Who would seriously make such a comparison?
Who would seriously argue that voters should ignore the sleazy, amoral person Trump is and vote for him anyway because he panders to evangelicals, which has been Brown's defense of the man for the past few years?
