When we want to protect them, we call them ‘unborn babies.’ But not when we want to kill them.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just released an emergency order to stop the use of a certain pesticide due to its potential to harm “unborn babies.”

The EPA’s press release states that “[t]his is the first time in almost 40 years EPA has taken this type of emergency action,” and it is ordering “the emergency suspension of all registrations of the pesticide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA or Dacthal) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).”

But what’s particularly surprising is the fact that the term “unborn babies” is used in the release, not once, but seven times. (We’ll see how long the EPA’s press release language remains unaltered, given the current political climate.) This is the same Biden administration that refers to abortion (the intentional killing of “unborn babies”) as “reproductive freedom.”

“Unborn babies” should be protected from pesticides

The release notes: “EPA has taken this action because unborn babies whose pregnant mothers are exposed to DCPA, sometimes without even knowing the exposure has occurred, could experience changes to fetal thyroid hormone levels, and these changes are generally linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ, and impaired motor skills later in life, some of which may be irreversible” (emphasis added).

“It’s EPA’s job to protect people from exposure to dangerous chemicals. In this case, pregnant women who may never even know they were exposed could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems,” said Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “That’s why for the first time in almost 40 years, EPA is using its emergency suspension authority to stop the use of a pesticide.”

On the other hand, “unborn babies” who are ‘unwanted’ don’t need to be protected

So to protect “unborn babies” from problems after birth which could affect them for the rest of their lives, the EPA is banning the use of a pesticide. This is a laudable action.

However, the use of such language is surprising, and the concern for the welfare of preborn children is inconsistent with the Biden administration’s fervent support for killing “unborn babies” by abortion under the guise of “reproductive freedom.” It seems as if “wanted” preborn babies are recognized as worthy of protection from harmful pesticides, but “unwanted” preborn babies aren’t worthy of protection from anything at all — certainly not from the intentional killing of induced abortion.

Death is also “irreversible.”

Abortion Doctors Share How The Most Common Abortion Procedures Take Place

The press release notes, “The most serious risks are to the unborn babies of pregnant individuals. EPA estimates that some pregnant individuals handling DCPA products could be subjected to exposures four to 20 times greater than what EPA has estimated is safe for unborn babies” (emphases added).

“Also of concern are risks to unborn babies of pregnant individuals entering or working in areas where DCPA has already been applied…. [T]he evidence indicates that for many crops and tasks, levels of DCPA in a treated field remain at unsafe levels for 25 days or more. Spray drift… from pesticide application could also put at risk the unborn babies of pregnant individuals living near areas where DCPA is used” (emphases added).

The term “unborn human being” is too ’emotional’ and ‘partisan’… but only if it’s related to abortion

Though the “unborn babies” phrase is used repeatedly by this government agency seeking to protect children in the womb from a real threat to their health, when it comes to a recent ballot initiative, a nearly identical phrase (“unborn human being”) has been labeled by an Arizona judge as too “packed with emotion and partisan meaning” to remain on the ballot pamphlet for voters.

Perhaps that’s because this ballot initiative seeks to create a “fundamental right to abortion” in the state.

It is interesting how calling a child in the womb an “unborn baby” is acceptable if the goal is to protect that life; yet, it is unacceptable to call the child in the womb an “unborn human being” if the goal is to end that human being’s life by abortion.

Any reasonable person should be able to note the inconsistency. In fact, reasonable people should be alert to such dehumanizing propaganda; after all, dehumanization is usually the first step toward doing whatever the ruling powers wish to do with those whom they deem “low-grade,” “unfit,” or “life unworthy of life” — at least, if history is any indicator. Dehumanize a human being, and there are no limits to the injustices that can be perpetuated upon that life.

As Live Action News previously reported, Arizona’s ballot initiative would “create a ‘fundamental right’ in the state constitution to intentionally kill preborn children up to so-called viability, an arbitrary pregnancy marker since children are surviving at increasingly premature ages and are completely viable when left in the natural habitat of the womb. Abortion would also be permitted for the remainder of pregnancy up to 40 weeks under exceptions for ‘the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual,’ which is so broad that it allows abortion for virtually any reason.”

Arizona for Abortion Access (a coalition of pro-abortion groups, including the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood of Arizona) objected to the use of the phrase “unborn human being” on the pamphlet, claiming, “Arizona voters have a right to clear, accurate and impartial information from the state before they are asked to vote on ballot initiatives… The decision of the Arizona Legislative Council fails to abide by that responsibility by rejecting the request to use the neutral, medical term ‘fetus’ in place of ‘unborn human being’ in the 2024 General Election Publicity Pamphlet.”

A “fetus” is a mammal in the fetal stage of development, which in humans starts at the beginning of the 11th week of gestation (9 weeks after fertilization). Prior to that, the human child is in the embryonic stage (“embryo”). After the embryonic stage, the child remains in the fetal stage of development. Here is an embryo at 8 weeks post-fertilization, or 10 weeks gestation — immediately prior to the fetal stage:

The Human Embryo Eight Weeks After Conception

Upon birth, the child is in the newborn or neonatal stage, which then continues to progress — infant, toddler… and so forth. These are stages of development… and therefore, if the abortion ballot measure impacts the embryonic stage of a human being as well, then the use of “unborn human being” as a phrase would actually be more accurate than “fetus.”

Even the EPA is aware that “unborn babies” already exist when they are in the wombs of their mothers, and they admit what everyone truly knows: the environment of the mother will have an impact on her child, for good or ill. Treating certain babies as worthy of protection while actively labeling the intentional killing of other babies as “reproductive freedom” is dishonest propaganda of the worst kind — the kind that perpetuates evil against innocent human beings.

Editor’s Note, 8/14/24: The original version of this article incorrectly noted that the AZ abortion ballot language was under dispute. This should have read that the informational voter pamphlet language on the ballot initiative was under dispute. We regret the error.

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.