Matt Walsh Is Not A Decent Person (And Neither Is Ben Sasse)

A man who hates others when they agree with his previous vales — or a typical Republican

Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh wrote “You Can No Longer Be A Decent Person And A Democrat,” after the failure of the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act.

Last night, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) failed in a vote of 53–44.

Sasse — for those who don’t remember — made national news for being the first Republican senator to announce he would not support Donald Trump. In 2018, a report from Politico claimed he was speculating running against Donald in 2020 instead of for a 2nd term in the Senate, something he’s denied since. To give you an idea of how (if I may borrow a term from Secular Talk) “McResistance” this man is, FiveThirtyEight finds he votes against the president all but 85.6% of the time.

Of course, I could make the entire column the whole “you’re only pro-birth,” joke, but that would be boring. Instead, I will make fun of the idea of the bill and one of its most prominent pro-life supporters.

The bill would have forced hospitals to provide some level of care for fetuses who are the result of a failed abortion. Firstly, I did not realize it was illegal for hospitals to do this already. Why didn’t I seem to notice this? Turns out, because it’s not. Hospitals are already allowed to care for whoever they want under freedom of association. For that matter, hospitals are not forced to care for any other group under current law unless they’re in the emergency room. So why are fetuses so special? Why do they get extra rights?

Paleoconservative columnist Matt Walsh — a man who nearly won Time’s Person of the Year in 2018 and one of the biggest cheerleaders for pro-life legislation — was not happy about this. Here’s what he had to say on Twitter:

The only response to any Democrat argument from now on should be: “You support the murder of infants.” That point undermines everything they say and every position they take. It means they cannot be taken seriously on any topic, at all, ever again.

Matt strikes me as the kind of man who is not invited to parties often. Although, if I were pro-life, I would see the appeal of screaming that the friend who wants Taco Bell is wrong because he believes abortion should be legal.

About a month ago, Matt tried to make the phrase “undocumented infants” a replacement for the medical term “fetus,” which lasted for a whole five minutes before even Matt realized that was nonsense. For one, Matt is not a supporter of undocumented immigrants.

I have asked many of Matt’s fans if they would be willing to compromise and have both groups of undocumented people be treated as equal under the law; I have yet to find one that said yes. Basically, this is a clear example of virtue signaling. Instead of having a consistent set of moral values, Matt and his followers would prefer to just complain the other people have a different set of inconsistent moral values. If it worked on the kindergarten playground it will work in the abortion debate.

I could go through many of Matt’s “hot takes,” on abortion, but we’ed be here all day. The fact is, the article really isn’t all that interesting.

Let’s start with Matt’s weird lack of understanding of how the legislation works. Here’s what he states the bill would do in the second paragraph of his article (emphases his):

[T]he bill in question would have given legal protection to born, living, infant humans.

One sentence later:

Under the law, had it passed, hospitals would have been required to deliver basic medical care to these children

Basic healthcare — in the United States at least — is not legally protected. Although, maybe Matt thinks it should be. Despite the fact, he has never advocated for it, hates Bernie Sanders, blamed young people support Alexandra Ocasio Cortez on bad parenting (while never name dropping any of her policies other than the vague concept of “socialism”), and has never said a positive thing about Obamacare. He’s also never talked about Republicans constantly trying to cut CHIP now that I think about it. At what age does the government no longer have the duty to provide your healthcare? Apparently, up until slightly after you’re born.

Of course, there are also clear violations of freedom of association when it comes to forcing hospitals to care for people they just went out of there way to state they didn’t want to care for. But maybe Matt believes violations of freedom of association are sometimes worth it, despite him defending Jack Phillips nonstop on that argument. Oh, and there’s this tidbit:

Conservatives argue that businesses have the right to refuse service. Many (including myself) believe they have the right, or should have the right, to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Unless it’s a fetus, I’m sorry “baby.” Actually, calling it a baby may cause my point to get stronger, as businesses discriminate against the young all the time. WalMart does it when they don’t let minors buy porn, alcohol, or tobacco. I do not see how this is a big deal.

Let me end with this: The Democrats voted against a bill that would do almost nothing in the first place. Medical malpractice is something that a case must be filed against, who is going to do that exactly? The mother who had the failed abortion? The doctor who failed the treat the fetus? Everything about this is idiotic.

Of course, this is just a long line in the mountains the pro-life movement makes while insisting they’re the popular ones if you ignore the fact they can never get people who pass pro-life legislation elected or find judges and lawyers willing to argue for this magical “right to life.” But I’m the evil one for believing in a universal healthcare plan that covers you for longer than your first 10 minutes of life. This is the worst socialism I’ve ever seen!

So Matt is not just pro-birth, he is truly pro-life for another couple of days. After those days are up, then you’re back to being screwed.