Chrissy Teigen is a bully and almost every headline she scores is for something that makes her less likeable, but two years ago she earned the sympathy of even her critics when she announced the tragic loss of her son, Jack, around the 20th week of her pregnancy. Now she’s capitalizing on that loss to make a political jab, rewriting the facts so she can use her tragedy as a weaponized sob story to manipulate public opinion (or at least, the opinions of the 14 people on Earth who still put stock in what she says).
Speaking at a summit on Thursday in a talk titled “We Made That Choice,” Teigen claimed that the Supreme Court’s reversal of its unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision sparked a realization for her — that the miscarriage for which she’d soaked up global sympathy was actually an abortion, like what those evil Republicans want to ban. How convenient!
“I told the world we had a miscarriage, the world agreed we had a miscarriage, all the headlines said it was a miscarriage. And I became really frustrated that I didn’t, in the first place, say what it was, and I felt silly that it had taken me over a year to actually understand that we had had an abortion,” she said, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“It became very clear around halfway through that he would not survive, and that I wouldn’t either without any medical intervention,” Teigen elaborated. “Let’s just call it what it was: It was an abortion. An abortion to save my life for a baby that had absolutely no chance.”
Even if Teigen is telling the truth about what happened — which is of some doubt, since she’s proven she’ll go to great lengths for attention — she’s manipulating words and definitions to score political points that have nothing to do with her story.
No One Is Trying to Ban Saving a Mother’s Life
First of all, the tragic death of a child in utero in order to save his mother’s life is legal in every state. No one is seeking to force mothers to die trying to carry their babies to term, just like no one is seeking to criminalize miscarriage. (A miscarriage, since Teigen claims to have not understood the difference, is understood as the spontaneous and unintentional loss of a child in the womb — different from an abortion, which is induced with the intent of ending the pregnancy and by extension the baby’s life. Medically clearing a mother’s womb after a baby has spontaneously died in utero is also not abortion.)
So for Teigen to describe a tragic but not legally controversial situation as an “abortion,” something leftists like her want to allow for any reason up to the moment a baby is being born, is playing dirty. Why a grieving mother would deliberately politicize the death of her child, I can’t comprehend. But her motive aside, Teigen’s alleged situation and the abortions that are the subjects of “abortion bans” are not at all the same thing.
Is the Goal to Kill the Baby?
Even if Teigen did submit to a lifesaving procedure knowing her baby wouldn’t survive it (she shared that her baby already had no chance of survival anyway), the intended goal of the procedure matters.
Teigen didn’t share the details of her medical procedure, but in her initial post, she wrote to her son, “I’m so sorry that the first few moments of your life were met with so many complications, that we couldn’t give you the home you needed to survive.”
“We were never able to stop the bleeding and give our baby the fluids he needed, despite bags and bags of blood transfusions,” Teigen added. Often, doctors will address life-threatening maternal health risks by delivering a baby early, which Teigen’s description suggests likely happened here. That’s hardly the same thing as reaching a vacuum or pincers into a mother’s womb and ripping out her baby limb by limb.
Not only is delivery more humane to the pain-capable baby, it has a different goal. In one instance, the baby’s inability to survive outside the womb after delivery is a tragic casualty of the inducement required to save his mother’s life, but it is not the goal of the procedure. In the other, discarding the baby’s life, body, and existence is precisely the goal. Pro-life advocates make this distinction all the time, and it’s cruelly dishonest of Teigen to ignore it (though in her defense, it’s possible she’s just that ignorant).
Once Again, Teigen Is Making Everything About Her
Teigen’s ploy for abortion-lovers’ accolades is also cruel to mothers who have survived miscarriages, or who have been through life-saving procedures that cost the lives of their babies. For Teigen to paint their tragedies as “abortions” is to cast unfair and unnecessary guilt on them for circumstances completely unlike those of a woman going to her local Planned Parenthood to get rid of a baby she doesn’t want. (Roughly 3 in 4 women who get abortions do so simply because they think “having a baby would dramatically change my life.”)
For a husband and wife to go through the decision-making process that leads to delivering a baby early to save the mother’s life must surely be excruciating, and my heart goes out to Teigen and her husband John Legend for ever being in such a position. But if Teigen is going to deceptively misconstrue the death of her son and then capitalize on it to score political points with the pro-abortion crowd, that’s where my sympathy stops.