The once-venerable Lancet medical journal has launched a campaign to reduce stillbirths and small vulnerable newborns (SVNs), while paradoxically pushing for unlimited rights to kill unborn children through abortion.
In a new series titled “The ethical, economic, and developmental imperative to prevent small vulnerable newborns and stillbirths: essential actions to improve the country and global response,” the Lancet analyzes the causes of pre-term births and stillbirths while urging concerted international action to address the problem.
“We call for action in every country to reduce the number of SVNs and stillbirths, and in support of existing national and international targets,” the journal declares, adding that the action would be based on three pillars, namely, problem recognition, intervention implementation, and measurement and accountability.
Ironically, in its prior issue, the Lancet adopted an aggressive pro-abortion stand, urging the repeal of all U.S. state legislation restricting abortions.
The U.K.-based journal declared:
We call for the Oklahoma Legislature and other US states with abortion bans to repeal these laws, and for the US Congress and the national legislatures in other countries with laws that criminalise abortion to enact legislation that creates legal protections for the right to provide and access abortion care as part of a broader protection of the full spectrum of reproductive health care.
“Laws that protect everyone’s right to reproductive health and autonomy are needed,” the Lancet insisted.
Like other leftwing media, the Lancet had already condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, asserting it represented the culmination of long-standing efforts to “eviscerate the federal constitutional right to abortion in the USA.”
Before the Dobbs decision, the Lancet had called for the defense of Roe v. Wade and for continued abortion-on-demand in the United States.
In a May 14, 2022, piece titled “Why Roe v. Wade must be defended,” the journal’s editorial board dismissed the U.S. Constitution as “an 18th century document ignorant of 21st century realities for women” while urging the U.S. justices to look beyond the Constitution for inspiration in their ruling, which would betray their sworn duty.
In its medical schizophrenia, the Lancet editors cannot seem to make up their minds whether young human life has intrinsic value and is worth defending or not.
In its latest issue, the journal insists on the need to “make SVN prevention a health priority” and to “scale up high-quality care for women, particularly during pregnancy and at birth.”
At the same time, the Lancet has dug in its heels on the abortion issue, asserting that preborn babies have no dignity and can be disposed of at will.
With such internal contradiction and political pandering, it is no wonder the once-prestigious Lancet has lost both its luster and its scientific credibility.