Is Warren Buffett an Abortion Crusader?

A recent article in Fox News tells an apparently little-known story. Warren Buffet, the infamously wealthy philanthro-capitalist, has apparently given over a billion dollars to fund abortion through his late wife’s foundation, The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

The American front of the Buffett Foundation is headed up by Tracy Weitz. You might remember her as one of the panelists in a Washington Examiner interview who had this horrifying explanation of the moral impropriety of Kermit Gosnell’s abortion techniques:

I think it’s important to recognize that this particular procedure is nowhere in the medical literature. When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.

 

So this technique that he does is nowhere in the lexicon of practice in abortion care. So, in terms of thinking about the difference between the way abortion providers who do later abortions in the United States practice, and this particular practice, they are completely worlds apart.

So it’s no surprise that one of the main beneficiaries of the Buffett Foundation is Planned Parenthood. And just to set your mind at ease, Planned Parenthood always makes sure to collapse the skull of the baby while it is still in the womb.

As with most things in the topsy-turvy world of leftist compassion, Planned Parenthood has successfully convinced many Americans that it is in fact a “women’s health” organization. And the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation is humanitarian. And Warren Buffett is a philanthropist.

As the Fox News article points out, the 1.2 billion dollars that Buffett has given to Planned Parenthood, and other “reproductive rights organizations” was sufficient to pay for about 2.7 million first-trimester abortions. But it is unlikely Warren Buffett’s uncular persona will be affected by this “new” revelation. In fact, most people won’t report on it:

If you give $1,000 to a ballot initiative to defend traditional marriage, that’s controversial. If you give $1.25 billion to promote abortion, journalists, who are wildly pro-abortion, don’t dare see any controversy.

Chalk it up to the neutrality of journalism I guess. Right.