A few nights ago, Jimmy Kimmel opened his show with a tearful monologue discussing his newborn son, who was born with a rare heart disease and had to undergo an emergency surgery just hours after being born. Kimmel, who is known to be a big family man, was understandably shaken up by the event, shedding a tears on the stage.

Thankfully, after a successful surgery, William John Kimmel is now doing well and is at home with his family. Kimmel shared a picture of the healthy, smiling baby boy, which received a loud applause from the audience.

I always love when celebrities celebrate their wives and kids publicly and I admire Kimmel for sharing about this scary experience in such a vulnerable way. However, while my hope isn’t to downplay any traumatic experiences like Kimmel’s, I can’t help but notice the irony of this situation in relation to the tragedy of abortion. 

Kimmel’s story tugged on heartstrings of people around the nation, not necessarily because he’s a celebrity, but because his story is about an innocent life that was in danger. Most everyone can agree that this situation is scary and that the life of a human being is the most valuable thing there is. However, to many, including most celebrities, a baby in his mother’s womb is not a human being at all, but rather a “clump of cells” and a “choice” to be made.

There are only two things that differentiate children like William from babies whose lives are ended in their mothers’ wombs – their location and the fact that they were wanted. 

This contradiction is glaring and disheartening. How could these two things possibly change the value of a life so drastically?

The answer? They don’t. At all. 

The irony only continues. After telling his story, Kimmel uses his experience as a platform to discuss a political issue – no, surprisingly not abortion or the value of life even at an early stage of development. Instead, in response to President Trump’s promise to repeal Obamacare, he chose to discuss healthcare.

In tears he said, “If your baby is going to die and doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make. I think that’s something – whether you’re a Republican or Democrat or something else – we all agree on that.”

In response to the monologue, Whoopi Goldberg chimed in on her talk show The View, saying, “It should not be about whether you can afford to save your kid’s life, it should be that you’re entitled to save your kid’s life.”

Former President Barak Obama tweeted, “Well said, Jimmy. That’s exactly why we fought so hard for the [Affordable Care Act], and why we need to protect it for kids like Billy.”

Regardless of your views on healthcare, these comments should strike you as painfully ironic. The same people who passionately argue that we should be entitled to save the life of a child also believe that we should be entitled to end the life of a child. And that their political agenda protects “kids like Billy” but gives no mention to the 60 million kids whose lives were ended by abortion. 

Again, my hope is not to downplay or discredit the horror of being a parent whose infant’s life is in danger, or to take a stance on health care for that matter. My hope is that people like Kimmel, who display a beautiful and deep value for life outside of the womb, will soon see that the same care and protection must be afforded to the human beings inside of the womb.

For just $30 a month, you can partner with us in empowering women and saving lives of innocent children. 

Brenna Skattebo

Brenna works in the marketing department as the Content Manager and loves having the chance to draw people into what Save the Storks is doing through storytelling and keeping them up-to-date with pro-life news. When she’s not saving storks, she can be found exploring Colorado with her husband or playing with her adorable niece and nephew. Follow her adventures on Instagram.

  • Linda Rowland Kruschke

    “If your baby is going to die and doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make. I think that’s something – whether you’re a Republican or Democrat or something else – we all agree on that.”

    I can certainly agree on that. Considering many abortions occur because the mother (and sometimes the father) believe they can’t afford to raise a child, I definitely agree that they shouldn’t have the death of their child be the only option they can afford.

  • Lori Gluck

    I’m happy for his baby and I’m happy the baby survived…..not downplaying the trauma in the slightest…. but he should NOT have turned it political, the FACT is the only difference between his baby boy being covered by insurance now and 15 year ago is that 15 years ago the out of Kimmels pocket portion would have been less!!! A new baby, born to parent(s) that had insurance is NOT excluded due to pre existing conditions….. I have a child that had a major heart defect, her open heart surgery was covered…. she has a sub class immune deficiency….. she has had it since birth, has had multiple hospitalizations due to it, all covered by insurance, the difference? 8 years ago my co-pay for her medication was $75 a month, as of last month the co-pay is $1700 and yes that’s true, if it was not for her secondary insurance she would not be on her meds, and would be back in the hospital all the time…. so Jimmy K…. I hope your son does as well as my daughter has done…. she wasn’t supposed to see her 1st birthday and almost didn’t, but stick to loving your little boy and stay out of the politics of insurance…. I KNOW you are wrong about this one

  • blancheknott

    Completely agree. But this baby is nowhere near out of the woods yet. He
    will need many surgeries as he grows up and may not live to adulthood. I
    could not help wondering: if the Kimmels knew their child had tetralogy
    of Fallot with pulmonary atresia BEFORE he was born, would they have
    aborted him?
    I hope this experience changes Jimmy Kimmel’s pro-choice mind, even a little bit.

  • flavofaze

    …amen,amen, amen…