It takes real skill for the New York Times' progressive propagandists to frame the case of baby Charlie Gard in terms that comfort the sensibilities of their readers.  After all, the state requiring the death of an infant whose parents dearly love him and have the means to seek experimental treatment (thanks to donations) looks really, really bad.  Even worse, the underlying logic justifying state intervention to kill the baby is utterly unpalatable if spoken aloud, as Daren Jonescu explains today elsewhere on these pages. This Times news article by Dan Bilefsky and Sewell Chan demonstrates expert moral inversion.  Behold the jiu-jitsu executed in the first two paragraphs: The long journey for Connie Yates and Chris Gard, whose infant son, Charlie, cannot breathe or move on his own, appeared to have come to an end last week. The courts had ruled that the baby's rare genetic condition was incurable and that the only humane...(Read Full Post)