During the past eight years, President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion position has been devastating to unborn babies and the Americans who fight to protect their rights. But the abortion climate in America could get even worse if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru predicted.
“During the Obama years, liberalism became more aggressive in its support of abortion. Hillary Clinton’s campaign reflects this new attitude,” Ponnuru wrote. “If she is elected, her administration is likely to reach a new extreme in the depth of its commitment to keeping abortion legal, expanding subsidies for it, and insulating these policies from democratic review.”
Ponnuru pointed out that Clinton’s radical abortion position is similar to Obama’s. She has said in various interviews that an unborn child just hours before birth should have no Constitutional rights. In February, Clinton defended the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. Clinton also said she wants to overturn the Hyde Amendment and force taxpayers to pay for abortions.
The Democratic Party used to be more moderate on abortion, or at least make people think that it was, Ponnuru said. The Clintons used to say that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and Hillary Clinton once described an abortion as a “tragic” decision. But the political climate on abortion has changed, Ponnuru wrote, and Clinton and the Democrats now are pushing the public to accept abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. They want the public to treat abortions as if they were good for women, and they want taxpayers to pay for them.
His column continued:
The Democratic platform has not said since 2004 that abortion should be rare. The 2016 platform says its availability is a matter of “justice.” The platform had for years said that abortion should be available regardless of ability to pay; now it includes an explicit call to repeal the Hyde amendment, a budget provision in place since the late 1970s that keeps federal Medicaid funds from paying for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life.
Clinton has herself said that Hyde should go. A right is “no right at all,” she says, if the government does not enable you to exercise it. (No word on whether people having a hard time buying guns will get Second Amendment subsidies.) In 1994, Clinton strongly supported health-care legislation that included robust protections for abortion opponents: Employers who objected to “abortion or other services” for moral reasons were not to be required to include it in their health coverage. Now Clinton, together with most of her party, condemns the idea that employers should be allowed to “impose their religious beliefs on their employees” through their coverage decisions.
Though Clinton’s and the Democratic Party’s radical stance is out of touch with most people’s views on abortion, Ponnuru argued that they see an opportunity to push their agenda on a divided America:
Democrats are trying to lead rather than follow public opinion on abortion. Many liberals have concluded over the last decade that they have been ceding too much ground on the issue. The years Democrats talked about making abortion rare and called it tragic saw an increase in the number of pro-life laws, from waiting periods to bans on partial-birth abortion. Many of them dislike that kind of talk on principle: Saying that abortion is “tragic” and to be reduced, after all, suggests that it is something more problematic than the removal of a tumor.
Liberals have also had less need to make concessions of any kind to conservatism in recent years. The collapse of the Republican party during Bush’s second term; its continued internal divisions and demographic decay; and, now, its embrace of Donald Trump: All have given them the sense that compromise is unnecessary. On abortion specifically, liberals have been liberated by the extinction of pro-life Democrats. And they have not been given recent reason to fear that extremism would have a cost. At no point since the debate over partial-birth abortion — the federal law against which was signed 13 years ago — have pro-lifers managed to keep the national debate focused on that extremism. Trump could change that now that the Democrats are openly campaigning on subsidies for abortion. But his own history on the subject and his lack of interest in it both argue against his taking the offensive. His convention speech ignored it.
The U.S. already has extreme abortion laws, compared to the rest of the world. The United States is one of only a handful of countries that allows abortions after 20 weeks for any reason. Others include China, North Korea and Vietnam. But that is not enough for the abortion industry and its allies in the Democratic Party. They want abortion to be legal and readily available to any one, for any reason up until the moment of birth. And they want taxpayers to pay for them.
If Clinton wins the White House, she could solidify the United States’ status as one of the most pro-abortion countries in the world for years to come – and jeopardize the lives of millions of innocent babies in the womb.