By Dave Andrusko
When the wishes of a majority of the Senate this week (54 members) to advance the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act were blocked by a minority (42 members), it surely was no surprise that 40 pro-abortion Democrats would foil the desire to act on H.R. 36. It’s what they do—oppose any legislation that would circumscribe an absolute right to abortion, no matter how slightly.
And it’s of a piece with the response of pro-abortion Hillary Clinton gave last Sunday on Face the Nation.
Host John Dickerson asked the frontrunner for her party’s presidential nomination, “Do you support a federal limit on abortion at any stage of pregnancy?”
I watched her feint, duck, avoid the question, and filibuster. Conclusion? No, Clinton doesn’t believe in placing any limitation, whether “federal” or otherwise, on the unfettered right to abort at any time or any reason.
Damon Linker, writing at This Week, laid out the “political and moral” reasons ”Why liberals should support banning late-term abortions.” While certainly not our position—he seems to approve legal abortions the first 20 weeks of pregnancy– Linker does hit on the corner into which extremist Democrats (what he means by “liberals”) have painted themselves.
For example, try as they might to pretend the public is behind them, Democrats who oppose the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are completely out of step with public opinion. Linker demonstrate that there is barely one -quarter support for second-trimester abortions and just 14% for third-trimester abortions. He writes
Those are stunning numbers, suggesting profound ambivalence about the morality of terminating a pregnancy. And the numbers are only going to get worse, as ultrasound technology improves and medical advances slowly move the age of viability closer to conception. Mark my words: Sooner or later, and probably sooner, Democrats are going to pay a price for defending an unreasonably maximal position on abortion
And how comfortable can they be in the company of China, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam which permit abortion-on-demand after 20 weeks? It is incredible, not to say repulsive.
Linker nicely juxtaposes two ideas. First, that opponents of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act must deny the medical evidence that by 20 weeks fetal age, if not earlier, the child will experience excruciating pain as she is torn abort. What could you say to constituents if you couldn’t deny this?
Which is, second, why it is so significant that increasingly, pro-abortionists say, “So what?” Or, as Linker puts it, “proclaim the termination of a pregnancy at any stage to be a matter not just of moral indifference but actually a positive good for which no woman should ever feel the least bit of guilt or even ambivalence.”
Over the last two weeks, only a portion of the American people has seen just how totally enthralled the Democratic Party is to the Abortion Lobby. (The media is not interested in spelling out the ends to which the party will go.)
But as you and I continue to do our jobs, the larger public will come to understand that there are no limits to the Democratic Party’s embrace of abortion. And that most assuredly includes Hillary Clinton.