By Dave Andrusko
Where else, the Style section.
Which, given the content of Caitlin Gibson’s profile that ran yesterday, made perfect sense.
Were the story on page one, Gibson would be charged with violating the Sisterhood’s all-purpose would-you-say-something-similar-were it-a-man? put down for writing a passage such as this:
She is, as always, immaculately put together, her tall frame draped in a merlot-colored sheath and matching cardigan, gold earrings twinkling beneath her short, white-blond hair.
But the point of the latest in a seemingly endless stream of isn’t -she-the-greatest? stories is not about Richards’ attire but the political muscles PPFA has grown since she took over as president.
What Gibson does with this is two-fold.
First, emphasize how joined at the hip Richards and Hillary Clinton are. She reminds us that, for the first time, PPFA’s political arm endorsed a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary. And how they plan to pour oodles of money and utilize its organizational infrastructure to get her elected the 45th President.
Second, suggest that Clinton has done an “about face” on the Hyde Amendment.
Clinton has always opposed this provision of an annual bill which eliminates public funding for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Why wouldn’t she? It’s saved well over 1 million lives, a healthy portion of whose mothers would otherwise have had abortions at Planned Parenthood.
The change is that opposition to the Hyde Amendment is now in the party’s platform. Gibson aptly described federal funding of abortion as “the Maginot Line of the abortion wars .”
Democrats, prodded by an assortment of pro-abortion organizations such as PPFA, have persuaded themselves that public financing of abortion, a loser with the electorate for forever and a day, can be turned into a winner.
They will find out different but it is evidence that the Abortion Establishment is “bolder than it’s been in years,” to borrow from the story’s headline.
Gibson quoted NRLC President Carol Tobias who said
“I think Cecile Richards has now become the puppetmaster for Democrats in Congress,” adding, “There is no doubt that Cecile Richards wants to influence a President Clinton and control the Supreme Court.”
Tobias also flatly disagreed that the “telling your abortion story” is working:
“It’s an effort to make abortion acceptable in society, and I just don’t see it working,” Tobias says. “They’re not influencing women in America in general.”
One final thought and it is sparked by a comment found early in Gibson’s story. The day last June when the Supreme Court overturned portions of a Texas law intended to required abortion facilities to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and to make sure abortionists had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, Richards received a text indicating they had won:
Seeing that text, the president of Planned Parenthood ran out of her office and joined her staff, gathered around television sets, clapping and crying, to revel in a moment of joy.
Who knows how many additional women will be injured because these portions of HB 2 were gutted or what other shortcuts this will inspire the Abortion Industry to take.
But so what? The decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was in harmony with the mantra of the Abortion Establishment: more abortions–ever more abortions–and (they hope) paid for by you and me.
Now that is something to really cry about.