Trump hit a very sensitive nerve when accurately describing Clinton’s abortion extremism

By Dave Andrusko

trumpclintonabortion3debateNRL News Today has already posted a number of stories about Wednesday’s third and final presidential debate, including debunking the preposterous notions that pro-abortion Hillary Clinton either outfoxed pro-life Donald Trump on the abortion issue and/or Trump mangled the question of late, LATE abortions.

Here are a few additional thoughts, since the stories keep pouring in. BTW, the haste/depth/viciousness of the shots at Trump continue to bear out what I said Thursday. In talking straightforwardly about Clinton’s extremist times two position on abortion, he had struck a very sensitive nerve.

The story line is that Trump implied there is a torrent of late-term abortions–and by “late,” critics mean the last week.

He said nothing of the sort. Trump talked about what Hillary Clinton has said–and how she had voted as a United Senator. There weren’t hypotheticals, these were indisputable facts and logical conclusions Trump rightly drew from Clinton’s behavior.

For example, questioned by Fox News moderator Chris Wallace, Clinton didn’t deny she’d voted [multiple times, in fact] against a ban on partial-birth abortions. Instead, as pro-abortionists always do, she skipped acknowledging that and immediately went to the most extreme cases, even though–as NRLC pointed years ago– Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times in 1997: “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.”

How about her backup escape clause–the need for a “health exception”? Even abortion advocates, when pressed, on occasion will grudgingly acknowledge that this “exception” is infinitely elastic: there is no abortion for which an “exception” cannot be found.

What about Trump’s comment after Clinton responded, which pro-abortion critics jumped on?

Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

That would be an unfair characterization if Hillary Clinton–a lawyer, by the way–had not made it abundantly clear this is her position. She told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, ”The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” and in response to a question from The View’s Paula Faris –“are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?”– answered, “Under our law, that is the case, Paula. I support Roe v Wade.”

subscribetonrlnews

Related item. Several stories popped up in the last day or so to the effect that some members of focus groups found Trump’s description “disgusting.” Well…

(a) Most were self-identified Clinton supporters

(b) Who wouldn’t be disgusted, not by Trump’s use of truthful language, but by abortion’s sheer brutality?