By Dave Andrusko
This post at the liberal, pro-abortion American Prospect is headlined “Under Siege, Abortion-Rights Advocates Must Link Health Care to Economic Prosperity.”
Why is Deana A. Rohlinger’s 1,116-word-long post very much worth ten minutes of your time?
First and foremost, when they get shellacked, pro-abortionists reluctantly concede (in a backhanded way) that they are almost always going to lose if the binary options are pro-life/”pro-choice.” That’s why support for crushing and snapping and suctioning out the bodies of helpless unborn babies must be part of a larger package, often disingenuously labeled, “reproductive health.” Rohlinger is attempting to add an economic component.
Second, they use quotations from pro-life sources to make the point that the pro-life candidate, Donald Trump, won, garnering over 300 electoral votes, over pro-abortion Hillary Clinton. The irony is in quoting me, Rohlinger neglects to mention what prompted me to say we had won in the first place: Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards!
In response to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s question, ”Do you think that Roe v. Wade is at risk?,” Richards responded, “Absolutely.”
“I mean, I think Roe vs. Wade was on the ballot in this election.”
So I was merely confirming and fleshing out the truism that pro-abortionists had made the fight over the end of time (aka the reversal of Roe v. Wade) a centerpiece of their massive financial outpourings.
With our infinitely smaller resources, so did we. And both sides made it clear Clinton was for abortion on demand forever and a day and Trump favored the nomination of justices to the Supreme Court who appreciated was a jurisprudential abomination the 1973 decision actually was.
Third, in calling for female solidarity, NARAL, PPAction Fund, EMILY’s List preached fire and brimstone secular sermons. But for all the gloom-and-doom forecasts, had it not been for the near uniform vote of female African-Americans for Hillary Clinton, Trump would have carried the vote of “women.”
Rohlinger has a sexist (in the purest sense) explanation for why white women without college educations (you know, the “deplorables”) went for Trump 62 to 34% but struggles to explain why Trump won 45% of white women with a college degree–and 53% of white women overall.
The overall point here is that pro-abortionists have to repackage their pro-death in something like what they would frame as economic equity. The faulty assumption is women are as stupid as Rohlinger and her condescending ilk believe them to be. Finally
Fourth, an excruciating painful acknowledgement that the white pro-abortion feminist movement is elitist from the top of the heads down to their Giuseppe Zanotti Double Zip Sneakers.
Almost since its inception, the women’s movement—and to some degree the reproductive-rights movement at its core—has faced charges of elitism. Fairly or not, critics have faulted the movement for speaking to well-educated, upper-middle-class white women, and leaving everyone else behind. For abortion-rights advocates who now see their most important victories under threat, this election should be a wake-up call. It is clear that reproductive-rights advocates need to do a better job of getting outside of their political silos and talking to the citizens in the suburban and rural areas whom they want to win over.
But don’t worry, that massive, snobbish, decades-long tone-deaf behavior is easy to fix. Those more affluent women who didn’t know where their real economic interests lay in 2016 along with the hicks from the rural areas are easily susceptible to (how shall I put this?) re-education by their betters.
George Bernard Shaw could have been talking about them when he said, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”