Trump triumph petrifies pro-abortionists

By Dave Andrusko

Often it may be true that our opposite numbers more fully appreciate the significance of an incoming pro-life presidency than we do. Here’s the pivotal paragraph from “Abortion Foes, Emboldened by Trump, Promise ‘Onslaught’ of Tough Restrictions,” by the New York Times’ Sabrina Tavernise and Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

The effects of Mr. Trump’s victory are only beginning to be felt. But one of the biggest changes is playing out in abortion politics. From the composition of the Supreme Court (Mr. Trump has promised to nominate staunchly anti-abortion justices), to efforts on Capitol Hill to enact a permanent ban on taxpayer-financed abortions, to emboldened Republican statehouses like the one in Ohio, combatants on both sides see legalized abortion imperiled as it has not been for decades.

The story uses passage in the Ohio state legislature of two pro-life measures as the jumping off point for the story. Christina Hagan, the youngest woman in the Ohio Legislature, said (referring to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act)

“President-elect Trump has drastically shifted the dynamics,” said Ms. Hagan, 28, a Republican who has served in the State House since 2011. “I honestly could not have foreseen this victory a week or a month ago.”

As NRL News Today reported last week, passage of SB 127 came during the closing hours of a lame duck legislative session. If there is not time for Ohio Gov. John Kasich to sign the measure, legislators would have time to tweak SB127 to make it more closely follow the NRLC model bill.

According to the Times story, the other side fully grasps the significance of Trump’s victory over pro-abortion-to-the-hilt Hillary Clinton.

“I think we are standing on the precipice of a really dark time,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of Naral Pro-Choice America. She said that Mr. Trump had “zero mandate” to roll back Roe, and that her group would fight back hard; its fund-raising and membership are up.

Of course, that is preposterous. Has there ever been a presidential contest in which the difference on abortion was spelled out with such clarity and such specificity?

Hillary Clinton opposed every limitation, no matter how minimal, on abortion. She also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion when she was in the U.S. Senate and made clear as a candidate she was 100% against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. And of course every Clinton appointment to the Supreme Court would support Roe v. Wade.

While a candidate, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly promised to nominate only pro-life Supreme Court justices. He also vowed to retain the life-saving Hyde Amendment, sign into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide, defund Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and reallocate their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women.

And, as NRL News Today has reported, Trump has already chosen a number of pro-lifers to fill important posts not only in his cabinet but elsewhere in his administration.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects unborn children after 20 weeks.  And no matter how many deniers there are on the Democratic side of the aisle, there is abundant evidence that by this point in development (and probably earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience excruciating pain during typical abortion procedures.

The law is already on the books in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Public radio station WVXU quoted former Ohio Supreme Court Justice and current Republican house member Bob Cupp, who said there are no questions about its constitutionality. “In my judgement, it is not improbable that the U.S. Supreme Court will, in fact, uphold the 20 week limitations on abortions once it gets the case.”

Public opinion is strongly behind the pain-capable bill. As we reported on November 21, the polling company, inc./WomanTrend found almost two-thirds support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act—well more than double those who opposed.