By Dave Andrusko
Monday is Presidents’ Day and if I’ve learned anything over the years, it’s that many people have that Monday off and may (or may not) keep tabs on what’s going on. I’d like to make a few points about Presidents’ Day and pro-lifers, all of which are elaborations on a simple but deeply disturbing thought: what if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 presidential election? So by way of looking ahead to the beginning of next week, let me start by encouraging you to read Maria Gallagher’s “Presidents’ Day and Abortion.” Maria, legislative director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, is a terrific writer and her every article is thought-provoking and well-reasoned
So let’s play Alternate History which, in its simplest form, is just a “what if?” How would history be different if there had been a different outcome to a given event?
On this President’s Day, February 18, 2018, where would we be if pro-abortion Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? Given how narrow were President Trump’s margins in a number of key states, that surely could have come to pass.
The Establishment Media would have lectured us incessantly that we’ve finally cracked the ultimate glass ceiling. Having done so, we were all obliged to make sure Clinton’s presidency is a success. To do otherwise would be labeled sexist, if not worse.
On Inauguration Day there would have been no non-stop demonstrations fed, nurtured, and egged on by almost the entirety of the Media Elite. Just a celebration that the “right” candidate had won.
By now Clinton’s replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia would be on the High Court, someone whose judicial philosophy would be as far away from Scalia’s originalism and textualism as the East is from the West.
Whereas President Trump’s successful choice for the High Court, federal appeals court Judge (now Justice) Neil Gorsuch, in a speech delivered in 2016 talked about the need for judges “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best,” you could rest assured that remolding society over (and over) would be the bedrock viewpoint of any Clinton nominee.
The Mexico City Policy, which Mr. Trump reinstated and expanded in reach and scope, would not merely have stayed dormant under a President Clinton. Always remember that in many ways and for many years, Clinton represented the crucial nexus of the worldwide campaign to erase any and all protective abortion statutes around the world.
Thus, funding abortion at home and abroad would be a major presidential initiative, just as the relentless determination to reverse the decline in the number of abortions would be near the top of her agenda. Pro-abortionists never flatly admit this, but this is the inevitable result of every policy they promote. Less than one million abortions a year in the United States is, they would insist, prima facie evidence of an “unmet need.”
Bills to defund Planned Parenthood, pass The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and The Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act would go forward, regardless of who was President. But they would in the sure knowledge that while Mr. Trump would sign them, Mrs. Clinton would veto them.
And we have just scratched the surfaces of the “what ifs?”
For instance, conscience protection. President Trump’s administration has undertaken a number of initiatives to protect medical personnel (and others) from being forced to participate, even indirectly, in abortion. Just last month the Department of Health and Human Services announced the formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Such protections—of conscience and First Amendment freedom of religion—would be anathema to a President Hillary Clinton. She would every instrument at her disposal to shove participation in abortion down the unwilling throats of tens of millions of Americans.
We are now more than year into Mr. Trump’s presidency and the hysteria meter has been so revved up you wonder how it can’t be broken. There is nothing that will not be said, no depths too low to sink to, in the coordinated effort to destabilize his administration.
Clearly, preserving abortion is not the only reason for the onslaught, but also no less clearly it is a major one. The Democrat Party is in the throes of the Planned Parenthoods and the NARALs and the EMILY Lists and many of the party’s major donors vibrate in sympathetic harmony with the Abortion Industry insatiable lust for killing.
When you reflect on the difference all your efforts made, remember for Hillary Clinton and her ilk there can never, ever, ever be enough abortions.