AP story on Trump no different than pro-abortion Talking Points Memo

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life President Donald Trump

Before deconstructing a pro-abortion Talking Points Memo disguised as an Associated Press story, just a quick thought about pro-life President Donald Trump’s continuing improvement in public opinion polls. If you go to Real Clear Politics’ average of major polls taken since May 21, you see two results which are constants over time but often missed.

First, polls taken of “adults” are always much lower. Gallup and CBS News have him at 40% approval.

By contrast, polls of “registered voters” or “likely voters” are appreciably higher, from 44% (Reuters/Ipsos) to 48% (Rasmussen Reports).

Just a few words about “How the Trump administration is remaking federal policy on women’s reproductive health,” written by Associated Press reporters Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and David Crary which ran Wednesday.

For starters, “Step by methodical step, the Trump administration is remaking government policy on reproductive health,” they write. “Social and religious conservatives praise the administration for promoting ‘a culture of life.’ But women’s-rights activists and some medical experts view the multi-pronged changes as a dangerous ideological shift that could increase unintended pregnancies and abortions.”

To be clear, it is true that nothing but nothing that pro-lifers do administratively or legislative ever has a positive outcome for the Abortion Industry. Why would it? We are not in the business of fattening their bottom line. We’re here to save unborn babies and their mothers.

Likewise, we’re told these same proposals always, inevitably, without exception increase the number of abortions. This, in spite of the reduced number of abortions going back to 1990, and the not-very- well hidden desire of the Planned Parenthoods of this world not to reduce the number of abortions but to increase them.

In their minds there is always an “unmet need.”

But when it comes to news accounts about abortion and any pro-life administration, there ought to have some sort of balance between pro- and anti-life perspectives. With rare exceptions—and this is not one of them—this does not happen.

Alonso-Zaldivar and Crary correctly quote the President saying, “When I ran for office, I pledged to stand for life.” Ditto when they write

Most of the changes involve rules and regulations under the administration’s direct control, such as a proposal to forbid federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions and separately allowing more employers who cite moral or religious reasons to opt out of no-cost birth control for women workers.

Unmentioned is that in many instances, the Trump Administration is merely using for pro-life purposes the same mechanisms pro-abortion President Barack Obama employed to mangle freedom of conscience provisions or to prevent states from directing their family planning money to full-service health clinics.

If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander, right? Not if you read these stories.

Before they go on to offer a forum for pro-abortionists to vent, they add, “Trump also is appointing numerous new federal judges endorsed by anti-abortion groups.”

You mean Planned Parenthood and NARAL and EMILY’s List didn’t have a major voice in deciding judicial nominations during the Obama years? Please.

One other point. When all else fails, the last refuge of pro-abortionists is that pro-lifers want to “go back to the past” and/or that saving unborn babies is nothing more than an expression of traditional sexual ethics.

So Alonso-Zaldivar and Crary set the table by writing, “At a time when social mores on human reproduction continue changing across the world, some see the U.S. in a time warp.” [The famous “some see.”]

“A lot of social conservative activists are still fighting the battles from the ’60s and the sexual revolution,” said Adam Sonfield, policy manager at The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. “That’s their ultimate goal — that some people will just give up and stop having sex.”

This, of course, is preposterous, as I’m sure Alonso-Zaldivar and Crary know. But if the objective is to caricature and (in the process) marginalize pro-lifers, it makes for good propaganda.

But what else can they do? Since they avoid talking about severing tiny arms and arms or crushing little skulls like the plague, they have to talk about something—anything—else, right?

In a speech delivered in March, pro-life Vice President Mike Pence said, “I see more progress in the last year in the cause of life than I have seen in public policy in all my years in public life.” On that occasion, and many other occasions, he has called President Trump “The most pro-life President in American history.”

That’s what drives the likes of Adam Sonfield crazy.

But that also explains why our Movement is so grateful for all that the President has already done and will do to save unborn babies, at home and abroad.