Another lame pro-abortion attack on the Hyde Amendment

By Dave Andrusko

Say what you will about the delusional nature of their insistence, it’s refreshing when pro-abortionists stop beating around the bush and just announce that it is your and my obligation to pay for their abortions.

This, by the way, was one of Hillary Clinton’s “new” arguments in 2016. For the first time Planned Parenthood had endorsed a candidate in the primary: Hillary Clinton.

In January of that year, a grateful Clinton told the crowd in New Hampshire, “Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,” and that included “laws on the book like the Hyde Amendment making it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

Never mind that for decades a solid majority of Americans has made it abundantly clear they do not want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, which is what the Hyde Amendment prevents. But it is exactly that consensus that Moira Donegan attacks in the Guardian under the headline: “Yes, I do want your taxes to pay for abortion.”

Anything new in Ms. Donegan’s argument, anything that we haven’t heard two million times before? (Coincidentally, it is estimated that two million lives have been saved by the Hyde Amendment, which is why pro-abortions loathe it so.)

Certainly nothing new in the first few paragraphs where she hyperventilates over the increase of Republicans in the Senate from 51 to 53. The one “new” argument is actually a recycled rip-off from the days when pro-abortionists controlled both the House and the Senate. “[I]n the House, where Democrats regained control a more diverse, more female, class of incoming representatives, one major abortion rights victory is closer than it ever has been before: the end of the odious Hyde Amendment.”

Really? Before Donegan’s lays out how control of one House of Congress while the other (and the Presidency) is controlled by pro-life Republicans can actually make this all come to pass, she vents her spleen in the usual caricature of the Hyde Amendment.

And then back to the reason it can pass. Which is?

The “reason” it could pass is that, well, pro-abortion House Democrats will try really hard.

Since that is a very slim reed to rest her hopes on, she switches gears to make the typically inane comparisons, i.e., men can’t abort; you can’t choose which activities to fund since abortion is a constitutional right [and “human right”]; and, for good measure, the Hyde Amendment “should be ended because our laws should be aimed at helping Americans exercise their full rights, maintain their full dignity, and fulfill their full potential.”

Each “argument” is flimsier that the one before, but how could it be otherwise? The public fully understands, even if Hillary Clinton and Moira Donegan don’t, that abortion is different.

Even when the Supreme Court was most hostile to the pro-life cause, in 1980 the justices ruled in Harris v. McRae that states could distinguish between abortion and “other medical procedures” because “no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”

How important is [non-]public funding of abortions? Prior to the Hyde Amendment you and I footed the bill for 300,000 abortions a year.

In a revealing speaking of the tongue, Donegan ends her op-ed

Abortion access is a precious public god [sic] that is necessary for women to be complete citizens, truly equal in freedom and opportunity to men.

Indeed, “abortion access” is not just a “good” to the pro-abortionist, it is more like a secular deity before which they kneel.