Hillary Clinton: Wrong again on abortion

By Dave Andrusko

I missed the latest contributions from pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, so thanks to Lauretta Brown of Town Hall for “Hillary Clinton Defends Late Term Abortion and Implies Trump Lied About the Issue but Fails to Disprove His Claims.”

Clinton tweeted her unhappiness with the man who beat her in 2016, in this specific case for what he said about abortion (and infanticide) in his very well-received and moving State of the Union (SOTU) address.

As is always the case with abortion apologists, Clinton tosses out sound bites without context.

Only about 1% of abortions happen later in pregnancy—almost always because a woman’s health or life is at risk, or the pregnancy is no longer viable.

Lying about this is dangerous, and a slap in the face to families who face heartbreaking situations. [Then she links to a New York Times story.]

There is nothing (as we discussed earlier today and umpteen times before) to back up the assertion that these post-20 week abortions are “almost always because a woman’s health or life is at risk, or the pregnancy is no longer viable.” Nothing. Even the abortion industry’s think-tank, the Guttmacher Institute, and the raft of pro-abortion professors at places such as the University of California San Francisco admit that is not true.

The “only” reference applies to late abortions in a different sense. Only rarely is a baby aborted this late because of a fetal anomaly. In other words, as always, Clinton’s talking points have everything backwards.

“Lying”? Who is lying, Hillary Clinton or President Trump? Mrs. Clinton, of course, whenever the topic is abortion.

Ms. Brown takes the time to go to the New York Times article to which Clinton linked, written by Pam Belluck. It is replete with the customary go-to points by apologists for late term abortions.

The long and the short of it is found in the story’s subhead: President Trump “ used scary imagery that scientists say is incorrect.” [My emphasis.]

To give you some idea of the reliability of science in this domain, Belluck offers two examples of the discussion over fetal pain, both outdated.

One appeared in 2005 in JAMA and purported to show (as NRLC noted at the time, “that there is no good evidence that human fetuses feel pain before 29 weeks (during the seventh month).” Belluck’s one-sentence summary omits the 29 week figure because it would completely undercut her editorial masquerading as a news story. She also omits, as did the editor of JAMA at the time, “The so-called ‘study’ was produced by pro-abortion activists and a well-known practitioner of late abortions.”

The second was a 2010 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review of research which concluded that “most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception” so “the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior” to 24 weeks (to quote Belluck). That has been debunked by, among others, Dr. Peter Saunders.

Note the dates– 2005 and 2010—and both were summarizing research previously published. Have we learned nothing new about the reality of fetal pain in a decade?

To the Hillary Clintons of this world, the scientific world stands still. This allows them to cling to myths that assuage their consciences and fool the public.