By Dave Andrusko
Let me begin by encouraging you to read Maria Gallagher’s, “A Pro-Life Reflection for President’s Day.” Maria, legislative director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, is a terrific writer and every article she posts ripples with insights.
I’d like to build on her wonderful foundation, to make a couple of additional points about President’s Day and pro-lifers.
We’ve heard a lot–a lot–about fake news, but with a different twist. Something is dubbed fake news because it does not fit neatly into the major media’s narrative which largely consists of one line: President Trump must be stopped in his tracks by any and all means, fair and (most often) foul.
But then there is a different alternative narrative. Alternate History, in its simplest form, is just a “what if?” How would the stream of history have been altered if there had been a different outcome to a particularly historic event?
Let’s consider on this President’s Day, February 18, 2019, where would we be if pro-abortion Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? President Trump’s margins in a number of key states were paper-thin, so surely that could have come to pass.
We would be told unceasingly that we’ve finally cracked the ultimate glass ceiling and now we are obliged to make sure that Hillary Clinton’s presidency is a success. To do otherwise would be labeled sexist, if not worse.
There would be no non-stop demonstrations fed, nurture, and egged on by almost the entirety of the Media Elite. Just a celebration that the “correct” candidate had won.
“President Hillary Clinton” would have nominated a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, someone whose judicial philosophy would be as far away from Scalia’s originalism and textualism as the East is from the West. Likewise to replace retiring justice Anthony Kennedy. You could rest assured that remolding society over (and over) would be the bedrock viewpoint of any Clinton nominee.
Whereas President Trump’s choice for the High Court were federal Judges Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
But, we would be told, Democrats in general, a President Hillary Clinton in particular, were “owed” the right to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones to the nation’s highest court, so just get over it.
Mr. Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy is a significant reiteration and expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy. Funding abortion at home and abroad would be a major presidential initiative under a President Hillary
Clinton, 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.
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.
Bills to defund Planned Parenthood, pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act would be worked on in the sure knowledge that Mr. Trump would sign them, should they pass, and Mrs. Clinton would veto them.
And we have just scratched the surfaces of the “what ifs?”
We are now past half-way into Mr. Trump first term and the hysteria meter has been so revved up it’s almost broken. There is nothing that will not be said, no depths too low to sink, in the coordinated effort to destabilize his administration.
Clearly, preserving abortion is not the only reason for the onslaught, but also no less clear, 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 be enough abortions.