By Dave Andrusko
It is one thing for us, as pro-lifers, to highlight the self-evident truth about Democrats running for President, but it is quite another when the unofficial newspaper of the Abortion Industry acknowledges that Democrats have gone completely over to the dark side.
This headline and subhead for Maggie Astor’s story appearing in the New York Times confirms most, but not all, of what we have written about the 2019 incarnation of the Democrat Party:
“On Abortion Rights, 2020 Democrats Move Past ‘Safe, Legal and Rare’ : The Democratic presidential candidates don’t want to simply defend abortion rights. They want to go on offense.”
I say “most,” because to present the entire truth might (a) make most readers of the Times deliriously happy but (b) risk the full, gory, extremist truth getting out to the wider public which does not share the party’s (and its media enablers’) fanaticism.
So what does Astor tell us and who does she use to document her conclusion? The Times surveyed the major Democrat candidates for President on abortion. (Five minor candidates did not respond, according to another of Astor’s stories: “Steve Bullock, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris.”)
Here are Astor’s lead paragraphs:
The Democratic presidential field has coalesced around an abortion rights agenda more far-reaching than anything past nominees have proposed, according to a New York Times survey of the campaigns. The positions reflect a hugely consequential shift on one of the country’s most politically divisive issues.
Every candidate The Times surveyed supports codifying Roe v. Wade in federal law, allowing Medicaid coverage of abortion by repealing the Hyde Amendment, and removing funding restrictions for organizations that provide abortion referrals. Almost all of them say they would nominate only judges who support abortion rights, an explicit pledge Democrats have long avoided.
Recall that “codifying Roe” is code for eliminating any and all limitations on the “right” to abortion—at both the federal and state levels. The objective is to obliterate even the most minimal restriction which enjoys widespread popular support.
“Allowing Medicaid coverage of abortion” means picking the pockets of unwilling taxpayers to pay for abortions, returning us to the days prior to the Hyde Amendment when Medicaid paid for some 300,000 abortions! (There are some minor quibbles about other phases of the issue that need not delay us.)
Planned Parenthood, of course is delighted:
“What you’ve seen is that it’s no longer O.K. for any candidate just to say they’re pro-choice,” Jacqueline Ayers, vice president for government relations and public policy at Planned Parenthood told the Times. “They’re being very specific on how our rights are under attack, how access to abortion is being undermined in this country, and putting forth plans to protect and expand rights.”
To Astor’s credit, she acknowledges that this may not necessarily redound to the benefit of pro-abortionists. (Spoiler alert: it won’t.) Ironically, she distorts what President Trump said in order to assert that he is distorting the abortion issue:
The ramifications are hard to predict. The public is strongly supportive of Roe v. Wade, but deeply divided on how accessible abortion should be beyond Roe’s basic protections. President Trump has shown that he is willing to weaponize abortion to turn out his base, including through misleading or outright false narratives. And historically, abortion has been a bigger motivator for conservative voters than liberals.
You’ll recall that President Trump called out pro-abortion extremist Hillary Clinton in the pivotal third presidential debate and has many times since told the truth about Clinton. That truth—that Democrats are miles to the Left of the public on abortion—is, if possible, even more true about the current crop of Democrats running for President.
One other quote which is very illuminating. Astor writes
Whether any of this changes in 2020 will depend, in part, on how the Democratic nominee talks about abortion rights, particularly in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where many swing voters are not as far to the left on abortion as the candidates.
This is the fig leaf that Democrats and most of the media use to hide the truth. It is not just “swing voters” in a handful of states who are “not as far to the left on abortion as the candidates” but a wide swath of the American public. Ask them if they support taxpayer funding of abortion; informed consent laws; parental involvement in the abortion decision of their minor daughters; bans on abortions of pain-capable unborn babies, and on and on.
The public opposes the first and supports all the remainders (and much more). By contrast Democrats are committed to paying for abortions and for erasing even a scintilla of a limitation on abortion.
This will not go well for Democrats in November 2020.