Great America

Being ‘Pro-Woman’ Isn’t What it Used to Be for Democrats

It’s worth taking a look at what these advocates are fighting to protect—and who they are willing to put at risk—to cover themselves in the glory of unfettered abortion.

In a recent television interview about last week’s March for Life, I was asked if President Trump risked alienating suburban women with his administration’s aggressive pro-life agenda. No, I replied, because most Americans are actually fairly moderate when it comes to abortion—which is strikingly at odds with the extreme abortion agenda of the Left.

The guest opposite me, Democratic pollster John Zogby, scoffed in response. No Democrat candidate, he said, has taken extreme positions on abortion.

Zogby may want to call his office, because his view is about 20 years out of date. True, Democrats were once the party of “safe, legal, and rare” abortion. But no more. In fact, in 2012, national Democrats excised the word “rare” from their official platform, preferring instead “safe and legal” abortion.

Just four years later, in 2016, national Democrats yanked their support for the formerly bipartisan Hyde amendment, a funding rider that has been included in every federal spending bill since the passage of Roe v. Wade to prohibit the direct federal financing of abortion. Joe Biden, apparently unaware of his party’s passage into Wokeness, was forced to condemn his decades-long support for the Hyde amendment after coming under fire from liberal feminists.

It should have come as no surprise when Virginia’s Democratic Governor Ralph Northam, a former pediatrician, offered his support last year for a bill in the Virginia legislature that would allow a woman to seek an abortion even as she is about to give birth.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion,” he said in response to the horror and outrage that followed the introduction of state delegate Kathy Tran’s bill. He went on to describe in medical terms how an infant with “severe deformities” could be murdered after birth if that was what the family so desired.

Democrats and their allied media outlets amplified Northam’s message. Just two months later, 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate went on record opposing federal legislation that would have required infants born alive after an attempted abortion to be given lifesaving care.

Safe, legal, and rare? More like unlimited, unrestricted, and unregulated.

That abortion is a tragedy for the mother, and certainly for the baby, no longer seems to be a controlling narrative on the Left. Or a narrative at all. Pro-abortion advocates now encourage women to “shout” their abortions. To celebrate them. While accepting a Golden Globe in January, visibly pregnant actress Michelle Williams proclaimed that none of her success would have been possible without the right to abortion.

Abortion, for progressives, has become synonymous with empowerment. Women are told that access to abortion, like finding a good mentor and selecting the right power suit, is crucial to their professional success and personal satisfaction.

For “Women’s Health”? No Longer

It’s ironic because the pro-abortion cause, in accelerating past any concept of abortion as a heartbreaking choice, has actually become far less about caring for women.

Planned Parenthood, the self-declared “women’s health organization,” recently fired their president for being too focused on—wait for it—women’s health.

“I came to Planned Parenthood to run a national healthcare organization,” Dr. Leana Wen said in her resignation letter. “The new board has determined that the priority of Planned Parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy.”

And despite claiming that any congressional effort to revoke their millions in federal subsidies would put American women in jeopardy, Planned Parenthood recently announced it will spend $45 million to elect more Democrats.

Women’s health, indeed.

This hypocrisy will be on full display in March when the Supreme Court hears arguments in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee. The case centers around a Louisiana law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Abortion advocates call these “TRAP” laws, for “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” and insist that they are only there to throw up more logistical hurdles to accessing an abortion, and thus must be opposed at all cost.

But it’s worth taking a look at what these advocates are fighting to protect, and who they are willing to put at risk, to cover themselves in the glory of unfettered abortion.

Rather than simply seeking to restrict access to abortion, Louisiana’s law appears to be trying to protect women from many of the state’s abortion clinics which have a disturbing record of substandard medical care and doctors who have been professionally disciplined—some numerous times—by the state.

In its review of the case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals observed a “horrifying” history of health and safety code violations as well as “generally unsafe conditions and protection of rapists.”

June Medical Services, the named petitioner in the case, has been cited repeatedly for violating basic health and safety requirements. These include failing to monitor each abortion patient’s level of consciousness and respiratory status during abortion procedures, or even the amount or length of time nitrous gas was administered. Patients were sent home without even cursory checks to ensure they were medically stable. Instruments used in procedures were found to be unclean and not properly disinfected.

The Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, also a petitioner, has been cited for operating with unsterilized equipment, and not having emergency intravenous fluids available for a surgical abortion patient—which led to the patient requiring a full hysterectomy. This same clinic performed an abortion on a minor patient without obtaining parental consent, in violation of the state’s law.

Abortion advocates also want to protect Louisiana’s abortion doctors, whose blatant disregard for human care evokes a Mengele-esque quality.

Dr. James Whitmore, who serviced the Delta Clinic, was cited for using instruments that were rusty, cracked, and not sterile. If he did “sterilize” them, it was with a solution that was “infrequently changed and visibly unclean.” After performing one second-trimester abortion, he allowed the patient to bleed for three hours before finally sending her to the hospital, where she was found to have a perforated uterus, a lacerated uterine artery, and required a complete hysterectomy.

Not to be outdone, Leroy Brinkley, who operates both the Delta Clinic and a women’s health care center, employed the infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell is the Pennsylvania abortion doctor who routinely delivered viable babies and then murdered the newborns by snipping their spinal cords with scissors. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and for the manslaughter of a patient. Brinkley frequently sent women seeking late-term abortions in Louisiana across state lines to Gosnell’s shop of horrors.

These are the doctors and clinics that abortion advocates want to protect from a law that would simply require admitting privileges at local hospitals. In their discussion of the case, they don’t even mention the status of the clinics, or the women who have been harmed. Rather, they toss out phrases like “sham laws” and “second-class citizens,” as if a law designed to ensure the safety of women seeking abortions will send us spiraling back to the 1950s. It’s unfounded nonsense.

All of this makes plain, however, that abortion activists, and the Democrat party generally, have shed any pretense of being for women—their well-being or their care. Rather, progressive pro-abortion activists and candidates are far more interested in spreading the lie that personal fulfillment requires pain and tragedy, and that success is only possible if a life is snuffed out first. Pro-woman? Hardly.


Pete Buttigieg Tells Pro-Life Democrat That She Doesn’t Belong in the Democratic Party

At a recent campaign event, South Bend Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) told a woman who identified as a pro-life Democrat that her views on abortion are not welcome in the Democratic Party, as the Daily Wire reports.

Describing herself as a “pro-life Democrat,” Kristin Day addressed Buttigieg by asking him if he wanted “the support of pro-life Democrats,” of which she said there are about 21 million in the country. She also asked if would support “more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the diversity and inclusion really does include everybody.”

Buttigieg responded by saying that while he wanted her vote, he would not “try to earn your vote by tricking you.” Buttigieg then described himself as “pro-choice” and said that “a woman ought to be able to make that decision.” He added that “the best I can offer is that if we can’t agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line, and in my view it’s the woman who’s faced with that decision in her own life.”

Day later spoke to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, where she admitted that she was not satisfied with Buttigieg’s answer, particularly in regards to the question about the language of the Democratic Party’s platform. Day said that the current platform “contains language that basically says that we don’t belong, we have no part in the party…and there’s nothing that says that people who have diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party.”

The incident highlights growing divisions in the country on the hot-button issue of abortion, where the majority of Americans are shifting gradually towards pro-life instead of pro-choice. A major development in the pro-life movement occurred on Friday, when President Donald Trump became the first sitting president in American history to speak in-person at the March for Life.

Great America

Abortion Advocates Attack Kavanaugh Because They’re Losing the Argument

If you want to know why the New York Times recently disgraced itself with the flailing hit piece against sitting Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, you need look no further than the absolute disaster the last 12 months have been for the myths necessary to maintain public support for abortion in the United States.

Here are a few examples.

The Backfiring Baby-Parts Trial

As Madeline Osburn notes, after kicking in the door of a journalist duo’s office to seize his research materials, the mighty California criminal justice system charged David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt with the crime of embarrassing Planned Parenthood.

There is no dispute that their reporting truthfully exposed Planned Parenthood’s grotesque and illegal practice of harvesting organs and limbs of aborted babies to sell. California Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office coordinated with abortion-rights advocates to target Daleiden and Merritt and work up a criminal pretext to punish them for exposing the abortion provider’s vile business practices.

The trial has been an unmitigated disaster for Planned Parenthood. Among the more noteworthy highlighted by Osburn: “A former director for Planned Parenthood said, ‘We’ve been pretty successful’ when asked about the ability to flip a baby in the womb to breech position in order to extract it with the head intact for brain harvesting. ‘Doing so is more dangerous to the mother but more profitable for companies that sell baby body parts for research.’”

Northam Accidentally Tells the Truth

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) openly confirmed that he supports legal post-birth abortion. Earlier this year, he said, “I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

Northam’s remarks echo a grisly observation by former abortionist Kermit Gosnell during his 2013 murder trial. There’s no moral difference between killing a viable baby in the womb and one that has made it out of the woman’s body. Northam has now admitted as much to the world by suggesting that the death of a born baby will be allowed if the mother intended an abortion. The absence of leftist condemnation of “post-birth abortions,” is revealing and shocking to many Americans.

Two Triumphs on the Silver Screen

Two movies, “GosnellandUnplanned,” have carefully documented and recreated the morbid assembly line of murder that abortion has become in America. Speaking for myself, the movies converted me from an abortion agnostic to a passionate opponent. Both movies were relative hits and undoubtedly changed many people’s hearts and minds forever.

Another Gruesome Discovery of Abortion Remains

After Illinois abortion practitioner Dr. Ulrich Klopfer died on September 3, authorities discovered a stockpile of frozen baby parts from 2,246 unborn babies. (Recall that Philadelphia police found preserved or frozen baby parts at Gosnell’s clinic, amid filthy and unsanitary conditions.) The maintenance of a trophy collection of baby parts at his home points to an unfathomable demonic madness one would normally expect to find in a prolific serial killer. Oh, wait . . . maybe that’s exactly why he kept those baby parts.

The Proliferation of “Heartbeat” Laws

In spite of the massive political power of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, grassroots activists have begun to win state-by-state battles to pass “heartbeat” laws that ban abortion after the heartbeat of a baby can be detected. These victories have been rapid and stunning. 

Court Cases Arising Through the Process

The National Organization for Women is currently tracking a number of cases working their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one case in particular, June Medical Services v. Gee, has abortion-rights advocates worried. The case concerns a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Although the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay preventing the law from going into effect, Kavanaugh took the time to write a carefully worded dissent. Justice Kavanaugh would have denied the stay to force the abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges during litigation. That’s a strong indication he intends to uphold the law.  

Planned Parenthood Relinquishes Federal Funds 

One lesson from the “Unplanned” movie is that abortion is the principle profit source for Planned Parenthood. Its “counselors” are really just salespeople who pressure pregnant mothers to purchase the procedure. With this problem in mind, President Trump issued a rule forbidding Planned Parenthood from using federal funds to pay people to sell abortions to their customers. Because the sales pressure is essential to the Planned Parenthood business model, the organization decided to relinquish the federal funding rather than give up the sales pressure.

Blasey-Ford’s Attorney Admits It Was a Smear to Protect Roe v. Wade

As Mollie Hemingway reported at The Federalist earlier this month, Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her 30 years ago, admitted that the allegations were made to help abortion politics.

“We were going to have a conservative [justice] … Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name,” Katz said. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.” 

Christine Blasey-Ford last year denied that politics motivated her decision to tell her story, but nobody really believed that. Hemingway co-wrote an excellent book chronicling the disgraceful treatment of Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation process.

It has also come out that the Left attempted to blackmail the chief witness Blasey-Ford named to corroborate her story. The witness bravely refused to lie to help abortion politics. If the Right had attempted something similar, the perpetrator would be charged already with witness tampering. But since those laws were broken to help stop Trump from making an appointment to the Supreme Court, the crimes will go unpunished by our politically corrupt Justice Department.

For these reasons and more, the defaming accusation is losing its power as a weapon in the nomination process after the Left acted so despicably in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight. Everyone knows the next nominee will be accused of something heinous and that the truth of these allegations will be irrelevant. Thus, the confirmation process likely will be less indulgent of a Blasey-Ford successor the next time around.

Planned Parenthood’s Public Fight with Its Former President

Leana Wen was president of Planned Parenthood for only eight months when the board of directors ousted her for the heresy of suggesting the mission of the organization should shift from performing the maximum number of abortions (and lobbying for a permissive legal framework to do so) to women’s health. As the New York Times reported, “The internal turmoil underscores one of the group’s central tensions: Is it a political organization or a health organization first?” I guess we know the answer now.

Fewer Women Are Having Abortions

The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to the lowest level in decades, according to a new report. In 2017, the most recent data available, abortions fell to 862,320 from 1.3 million in 2000. That’s still the equivalent of a large city in America being snuffed out every year, so it’s hard to celebrate. 

But if there is a silver lining to the New York Times story (for those depressed by the total failure of journalism) it’s that the Left is running out of coherent justifications for the current state of abortion in America. That’s why the Times can work-up outrage over a rumor of inappropriate sexual behavior from the 1980s but can’t find anything to say about allowing babies that survive abortions to die. It’s indefensible. So instead, their journalists defame a good man in a desperate attempt to prevent him from doing his job as a Supreme Court justice.

If the pro-abortion faction thought they had the winning argument, there would be no need for dirty tricks and intimidation.


Abortion Dogma Lives Loudly in Pete Buttigieg

The concept that babies are not human until they breathe, and have no right to live even after they are born, are doctrines of a death cult.

In a recent interview, South Bend, Indiana mayor and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg argued that a proper interpretation of Christianity would “point you in a progressive direction.” The implication, obviously, is non-progressives are bad Christians. But there’s more to it. Buttigieg explained, “there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath.”

For Buttigieg, a beating heart isn’t enough. “The most important thing,” he went on, “is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.” That would be the decision to terminate the child in the womb. Those pondering that choice might consider arguments that have nothing to do with the Bible, faith, or theology of any kind.

The offspring of human beings is human because it can’t be anything else. Any attempt to dehumanize pre-born humans as “fetal tissue” and such runs up against that reality. The dehumanizers also clash with the possibilities of surgery on the pre-born, and the ability to see them in the womb with increasing clarity. And as mothers and fathers know, human beings like to get their kicks long before they see the light of day.

This is a simple reality, not religious dogma of any kind.

Like other Democrats, Pete Buttigieg shows no curiosity about how many presidents, Supreme Court justices, and Nobel laureates perished before their first breath in the millions of abortions since the “landmark” ruling of 1973.

Women faced with the decision, as candidate Buttigieg put it, should also consider the reality that life begins at conception, which was the view of the late atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens. Like all orthodox atheists, Hitchens had no use for concepts such as “ensoulment,” taking place at some point after conception and before birth when a person becomes fully human. For Hitchens, life begins at conception simply because there is no other place it can begin. That reality has nothing to do with any religion.

Women facing the decision might also consider that, as the late Nat Hentoff observed, a change of address does not make you a human being. For example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was born on March 15, 1933. Hitchens believed that her life began at conception and Hentoff believed she was equally a human being on March 1, 1933 as she was a little more than a fortnight after.

Among Democrats, Buttigieg’s view that life begins with breath is something of a middle ground. The abortion industry doesn’t think so, with its advocacy of “partial birth” abortion. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, known for appearances in blackface, wants to keep newborn babies comfortable while the mother makes the decision whether to end the baby’s life. According to nurse Jill Stanek, when babies survive abortion, the compassionate staff at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, send the infants to a “comfort room” to die in peace.

In this crowd, even newborn, breathing human beings have no right to live apart from someone else’s wishes for them. Those faced with the decision might also recall that abortion godmother Margaret Sanger colluded with Ku Kluckers and saw abortion as a way reduce the number of brown and yellow people. In a similar style, for Justice Ginsberg the court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was about “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The concept that babies are not human until they breathe, and have no right to live even after they are born, are dogmas of a death cult. The dogma lives loudly within Pete Buttigieg, who attempts to graft this deadly doctrine onto the Christian faith. And as it happens, Buttigieg is not the first to argue for his notion that a “proper” interpretation of Christianity points you in a “progressive” direction.

During the Stalin era, the Reverend Hewlett Johnson saw the kingdom of God in the Soviet Union. More recently, “public theologian” and former Obama White House advisor Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, wrote that refugees from Communist Vietnam were “fleeing to support their consumer habit in other lands.”

Those are tough acts to follow, but Mayor Pete the public theologian may have pulled it off.

Leave aside those we don’t want to have too many of. Like other Democrats, Pete Buttigieg shows no curiosity about how many presidents, Supreme Court justices, and Nobel laureates perished before their first breath in the millions of abortions since the “landmark” ruling of 1973.