Normalizing Abortion: Not if, But Wen
Her mom was the candidate behind the most radical pro-abortion shift in the Democratic Party. Now, Chelsea Clinton wants everyone to know — we haven’t seen anything yet.
Her mom was the candidate behind the most radical pro-abortion shift in the Democratic Party. Now, Chelsea Clinton wants everyone to know — we haven’t seen anything yet.
In an interview sure to put Americans’ jaws on the floor, Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen sat down with Bill and Hillary’s daughter and talked about abortion as casually as if they were comparing laundry detergents. This procedure — this gruesome, deadly, wildly unpopular procedure — Chelsea argued, “is part of the fabric of our country.” Wen agreed, saying that we should approach this kind of health care “from a social justice lens, valuing each person and their choice.” Unless, of course, that person happens to be inside the womb — or seconds out of it.
In one of the sickest, most bizarre moments of their chat (and there were plenty), Wen had the gall to argue that killing children is actually “pro-life.” “Our nurses,” she went on, “our clinicians — they’re all here because we believe in life. Being pro-choice is being pro-woman. It’s being pro-family. It’s being pro-community. It’s being pro-life.” Whose life, no one is quite sure, since the organization ended 332,757 of them in 2017 alone. That’s like wiping out the population of St. Louis. Suddenly, the “fabric of our country” looks like a massive pile of burial clothes.
But Wen and Clinton persisted — ignoring the overwhelming majority of Americans (77 percent) disgusted by their extreme positions. “First and foremost, it’s about our safety. We know what happens when abortion is illegal.” But do they know what happens when abortion is legal? When groups like theirs fight to keep monsters like Kermit Gosnell in business? Don’t talk to us about safety when thousands of women are visiting third-world clinics with rusty instruments and blood-stained floors because Planned Parenthood is trying to stop state inspections and regulations. Thanks to Wen’s organization, most moms are sitting in abortion clinics that are less regulated than a tanning salon. Legal doesn’t make it safe. Planned Parenthood has seen to that.
There was also great irony in the daughter of the parents who coined the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” nodding appreciatively as Wen talks about abortion like a rite of passage. “An abortion is a normal, common experience,” she says — like having your wisdom teeth pulled. But there’s nothing normal about killing. There’s nothing “normal” about taking an innocent life — and ripping it apart limb from limb. But in the 23 years since Chelsea’s dad first uttered those words, we’ve gone from “safe, legal, and rare” to “normal, common, and free.” What’s next — a presidential candidate that promises an abortion in every pot?
Would that really be so surprising in a party that thinks we should treat born children like medical waste? This is, as Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.) told me Thursday, “the bizarre cultural moment we’re at.” On Monday, in the middle of a nationwide revolt against abortion, Senate Democrats have given every indication that they will vote for legal infanticide. This is where their years of abortion extremism leads — to a place where throwing away a perfectly healthy baby that thousands of couples would give anything to have is nothing but a personal choice.
“I’m as pro-life as anybody could possibly be in the United States Senate,” Senator Sasse told me, “but this bill is actually not about abortion. This bill is about a baby that has survived an abortion and been born alive and is on that table — cold and fighting for life and crying out. This is about the practice that’s known as ‘backing away,’ where the abortion providers back away from the table and leave the baby to die by exposure to the elements… We should be providing the same level of care to these babies that we would to any other baby at the same stage…”
This is, as Sasse said, “some pretty basic stuff.” “There’s nothing here that should be controversial or that should require any courage. What we’re talking about is [whether] a baby is a baby. It should have nothing to do with your politics. It should be about if you have a heart. Do you believe that a baby [who’s] been born alive has a right, and has dignity, and has worth?
"I’ve been fighting for three years to get a recorded floor vote for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act… This should be the kind of thing that passes 100-0, but it didn’t. So now it should be the sort of thing that passes overwhelmingly, but I’ve got to be honest, there are a whole lot of Democrats now who look like they’re trying to claim that this somehow controversial to say that a baby that’s been born alive should be protected. So I’m not going to prognosticate about what the vote will be — but I know what it should be. It should be indisputably unanimous.”
What happens on Monday will resonate throughout the world. America — what we stand for, where we’re headed — has a lot at stake in the answer. If you aren’t the type who normally contacts your senators, believe me. Now is the time to make an exception. Our leaders need to hear from you that there are some lines no civilized nation should cross. Killing an innocent, born-alive child is one of them.
Originally published here.
Navratilova Serves up Controversy in Trans Debate
Martina Navratilova is an 18-time Grand Slam tennis champion. But now, she’s creating a racket over something else: transgenderism. Turns out, refusing to stick to the LGBT talking points can land you in a lot of hot water with the Left, even if you’re someone as famous as this tennis legend.
After years of identifying as a lesbian, Navratilova has been one of sports’ most visible LGBT faces. But not even Martina is allowed to commit the movement’s most unforgiveable crime — speaking the truth. With society knee-deep in a gender identity crisis, some pro sports are floating the idea of relaxing the rules on traditional competition. If a man identifies as a woman, extremists argue, they should be allowed to compete as one.
A lot of people — including Navratilova — disagree, arguing that it would create an unfair advantage for men. For the first time, she explained her position in depth, writing in the Sunday Times that “The rules on trans athletes reward cheats and punish the innocent.” “Letting men compete as women simply if they change their name and take hormones is unfair — no matter how those athletes may throw their weight around.” This follows a flare-up in December when she tweeted, “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards. And having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”
Activists seethed then that she was “transphobic” and intolerant. Not surprisingly, they didn’t take kindly to her latest column either. “To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires,” she fumes. “It’s insane, and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”
Within hours of publication, her disloyalty became costly. An LBGT nonprofit that Navratilova has served for years announced it was kicking her off the board. The decision took a lot of people by surprise, especially since she’d been one of Athletes Ally’s most outspoken voices for “inclusion.” It also, the Washington Examiner pointed out, “demonstrates the clash many predicted would happen between the gay and transgender movements.”
Rachel McKinnon, a male cyclist who competed as a woman and won the Masters Track Championship, blasted Navratilova as a traitor who can’t possibly be “pro-trans” if she refuses to let men dominate women’s tennis. “Genitals do not play sports,” he fired back, proving just how little he understands about the actual debate. Of course genitals don’t play sports. Fundamentally different, physiologically diverse sexes do. Despite what the far-Left believes, there’s a lot more at work here than a few reproductive organs. By their very DNA, men and women are profoundly dissimilar creatures. Strength, testosterone levels, muscle make-up — they’re what separates us into unique and complimentary beings.
Expect more of this societal confusion as we move at warp speed in this post-modern civilization where cultural “norms” are in constant flux. What was okay yesterday because a majority seemed to accept it (or at least did not protest against it, like #MeToo) is seen as wrong today. The truth is, it was always wrong. There was a time in our country when we recognized and accepted transcendent truth, what could be described as the moral law of God or the laws of nature and nature’s God. But now society makes up its own truth du jour based on the prevailing winds of culture that as we see often changes direction. It may not be popular, but truth will never change, and for that reason, it provides a firm foundation for individuals and societies to stand.
Originally published here.
HHS on Location with Family Planning Dollars
The abortion debate rages on in the Senate and U.S. states, President Trump is taking every opportunity to fight back in his own administration. There isn’t a single pro-lifer in America who wouldn’t love to see Planned Parenthood completely defunded. But until the House and Senate are firmly in the hands of conservatives, the White House is doing its best to chip away at forced partnership between taxpayers and the abortion industry: HHS regulations.
After months of work, the president’s team finalized a rule Friday afternoon that should build an important wall between abortion groups and true family planning program. Right now, no organization is allowed to use the government’s family planning dollars for abortion. Planned Parenthood gets around that law, Ben Domenech explains, by drawing an “artificial line” between its abortion clinics and its other family planning services — “even when those are located in the same facility, and essentially funded jointly.”
Starting now, groups like Planned Parenthood will have to choose. They can still take Title X family planning funds — but not at the clinics where they perform abortions. Under this new “co-location” policy, which dates back to President Reagan, Leana Wen’s network will have to decide between dropping their abortion services from any location that gets Title X dollars and moving those abortion operations offsite. Either way, it could take away a significant bite out of the group’s $60 million in family planning funds.
Conservatives will get another crack at Planned Parenthood’s funding stream — hopefully soon. Until then, the president keeps fulfilling his pro-life promises. Taking aim at the $60 million abortion businesses get under Title X is a major step to the ultimate goal: ending taxpayers’ forced partnership with abortion for good.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
