As we move toward the November elections, Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate that a radical pro-abortion agenda is going to be a signature part of her campaign. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s highest priorities include increasing the availability of abortions — including forcing taxpayers to pay for them — and taking millions in campaign money from groups that advocate for abortion without restriction up to the moment of birth.
Mrs. Clinton showed just how prominent this issue would be for her when she invited the heads of America’s three biggest pro-abortion groups to speak at her nominating convention. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List are also some of Hillary’s biggest contributors.
This is quite a change from the 1990s, when the Clintons themselves came up with the phrase “safe, legal and rare” when referring to abortion. But “rare” is no longer a consideration. On the campaign trail, Hillary now equates abortion with women’s progress, emphasizing that unwanted children are obstacles to women’s success. She’s also demanding even more taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood, the scandal-plagued abortion chain that’s still under federal investigation for trafficking baby body parts.
In a Washington Post interview this month, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards explained another part of the abortion industry’s political agenda, telling the newspaper, “We need to challenge or repeal every single restriction that’s out there.” That includes continuing to advocate for abortion-on-demand all the way into the ninth month, which is legal under federal law, but often regulated by the states.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton and her abortion lobby funders, a recent survey shows that most Americans disapprove of their agenda.
According to a Marist Poll released just weeks ago, 78 percent of Americans — including an overwhelming majority of “pro-choicers” — support substantial restrictions on abortion and would limit it to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy.
And while Mrs. Clinton wants to increase the availability of abortions by forcing taxpayers to directly fund them, that same poll shows the vast majority of Americans oppose paying for abortions — including 45 percent who say they are pro-choice.
Mrs. Clinton also staunchly defends the $550 million in federal taxpayer subsidies Planned Parenthood receives every year, claiming that those who want to end them would “wipe out safe, legal abortion.” The odd part about this claim is that Planned Parenthood has always said that their taxpayer funding isn’t used for abortions (under current law, it can’t be). If Planned Parenthood’s assertion is true, then why would taking away taxpayer funding have any effect on its abortion business?
Could it be because of what the pro-life community has said all along — that when the nation’s largest abortion chain gets our tax dollars to help with one part of its business, it can focus its fundraising efforts on another — such as buying the buildings and equipment that it uses to commit abortions?
Could it be that the abundance of taxpayer funding also lets Planned Parenthood focus its fundraising efforts on collecting millions to give to candidates who will ensure the subsidies keep flowing? The media has reported that “nonprofit” Planned Parenthood’s political arm will somehow find the money to spend up to $30 million on the 2016 elections — not on women’s health services — and that Mrs. Clinton will be its largest beneficiary.
So it’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton has not only defended the abortion chain’s current taxpayer funding, but has also called for increasing it. She wants more money for an organization that, according to its own annual report, is seeing fewer clients and delivering fewer services while committing more than 320,000 abortions every year.
In the end, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been hijacked by Big Abortion, which financially benefits when more abortions are committed. The abortion lobby is spending millions of dollars to get politicians elected who will ensure that any restriction on abortion — any impediment to getting more customers in the door and more taxpayer funding on the books — is stopped or repealed.
To Mrs. Clinton, I say: You call yourself an advocate for women and children, but making a deal with abortionists and promoting their agenda doesn’t advocate for women. The early feminists — and even defamed Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — called abortion “barbaric.”
And calling children an obstacle to women’s success doesn’t advocate for children at all. Instead, it dehumanizes them as objects whose worthiness to live is determined by convenience, or worse, by the bottom line of the industry that’s funding you. No “women’s rights” euphemism you use can ever cover that up.
Mrs. Clinton, when 78 percent of Americans disagree with your agenda, it’s time to stop representing the extremists at Big Abortion and start representing the American people.
• Lila Rose is a young millennial and national pro-life leader who has been investigating Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry for the past nine years.