NARAL President Shares Abortion Story to Cheering Crowd

On Wednesday evening Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, shared the story of her abortion to cheering crowds at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The Weekly Standard writes,

When talking about abortion, Democratic politicians and activists usually prefer to speak euphemistically: The dismemberment or lethal poisoning of a baby who hasn’t been born yet is almost always referred to as “reproductive health care” or “a woman’s choice.” The group NARAL, once known as the National Abortion Rights Action League, went so far as to change its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America so its supporters and allies could avoid saying the a-word.

But there’s been a growing push on the left to not only defend abortion as a necessary evil that should be “safe, legal, and rare” but to celebrate it as a positive good. (See the #ShoutYourAbortion Twitter campaign of 2015.) And so on Wednesday evening, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, took the stage at the Democratic National Convention and told the story of the time she aborted her first child because it was an inconvenient time to become a parent.

In her speech, Ms. Hogue said,

To succeed in life, all we [women] need are the tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path. I was fortunate enough to have these things when I found out I was pregnant years ago. I wanted a family, but it was the wrong time. I made the decision that was best for me: To have an abortion and get compassionate care at a clinic in my own community. Now years later, my husband and I are parents to two incredible children.

On the one hand, most Americans believe abortion ought to be illegal in some or all circumstances and that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions. On the other hand, groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are becoming more blunt and more vocal about abortion, even going so far as to insist Congress pay for abortion on demand with public dollars.

What do we make of this?

We are seeing desperation on the side of abortion advocates. Over the past four decades medical advancements have helped us gain a better understanding of pregnancy and abortion. Anyone looking at an unborn baby on an ultrasound screen today can tell they’re seeing a real person with a unique personality–not “tissue” or “a blob of cells,” as abortion advocates have claimed at times.

You may recall earlier this year NARAL went so far as to criticize a Doritos ad that ran during the Superbowl, because the ad featured an unborn baby on an ultrasound screen. NARAL called the ad, “anti-choice.”

These sorts of technological advancements are one reason abortion advocates have been forced to drop the euphemisms and ambiguities when talking about abortion.

Those defending abortion today must practically acknowledge abortion kills an unborn child. All they can do is try to justify it.

Why the Sudden Attack on the Hyde Amendment?

Joint Session of the United States Congress

Joint Session of the United States Congress

In 1976, just 3 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision, Congress attached a rider called “the Hyde Amendment” to its annual funding appropriation legislation.

The Hyde Amendment is named after Congressman Hyde of Illinois, and it has appeared in some form or fashion on every annual appropriation bill Congress has passed since 1976.

Although the specific wording has varied from year to year, generally speaking, the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, except in certain situations, such as cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

The Hyde Amendment has long been viewed as a delicate compromise between pro-life advocates and abortion advocates. For example, Arkansas’ constitution prohibits public funding of abortion. In the spring of 1996, following a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arkansas’ policy against public funding of abortion was constitutional, but also decided that under the Hyde Amendment Arkansas still had to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in cases rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, if the mother qualified for Medicaid (Dalton v. Family Planning Services, 1996).

In other words, while the Hyde Amendment does not prohibit all federal funding of abortion, is does prohibit it most of the time. But lately there seems to be an attack brewing against the Hyde Amendment.

For example, the Democratic National Committee put language in the 2016 Democratic Platform saying,

We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

It’s important to point out that recent public opinion polling shows most Americans think abortion ought to be illegal in some or all cases, and the majority (62%) oppose paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars.

That aside, the 2016 Democratic Platform differs from the party’s past platforms, which repeatedly called for making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.

At a recent political gathering, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards called for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, saying, “[A]bortion is a right, and it’s no good to have a right if you can’t exercise it. And that means we have to repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

It’s baffling why there is seemingly a sudden interest in repealing the Hyde Amendment. This is a bipartisan budget provision that’s been on the books 40 years, and all it does is prevent Americans from being forced to subsidize abortions with their tax dollars.

Even the Obama Administration, whose track record on abortion is by no means pro-life, has not come out in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment. In fact, President Obama signed an executive order in 2010 applying the Hyde Amendment to the Affordable Care Act to address some of the concerns about public funding of abortion under Obamacare.

Abortion advocates have often repeated the mantra, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Without the Hyde Amendment, however, even if you don’t like abortion and don’t have an abortion, you could still be forced to pay for an abortion with your taxes.

Poll Finds Americans Strongly Support Restrictions on Abortion

New public opinion polling confirms what others have found: Americans support restrictions on abortion.

According to a nationwide poll published this week, 78% of Americans support substantial restrictions on abortion despite the fact most people polled (51%) identified as “pro-choice.”

Other findings include:

  • 62% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.
  • 70% of Americans agree doctors performing abortions should have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
  • 78% of Americans support holding abortion clinics to the same standards as other outpatient surgery centers.

These findings coincide with other recent polls that have found, among other things, most Americans think abortion ought to be illegal in some or all cases and that young adults generally oppose abortion.

You can read more about this poll here.