NRL News

New York Times laments that “abortion rights” are “rolling back after Donald Trump’s election”

by | Dec 16, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

There are about four clarion calls a week issued by the editorial board of the New York Times to rouse fellow pro-abortionists. The latest call to beat back the Huns (a.k.a. pro-lifer legislators) appeared this week under the headline, “Rolling Back Abortion Rights After Donald Trump’s Election.”

The editorial is almost entirely about Ohio where Gov. John Kasich this week signed SB 127, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and vetoed H.B. 493, commonly known as the Heartbeat Bill. H.B. 493 would ban abortions once the baby’s heartbeat is detected.

Pro-life President-elect Donald Trump was mentioned because the Ohio laws are “part of a dangerous nationwide effort to roll back abortion rights that has gained momentum with Donald Trump’s election.”

Dangerous? To the Abortion Industry, sure. “Gained momentum” because of Mr. Trump’s victory? You betcha.

The key paragraph in the editorial is the following:

Two 20-week bans have been struck down in federal courts as unconstitutional. But abortion opponents in Ohio believe the new law will withstand legal challenges, perhaps even at the Supreme Court. Robert Cupp, a Republican state representative, says he thinks the court will be swayed by medical advances allowing more very premature babies to survive. A victory at the Supreme Court could open the door for a federal 20-week ban, which was introduced last year but blocked by Senate Democrats.

Geez. Okay, let’s start that Mr. Cupp is not only a state Representative, he is also a former Ohio Supreme Court Justice (which the editorial page writer had to know). That would give Rep. Cupp’s observations some additional credence, don’t you think? All the more reason to leave that important fact out.

Second only one Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is enjoined, not two.

The Times did get one thing right. In 2013 the federal bill passed the House (228-196) but was blocked by pro-abortion Senate Democrats. (While 54 senators–51 Republicans and three Democrats–voted to take the bill up for debate, 60 votes were required. That’s the way the Senate now works on “controversial” legislation.)

The Times editorial concludes with lavish praise for pro-abortion protestors in Ohio who hung signs “attached to wire hangers.” One message read, the editorial informs us, “We won’t go back.”

Guess what? We will never give up.

Categories: Abortion Legislation
Tags: abortion