By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton

Let me begin by encouraging you to read Maria Gallagher’s, “A Pro-Life Reflection for President’s Day.” Maria, legislative director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, is a terrific writer and every article she posts ripples with insights.

I’d like to build on her wonderful foundation, just to make a couple of additional points about President’s Day and pro-lifers.

We’ve heard a lot–a LOT–about fake news. To be genuine about it, most of that is fake. Something is dubbed fake news because it does not fit neatly into the media’s narrative which largely consists of one line: President Trump must be stopped in his tracks by any and all means, fair and (most often) foul.

But then there is Alternate History which, in its simplest form, is just a “what if?” How would history be different if there had been a different outcome to an historical event?

On this President’s Day, February 20, 2017, where would we be if pro-abortion Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? Given how narrow were President Trump’s margins in a number of key states, that surely could have come to pass.

We would be told unceasingly that we’ve finally cracked the ultimate glass ceiling and now we are obliged to make sure Clinton’s presidency is a success. To do otherwise would be labeled sexist, if not worse.

There would be no non-stop demonstrations fed, nurture, and egged on by almost the entirety of the Media Elite. Just a celebration that the “right” candidate had won.

By now Clinton would have nominated a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, someone whose judicial philosophy would be as far away from Scalia’s originalism and textualism as the East is from the West.

Whereas President Trump’s choice for the High Court, federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch, in a speech delivered last year talked about the need for judges “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best,” you could rest assured that remolding society over (and over) would be the bedrock viewpoint of any Clinton nominee.

But, we would be told, Democrats are “owed” one, so just get over it.

The Mexico City Policy, which Mr. Trump reinstated and expanded in reach and scope, would not merely have stayed dormant under a President Clinton. Always remember that in many ways and for many years, Clinton represented the crucial nexus of the worldwide campaign to erase any and all protective abortion statutes around the world.

Thus, funding abortion at home and abroad would be a major presidential initiative, just as the relentless determination to reverse the decline in the number of abortions would be near the top of her agenda. Pro-abortionists never flatly admit this, but this is the inevitable result of every policy they promote.

Bills to defund Planned Parenthood, pass The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and The Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act would go forward, regardless of who was President. But they would in the sure knowledge that Mr. Trump would sign them and Mrs. Clinton would veto them.

And we have just scratched the surfaces of the “what ifs?”

We are barely a month into Mr. Trump’s presidency and the hysteria meter has been so revved up it’s almost broken. There is nothing that will not be said, no depths too low to sink, in the coordinated effort to destabilize his administration.

Clearly, preserving abortion is not the only reason for the onslaught, but also no less clearly it is a major one. The Democrat Party is in the throes of the Planned Parenthoods and the NARALs and the EMILY Lists and many of the party’s major donors vibrate in sympathetic harmony with the Abortion Industry insatiable lust for killing .

When you reflect on the difference all your efforts made, remember for Hillary Clinton and her ilk there can never, ever, ever be enough abortions.