NRL News

Apologist unpersuasively tries to evade that Democrats are the “party of abortion”

by | Mar 29, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Writing in the New York Times, the house organ of the Abortion Establishment, Prof. Thomas Groome might have anticipated he would be excoriated for writing an op-ed titled, “To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party.”

The only questions were (a) would anyone who reads the Times give his thesis a second thought; and (b) would pro-abortion critics hammer him more for things he didn’t say or more because Groome told a highly inconvenient thought which they refuse to acknowledge? More about the latter in a moment.

So what is this professor of theology and religious education at Boston College maintaining? By way of background, we should know that Prof. Groome bashes President Trump. This is no apologetic on behalf of Trump but rather one of those familiar more-in-sorrow-than-anger exercises.

Indeed much of the op-ed reassuring readers in general, Catholics in particular that in almost all ways Catholics has far more in common with abortion militant Hillary Clinton than with Trump. Groome’s lament is that Clinton threw away Catholic voters.

How? By being unapologetically pro-abortion. “[F]or many traditional Catholic voters, Mrs. Clinton’s unqualified support for abortion rights — and Mr. Trump’s opposition (and promise to nominate anti-abortion Supreme Court justices) — were tipping points.”

For example, as Groome observes,

When asked about abortion in the third presidential debate, Mrs. Clinton focused on the importance of a woman’s right to choose, saying: “I strongly support Roe v. Wade.” But in making it appear as if she was viewing a wrenching moral decision only through a legal lens, she was losing many Catholic and evangelical voters. For them, her uncompromising defense of Roe was comparable to telling a group of Quakers, “I’m in favor of war,” without even mentioning preconditions.

Which, as does much of his op-ed, misses the point. Mrs. Clinton wasn’t merely looking at (and endorsing) abortion on demand through a “legal lens.” She had long since abandoned any trace of what Groome calls “nuance.” Clinton unabashedly supported abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason, as late in pregnancy as a woman desires.

Groome then adds scornfully, “Trump, in contrast, offered a graphic description of ‘ripping the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day,’ as if this were standard procedure. (More than 90 percent of American abortions are in the first trimester.)”

Which again misses the point –in this case, a point which Groome doesn’t realize he’s been making. Trump was not saying that killing unborn babies “on the final day” accounted for most or even a large percentage of abortions. He was saying that Clinton would countenance even that–that there was no point in pregnancy she would draw the line at and say, “No! You can’t abort that child.”

Groome outlines (even as he minimizes) Clinton’s radicalness in order to make his point: Democrats can win the day, and soon, if they aren’t so extreme. But none of his suggestions will ever be adopted by the Democratic Party and the illustration he offers of how Democrats could do it right (at least rhetorically) is entirely misleading.

He quotes pro-abortion President Barack Obama who, as a candidate, once said, “Those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it.” But did that “nuance” ever show up in the eight years he was president? Of course not, and it is(to be gentle) disingenuous on Prof. Groome’s part to suggest Obama’s vague assurance meant anything in the way he presided for eight years.

“Democrats should not threaten to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme circumstances,” Groome advises. But killing the Hyde Amendment is near the top not just of Clinton’s agenda but of Democrats in Congress. More federal dollars=more abortions.

There are other suggestions but they are either not going to promoted by Democrats or would have no impact on the 900,000+ abortions performed annually.

Prof. Groome is bitter Democrats fumbled the abortion issue away and President Trump picked it up and ran for a touchdown. But “fumbling” is the wrong metaphor.

Democrats consciously spiked the ball–they believe in abortion on demand, not just at home but around the world–and no more consider abortion a “moral issue” than they would support a supremely qualified Supreme Court nominee if he/she didn’t vow to support Roe v. Wade.

Why? Because Democrats ARE the party of abortion.

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

Categories: Abortion