NRL News

Chelsea Clinton, abortion, and the economy: Round Two

by | Aug 30, 2018

By Dave Andrusko

Chelsea Clinton

Editor’s note. My family and I will be on our vacation through September 7. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked.

Except for comparison purposes, I promise we’re not going to go on about pro-abortion New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s flimsy and desperate (and lame) effort to walk back his tone-deaf and highly revealing comment that “We’re not going to make America great again – it was never that great.”

Cuomo (the son of the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo who, like his son, had presidential aspirations) has tried various iterations but they start with the preposterous excuse that his phrasing had been “inartful.”

Another famous child of a would-be political dynasty—Chelsea Clinton—has her own repair job. But in her case, it is to keep saying she didn’t say what she said.

As we discussed last week, Clinton (the daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton) spoke at a sparsely attended “Rise up for Roe” rally in Manhattan where she cold-bloodedly argued that Roe v. Wade was a bonanza for the economy—to the tune of $3.5 trillion between 1973 and 2009—because of the “new entrance” of women in the workforce!

Before I take a look at her twitter exchange with Dinesh D’Souza, here’s what Clinton said:

Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access, right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency – you have to care about this.

It is not a disconnected fact – to address this t-shirt of 1973– that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy, right?

The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.

So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.

Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, some of these other arguments that you are hearing expressed so beautifully, will be.

Here’s the subsequent back and forth between D’Souza and Clinton




Three things.

#1. Take out the double negative and Clinton is saying that “more women entering the workforce” was connected to Roe. “Wasn’t disconnected from …” is to try to minimize Roe, imply that it is some minor, even throwaway, part of “reproductive health care choices.” She’s shrinking the importance of abortion.

If you believe that, you will believe that still another pro-abortionist said was sincere when he said “If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”

#2. In her second response, she expands the alleged impact of legal abortion. “From 1973-1985, American women’s deaths from abortion declined 5-fold.” Let’s be very clear. Every death is an unmitigated tragedy, that’s why pro-lifers fight to save every unborn babies and each of their mothers. If we assume Clinton is relatively accurate, what is the connection to adding $3.5 billion to the economy? Nothing.


#3. Also in her second response (“to @Twitter paraphrase”), Clinton repeats the same claim she made in her remarks at the rally, only more briefly. Again, taking away the double negative, Clinton is saying the “new entrance” of woman is connected to Roe, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 60 million unborn babies. If all of this isn’t a distinction without a difference I’ve never seen one.

Back in the day, her father (with good reason) was famously dubbed “Slick Willie.” Clearly the apple did not fall far from the tree.

Categories: Abortion