NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Chelsea Clinton tells audience 60 million abortions add $3.5 billion to the economy

by | Aug 14, 2018

By Dave Andrusko

Chelsea Clinton
By Gbcue (Transferred from en.wikipedia) [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Kudos go out to Craig Bannister of CNS News for paying close attention to what Chelsea Clinton said last Saturday at the first stop of the “Rise up for Roe” tour.

According to Bannister, Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, opined that offing millions of unborn children added trillions to the economy. No, I am not kidding.

The 10 city tour is sponsored by three of the usual suspects: Planned Parenthood Action Fund [one of PPFA’s political arms], NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Demand Justice Initiative. Its inspiration is fear that Roe is endangered if Judge Brett Kavanaugh replaces the now retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, captured by the mantra of the need to be “maximum hysterical.”

Clinton’s premise is that women who’ve aborted are more likely to enter the labor force and in so doing cranked up the economy by a whopping $3.5 trillion dollars between 1973 and 2009!

Here are some of her quotes, as transcribed by Bannister.

“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.”

Thus, no matter what other things Americans may care about, everyone should appreciate the economic value of legalized abortion, Clinton said:

“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, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

So if I understand Ms. Clinton correctly, doesn’t really matter if you have an opinion on abortion per se. You should just appreciate its multiplier effect on the economy.

So, she implies, you can avoid all the ethical issues surrounding the dismemberment of over 60 million babies by framing legalized abortion as a pocketbook issue.

These people are enough to give cynicism a bad name.

Two other quick points about the tour and last Saturday’s get together in New York at which Clinton spoke last. I base them on a post that appeared at The Slot, described as “Jezebel’s Home for Politics, Suffrage and Suffering.” (The Jezebel blog is almost a caricature of pro-abortion feminism.)

#1. Frida Garza tells us that only about 300 people showed up on a “rainy Saturday afternoon in Manhattan.” To her credit, although the hyper-hot (and, of course, foul-mouthed) rhetoric insists that legalized abortion is a bonanza for women of color, Garza acknowledges “the crowd is largely white” (with “several men too”), most whom, “like New Yorkers generally, are left-leaning and already believe that abortion should be legal.”

#2. Garza tries hard to convince herself that personal abortion stories are a useful tool for changing opinion. (This is the heart of the anti-Kavanaugh strategy—that and trying to stall until after the November elections.) She begins “ Self-disclosure seems, admittedly, like one of the most powerful tools in the face of unmaking taboos—but …”

But what?

This strategy has been in place for decades. In 1972, before the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Roe, Ms. Magazine published a cover story where 53 women announced they had a (then-illegal) abortion. That strategy has been repeated many times since, most recently during 2015’s viral hashtag#ShoutYourAbortion which encouraged women to share their abortion stories in order to destigmatize the procedure. Storytelling can indeed be a powerful tool, but given the proliferation of stories and the proliferation of increasingly restrictive abortion law, it’s worth asking if narrative alone can save us.

Exactly but not for reasons Garza may believe.

These “self-disclosures” cut both ways. Most people interpret them very differently than PPFA and NARAL do, starting with a sympathy that extends to both mother and unborn child.

And as we have written many, many times, so often wrapped up in a personal story about abortion is regret, sorrow, and pain.

Categories: Abortion