![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/DownwardTrendGraph.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The new pro-life movement is, basically, leftists and Democrats who are pro-life \u2014 I don\u2019t deny<\/em> at all that they are<\/em> \u2014 and who like to run down what they call the \u201cold pro-life movement\u201d and those who push policies that they too often mock as not really<\/em> pro-life: by derogatorily using quotation marks around the title: \u201cpro-life\u201d. They have been falsely claiming for years that abortions rise during Republican administrations and go down during Democrat ones. This is untrue, and I have refuted it several times:<\/p>\n Debate: How Pro-Life is the Republican Party (Especially the Leadership)?\u00a0<\/a>[5-8-17]<\/p>\n Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 2-28-18]<\/p>\n Debate: SCOTUS & GOP in Relation to Abortion Rates<\/a>\u00a0[11-15-18]<\/p>\n Debate: Do Liberal Social Policies Lessen Abortion & Poverty?<\/a> [5-19-19]<\/p>\n No one need merely take my word for this. Liberal and pro-abortion organizations and websites freely admit it as well. For example, the liberal fact-checking site, Snopes<\/em>, published an article, \u201cAbortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones\u201d<\/a> (11-11-16). That is, the title was the proposition under consideration. Snopes deemed it to be a \u201cfalse\u201d<\/strong> statement and observed:<\/p>\n It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties.<\/p>\n It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cU.S. Abortion Statistics\u201d<\/a> reports the numbers of abortions in recent years, according to the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute:<\/p>\n 2014<\/strong>\u00a0926,240<\/p>\n 2015<\/strong> 913,000 [1.5% decline from the previous year]<\/p>\n 2016<\/strong> 890,000 [2.6%\u00a0decline from the previous year]<\/p>\n 2017<\/strong> 862,320 [3.1% decline from the previous year; 7% decline since 2014]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that 2017 was President Trump\u2019s first year in office. The abortion rates continued to decline, and at an even greater<\/em> rate. We see that the rate was accelerating during Obama\u2019s last year in office as well, but the 2017 rate of decline was twice as much as the 2015 rate. This supports the Snopes conclusion: a decline is occurring during both Republican and Democrat administrations. It\u2019s certainly not at all<\/em> the case that the decline has stopped or reversed under Trump. Now we have the statistics to prove that, and it puts the lie to new pro-life rhetoric (examples of which I will provide below) in this regard.<\/p>\n I have contended that a primary (but not sole<\/em>) cause of the decline is the large amount of abortion restrictions put in place: mostly at the state level, and overwhelmingly by Republicans, with minimal or literally no cooperation from Democrats in most states (save a very few like Louisiana, where a Democrat can actually be pro-life and get elected). Again, statistics on the number of regulations can be obtained from Guttmacher Institute (lest we be accused of exaggerating and fudging the facts). Guttmacher reports the facts of these restrictions, even in an article (from 9-18-19)<\/a> that expressly denies<\/em> that they are a prime cause<\/em> of the decline:<\/p>\n The question of what is behind these trends has important policy implications, and the 2011\u20132017 period warrants particular attention because it coincided with an unprecedented wave of new abortion restrictions. During that timeframe, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions,\u00a0with the vast majority of these measures having taken effect (that is, they were not struck down by a court).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another Guttmacher article from September 2019<\/a> stated:<\/p>\n Despite existing precedents, states have continued to find ways to restrict or ban abortion, enacting more than 227 restrictions between January 2014 and June 2019.\u00a0More than a dozen cases challenging some of the most extreme restrictions\u2014such as bans on abortions after six weeks\u2019 gestation\u2014currently have the potential to reach the Supreme Court, and the outcomes could pose significant challenges to the legal framework protecting abortion rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet another Guttmacher article from the same month<\/a> observed that the 2017 rate was an \u201chistoric low\u201d and that:<\/p>\n The abortion rate in 2017 was 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15\u201344, down 8% from 14.6 per 1,000 in 2014. This is the lowest rate ever observed in the United States; in 1973, the year abortion became legal, the rate was 16.3.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pro-lifers who vote Democrat, thinking it the more \u201cpro-life\u201d vote, are\u00a0useful idiots<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>for the pro-abort cause. This is precisely what is so scandalous about it. The pro-aborts love<\/em> pro-lifers who \u201creason\u201d as these people do. The pro-aborts know who their champions are: the folks who will promote and further their agenda. Hence, Planned Parenthood gave Hillary Clinton its (first-ever!) \u201cChampion of the Century\u201d award<\/a>, and NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League)<\/a> gave Killary its Lifetime Achievement Award<\/a>.<\/p>\n Again, they<\/em> know who will promote their agenda. They\u2019re immoral and proponents of wicked evil, but they\u2019re not idiots<\/em>. But useful idiot pro-lifer actually doesn\u2019t know who promotes abortion and who does not, and winds up voting for the pro-abort champions and heroes, and insanely pretend that that<\/em> will lower abortion and create a greater culture of life. It\u2019s one of the greatest self-delusions ever seen: in the political arena or anywhere else.<\/p>\n New pro-lifer and Democrat Mark Shea is equally delusional and stubbornly defiant, in the face of the above indisputable facts:<\/p>\n [A]nybody who thinks the Cult of Trump is the \u201cprolife party\u201d is a delusional fool.<\/p>\n There are two parties.\u00a0 One is the party that is 100% responsible<\/strong> for appointing the SCOTUS judges who gave us\u00a0Roe . . .<\/em> [my bolding] (\u201cSome Elementary Catholic Moral Reasoning\u201d<\/a> \u2013 1-10-20)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The latter claim is demonstrably false. Is Mark incapable of doing rudimentary investigative research? Of the seven men who signed on to Roe v. Wade and legal child murder in 1973, two were Democrat-appointed: William O. Douglas (by FDR in 1939), and Thurgood Marshall (by LBJ in 1967). Moreover, of the two dissenters, William Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon just a year earlier, and Byron White by JFK in 1962. So the two pro-lifers in the fateful case were split between the parties.<\/p>\n And while the GOP appointees have been by no means perfect, several<\/em> of them have ruled in a pro-life manner, whereas no<\/em> Democrat appointee since Byron White, appointed 58 years ago, has done so. So once again, whatever pro-life gains have<\/em> come from the Supreme Court (just as those from Congress and state legislatures and administrations), have been overwhelmingly<\/em> from Republican<\/strong><\/em> appointees. But Mark is too blind and too much of a useful idiot himself to see this. Mark continues to rave against demonstrable reality:<\/p>\n And above all, they [Republicans] have consistently advocated policies which tend to drive the demand for abortion up, not down.<\/p>\n In short, there\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0no prolife party.\u00a0 Stop lying to yourself that there is.\u00a0 There are two parties that support the right to an abortion.\u00a0 One of them supports a host of evils and anti-human policies in addition to abortion. The other party is the Democrats. . . .<\/p>\n I will not only vote Dem in November with a clear conscience, but with a sense of obligation before Almighty God to do so. The Dems are the only party capable of stopping the gravest domestic threat we have faced in my lifetime. And now the Cult of Trump have formally joined the ranks of grave international threats as well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This nonsense has been refuted above (and in other articles of mine).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic Lawyer Huge Hewitt\u2019s Case for a Trump Vote Based on the Future of the Supreme Court\u00a0<\/a>(+\u00a0Part Two<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Part Three<\/a>) [8-14-16]<\/p>\n On Trump & the \u201cSupreme\u201d Pro-Life Cause<\/a>\u00a0[8-16-16]<\/p>\n Dialogue: Conservatives & \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers & the Poor<\/a>\u00a0[10-3-16]<\/p>\n Dialogue with Deacon Steven Greydanus on Voting & Pro-Life<\/a>\u00a0[11-8-16]<\/p>\n \u201cTrump Ain\u2019t Really Pro-Life\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-24-17]<\/p>\n \u201cLessen Evil\u201d Votes for Hillary?<\/a>\u00a0[note: Mark Shea did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0vote for Hillary, but he urged people in swing states to do so]\u00a0(vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]<\/p>\n Simcha Fisher\u2019s \u201cNew\u201d Pro-Life Critique of \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers\u00a0<\/a>[Simcha\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0vote for Hillary Clinton] (+ vigorous\u00a0Facebook discussion<\/a>) [8-2-17]<\/p>\n Are \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Lifers Racists & \u201cAnti-Woman\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0(vs. John Cavanaugh-O\u2019Keefe) [8-30-17]<\/p>\n Good Christians Can Support Trump (Amazingly Enough)!<\/a>\u00a0[7-21-18]<\/p>\n Are Trump & His Supporters Nuts & Evil?<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Mark Shea) [9-6-18]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Conservative vs. Liberal Pro-Life Voting<\/a>\u00a0[2-9-19]<\/p>\n Could God\u00a0Possibly<\/em>\u00a0Use Trump, Like Queen Esther? . . . and Like He Used Balaam\u2019s Ass, Jonah\u2019s Whale, King Cyrus, and the Babylonian Heathen King, Nebuchadnezzar (Not to Mention Adulterous Murderer, David)?<\/a>\u00a0[3-23-19]<\/p>\n Explaining the Pro-Life, Christian Vote for Trump Yet Again<\/a>\u00a0[4-30-19]<\/p>\n Dialogue: Christian Witness, Trump, & Prudential Voting\u00a0<\/a>(vs. Deacon Steven D. Greydanus) [5-10-19]<\/p>\nChristians Voting for Pro-Aborts?!?!<\/a>\u00a0[4-4-04]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTen Reasons Why Pro-Lifers Vote for Pro-Aborts<\/a>\u00a0[10-29-08]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReply to Democrats for Life<\/a>\u00a0[5-1-12]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cPro-Lifers\u201d Vote for Childkillers? Huh?! (Reductio ad Absurdum<\/em>)<\/a>\u00a0[3-3-16]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cHow Can a Catholic Vote for Trump?!!?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[5-28-16]<\/div>\n***<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\nPractical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or<\/span>\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to<\/span>\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to<\/span>\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and<\/span>\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\nOr you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general.\u00a0If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a<\/span>\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n*<\/span><\/div>\nPayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0<\/span>About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/span><\/div>\n