Dennis M. Howard
Trump's pro-life landslide
By Dennis M. Howard
A wave of optimism has swept Wall Street and the country since Donald Trump won the presidency, but hardline Democrats and the liberal press still don't seem to know what hit them.
All of those Hillary donors on Wall Street must be kicking themselves for donating millions to her cause while paying big bucks for her speeches. Since Trump's victory, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen over 1700 points and some stocks have more than doubled in value – all in about 30 days. Talk about bad investment timing from all those Wall Street geniuses.
However, as dazed as the Democrats and the liberals are, the election results represent a major sea change in the American political scene that won't be reversed for at least another generation. The profound truth of that is evident when you dig deep into the election numbers.
A careful analysis of the election results confirms what TIME magazine called "a divided country," but the division goes far deeper than even the editors of TIME surmise.
A state-by-state comparison of abortion data and the election results confirms that the division is in fact about abortion, and clearly the pro-life side is winning. It also gives a whole new meaning to the red state/blue state division between the two major political parties.
Basically, our analysis shows that Donald Trump won a landslide victory in pro-life leaning, low abortion states, while Hillary held big margins in liberal, pro-choice states. The big change is that the pro-life leaning states now have a commanding edge.
The average abortion rate in the states Hillary won is a staggering 92% higher than in the states Trump carried – 22.07 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in her states compared to 11.5 per 1,000 in the states he carried. That's a huge difference.
Trump carried 30 low abortion states with an average margin of 56.6% of the vote, while Clinton carried 20 high abortion states plus the District of Columbia with an average margin of 55.9%.
This confirms the dramatic split between predominantly pro-life Republican red states and abortion-tolerant Democrat blue states. It is also a powerful argument for reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the abortion issue back to the states.
After all, why should conservative pro-life states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Idaho, Mississippi, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Utah – all with low abortion rates – have to abide by the same liberal rules as high abortion states like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Maryland?
If this is all about choice, as Planned Parenthood would have us believe, why can't each state set its own abortion policies? It's a fair question especially in states where the vast majority of citizens demonstrably abhor abortion.
Despite federal laws to the contrary, we allow states to set their own policies on the medical and recreational use of marijuana. Doing the same thing with abortion would at least respect the consciences of people in the conservative pro-life states. Riding roughshod over their deep personal and religious convictions is hardly the mark of a free society.
But now to the most significant question: What made this election such a dramatic turning point in the future of both major political parties?
They say demographics is destiny, and the proof of that is in the devastating toll that abortion has taken among Black and Hispanic populations in and around our inner cities who traditionally vote 70% to 90% Democrat.
It is time to face the fact that the militant advocacy for abortion among leading Democrats – combined with genocidal targeting of Black and Hispanic communities by Planned Parenthood – has inevitably taken a huge demographic toll of these constituencies.
A conservative estimate of cumulative Black abortions is now pushing 21 million, and the inevitable consequence of that is a 50% drop in Black births in cities like New York. It's called "the echo effect." Aborted babies don't live to have children and grandchildren, and that has prevented the birth of at least another 13 million Blacks. And that number keeps rising.
The net effect is an estimated 13 to 15 million missing people in this year's Black voting population. Ninety per cent of that would have given Hillary an additional margin of at least 10 million more votes, which is more than enough to have turned the tide in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North and South Carolina, Georgia and probably even Florida and Texas.
Problem is: they've been aborting 40% of Black babies for years. If all those Black babies were still around, it would have been a landslide for Hillary not Trump.
In short, what cost Hillary the election was not the charming personality of Donald J. Trump, but the inevitable impact of the Democratic Party's aggressive pro-abortion policy that began when the Clintons threw Pennsylvania's pro-life Governor Bob Casey out of their convention in 1992.
That decision cost them the support of a handful of lifelong pro-life Democrats like me, but the wave they set in motion has since turned into a tsunami.
They may be able to get a few dead people out of the cemetery to vote on election day, but there is no way to bring back tens of millions of aborted Black and Hispanic babies or their precious children who might well have grown up to be voting citizens today.
© Dennis M. Howard
December 12, 2016
A wave of optimism has swept Wall Street and the country since Donald Trump won the presidency, but hardline Democrats and the liberal press still don't seem to know what hit them.
All of those Hillary donors on Wall Street must be kicking themselves for donating millions to her cause while paying big bucks for her speeches. Since Trump's victory, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen over 1700 points and some stocks have more than doubled in value – all in about 30 days. Talk about bad investment timing from all those Wall Street geniuses.
However, as dazed as the Democrats and the liberals are, the election results represent a major sea change in the American political scene that won't be reversed for at least another generation. The profound truth of that is evident when you dig deep into the election numbers.
A careful analysis of the election results confirms what TIME magazine called "a divided country," but the division goes far deeper than even the editors of TIME surmise.
A state-by-state comparison of abortion data and the election results confirms that the division is in fact about abortion, and clearly the pro-life side is winning. It also gives a whole new meaning to the red state/blue state division between the two major political parties.
Basically, our analysis shows that Donald Trump won a landslide victory in pro-life leaning, low abortion states, while Hillary held big margins in liberal, pro-choice states. The big change is that the pro-life leaning states now have a commanding edge.
The average abortion rate in the states Hillary won is a staggering 92% higher than in the states Trump carried – 22.07 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in her states compared to 11.5 per 1,000 in the states he carried. That's a huge difference.
Trump carried 30 low abortion states with an average margin of 56.6% of the vote, while Clinton carried 20 high abortion states plus the District of Columbia with an average margin of 55.9%.
This confirms the dramatic split between predominantly pro-life Republican red states and abortion-tolerant Democrat blue states. It is also a powerful argument for reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the abortion issue back to the states.
After all, why should conservative pro-life states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Idaho, Mississippi, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Utah – all with low abortion rates – have to abide by the same liberal rules as high abortion states like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Maryland?
If this is all about choice, as Planned Parenthood would have us believe, why can't each state set its own abortion policies? It's a fair question especially in states where the vast majority of citizens demonstrably abhor abortion.
Despite federal laws to the contrary, we allow states to set their own policies on the medical and recreational use of marijuana. Doing the same thing with abortion would at least respect the consciences of people in the conservative pro-life states. Riding roughshod over their deep personal and religious convictions is hardly the mark of a free society.
But now to the most significant question: What made this election such a dramatic turning point in the future of both major political parties?
They say demographics is destiny, and the proof of that is in the devastating toll that abortion has taken among Black and Hispanic populations in and around our inner cities who traditionally vote 70% to 90% Democrat.
It is time to face the fact that the militant advocacy for abortion among leading Democrats – combined with genocidal targeting of Black and Hispanic communities by Planned Parenthood – has inevitably taken a huge demographic toll of these constituencies.
A conservative estimate of cumulative Black abortions is now pushing 21 million, and the inevitable consequence of that is a 50% drop in Black births in cities like New York. It's called "the echo effect." Aborted babies don't live to have children and grandchildren, and that has prevented the birth of at least another 13 million Blacks. And that number keeps rising.
The net effect is an estimated 13 to 15 million missing people in this year's Black voting population. Ninety per cent of that would have given Hillary an additional margin of at least 10 million more votes, which is more than enough to have turned the tide in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North and South Carolina, Georgia and probably even Florida and Texas.
Problem is: they've been aborting 40% of Black babies for years. If all those Black babies were still around, it would have been a landslide for Hillary not Trump.
In short, what cost Hillary the election was not the charming personality of Donald J. Trump, but the inevitable impact of the Democratic Party's aggressive pro-abortion policy that began when the Clintons threw Pennsylvania's pro-life Governor Bob Casey out of their convention in 1992.
That decision cost them the support of a handful of lifelong pro-life Democrats like me, but the wave they set in motion has since turned into a tsunami.
They may be able to get a few dead people out of the cemetery to vote on election day, but there is no way to bring back tens of millions of aborted Black and Hispanic babies or their precious children who might well have grown up to be voting citizens today.
© Dennis M. Howard
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
