During the Debates Trump Made an Abortion Prediction. This Week It Came True


In recent weeks, Democrats in various states across the country have made disturbingly bold moves to codify, expand and protect the “right” of women to obtain an abortion, even up to the very moment prior to giving birth, a complete about-face from the old pro-abortion stance of “safe, legal and rare” and confined to early on in a pregnancy.

There was once a fairly broad consensus across the entirety of the spectrum on abortion. This consensus agreed that late-term abortions — conducted within the third trimester of a pregnancy — should be prohibited, as the unborn infant was by then fully-formed and most likely viable outside the womb.

All of that seemingly changed with a new law in New York that allows for abortions to be performed at any time prior to the moment of birth — a move Democrats in other states are attempting to emulate — and now many on the left are cheering for late-term abortions or even speaking of “post-birth” abortions — otherwise known as infanticide or the outright murder of a living, breathing human being.

Some may recall that then-candidate Donald Trump addressed such atrocities during the third and final presidential debate in the 2016 election, when he characterized his opponent Hillary Clinton as being supportive of unrestrained abortion — she is — and graphically describing how such procedures are undertaken, noting that it was “not OK” with him.

Teacher Who Allegedly Befriended and Raped a Minor Rearrested After Victim Receives Appalling Message

Trump said, “What Hillary is saying is in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother, just prior to the birth of the baby.”

“Now, you can say that that is OK, and Hillary can say that that’s OK, but it’s not OK with me,” he continued.

“Because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb, in the ninth month, on the final day, and that’s not acceptable,” added Trump.

Clinton indignantly fired back, “Well, that is not what happens in these cases, and using that kind of ‘scare’ rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.”

Do you agree that late-term abortions are "unacceptable?"

Except, as “scary” and “unfortunate” as Trump’s blunt rhetoric may have been to Clinton, it wasn’t wrong or untrue, despite how hard Clinton and others may have pushed back against it at the time, as seen in this concurrent article from The Washington Post, which sought to defend Clinton’s pro-abortion stance and convince readers that Trump was ignorant of the subject.

Indeed, as can be seen in the law recently passed by New York — as well as one proposed, and thankfully shot down for now, in Virginia — Democrats are most definitely saying it is “OK” to rip a baby — limb by limb, mind you — out of a mother’s womb in the ninth month of a pregnancy.

The article from The Post argued that Trump had a “misunderstanding of how abortion works” in America and stated that no doctors would perform abortions in the third trimester for any reason, not just because it was illegal in virtually all states at the time, but also because any complications or health risks at that late stage could be addressed by inducing labor early or performing a C-section operation to remove the live baby from the mother.

Yet, the New York law — and other Democrat-sponsored legislation in the pipelines of other states — show that Trump may simply have been slightly ahead of schedule in calling out Democrats for the atrocity that is late-term abortion, as they have just legalized — or are in the process of doing so — the exact thing that Trump warned against.

Say what you will about Trump, but he was dead-on accurate in calling out Clinton and the pro-abortion crowd for their “unacceptable” position that late-term abortions are “OK,” when the brutal and painful murder of fully-formed unborn babies that are viable outside the womb is most certainly “not OK” by any stretch of the imagination.

Republican Congressman: McCarthy Is My Friend, But I Must Follow My Conscience

Imagine for a moment that Clinton had won the election instead of Trump, and then consider how she may have reacted to the new pro-abortion law in New York, or the ones proposed in other states. She would undoubtedly be cheering them on, as other prominent Democrats are now doing, and likely pushing for legislation — or enacting via executive action — similar measures on the federal level.

Thankfully, Clinton didn’t win, and we instead have been blessed with arguably the most pro-life American president in modern history, one who has acted upon his vow to protect the sanctity of life and made it abundantly clear what will be viewed as acceptable and “unacceptable” in our civil society when it comes to the treatment of innocent unborn babies.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , , , ,
Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. He has written about current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments.
Ben Marquis has written on current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. He reads voraciously and writes about the news of the day from a conservative-libertarian perspective. He is an advocate for a more constitutional government and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, which protects the rest of our natural rights. He lives in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the love of his life as well as four dogs and four cats.
The School of Life
Little Rock, Arkansas
Languages Spoken
Topics of Expertise