Why are liberals willing to protect children at the border, but not inside the womb?

First acts are telling, especially on Capitol Hill.

The opening day of the 116th Congress featured passage of a Democrat-sponsored bill that called for a full repeal of President TrumpDonald John TrumpConway defends herself against Hatch Act allegations amid threat of subpoena How to defuse Gulf tensions and avoid war with Iran Trump says 'stubborn child' Fed 'blew it' by not cutting rates MORE’s “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy” — legislation that prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions around the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

This bill has long been known as the “Mexico city policy,” and it’s a favorite target of abortion enthusiasts like the new speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiThis week: Congress set for clash on Trump's border request Judd Gregg: An Irish friend and wisdom Juan Williams: Warren on the rise MORE (D-Calif.).

The abortion provisions were snuck into the controversial funding bill that would reopen the government without the funds that President Trump has requested to protect the southern border of the United States.

To be sure, good people can approach the issue of border security differently, but the contradictory contrast being championed by abortion-supporting liberals is breathtaking.

Consider the argument that many liberals are making about the crisis at the border:

According to the proponents of open borders, it’s only humane for the United States to grant sanctuary to these individuals. After all, how can a prosperous country do any less? It’s heartless and mean-spirited to turn them away. They’re God’s children, and they’re worthy of dignity and respect.

At the same time, these same liberals enthusiastically support federal funding for the unfettered slaughter of unborn children. In other words, children at the border are deserving of protection, but children inside the womb are not.

Don’t expect this glaring contradiction to be highlighted in major media, because it destroys the narrative that it is repeated ad nauseam. President Trump said today that the current stalemate could last years and that the crisis at the border may force him to declare a national emergency in order to begin construction on the wall. 

Tragically, America’s abortion genocide has long been a national emergency, a catastrophic crisis that has cost the lives of nearly 55 million innocent children since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling.

Of course, abortion is not just limited to the United States. According to recently released world statistics, it’s the leading cause of death across the globe, with more than 56 million fatalities attributed to the horrific act last year alone. In fact, abortion-related deaths are more than those from cancer, malaria, AIDS and traffic accidents combined.

Spirited debate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy but the dishonest rhetoric that’s being tossed about in the current debate is despicable. I use that emphasis because of the taking of innocent human life.  

In a "Wall Street Journal" column over 15 years ago, former White House speechwriter and columnist Peggy Noonan bemoaned the degradation of life in popular culture, specifically in television shows, advertisements and in the news. She went on to acknowledge how the Democrat Party remains unwavering in their support of abortion rights but concluded by predicting that any political party that embraces “the unfettered killing of young humans” will never flourish.

More than a decade later, I think Noonan is precisely right. In the interim, ironically, Speaker Pelosi may be the one holding the gavel in the House when Roe is eventually overturned.

Jim Daly is president of Focus on the Family. Follow him on Twitter @DalyFocus