Abortion access is a “painfully American” problem, “one we think that everyone needs to bear witness to,” Clinton added, in remarks cited by Yahoo. 

In 2018,  Clinton delusionally alleged that abortion-on-demand enabled by Roe v. Wade had been a net positive for the American economy. She claimed: 

“It is not a disconnected fact…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. So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.”

As Live Action pointed out, Clinton, a mother of a few kids herself, had conveniently neglected the loss of long-term labor contributions to the American economy due to the millions of murdered preborn children. (I wonder how her own kids feel about their mom promoting the killing of other people’s children?) 

Put simply, Clinton’s main thesis was that it is fine for women to opt out of motherhood in order to pursue their careers and “contribute to the economy”.

For years, the pro-death cult has been peddling the questionable notion that ditching marriage and motherhood in pursuit of the corporate ladder would somehow give women “satisfaction” in life, as if “motherhood” and “having a career” are mutually exclusive.

In response, Live Action News writer Kristi Burton Brown refuted Clinton’s nonsensical idea, stating: 

“Abortion on demand did not suddenly open up the work force to women.Chelsea Clinton forgets the contributions of women who worked hard to fight sexual discrimination in the workplace, the women who fought to open management positions to more women, and the women who decided that higher education was created not only for men, but also for women. These women did not open the doors of opportunity to their fellow women because Roe v. Wade brought abortion on demand, but instead, because they resisted inequality — many of them as wives and mothers.”

For years, the pro-death cult has been peddling the questionable notion that ditching marriage and motherhood in pursuit of the corporate ladder would somehow give women “satisfaction” in life, as if “motherhood” and “having a career” are mutually exclusive. (The very lives of Allyson Felix and Amy Coney Barett are strong counterarguments to the claims of the pro-death lobby.) 

Tragically, Clinton’s (and the anti-life cult’s) lies about how motherhood and career/lifestyle choices are mutually exclusive are not only commonplace in the secular West. 

Growing up in urbanized and materialistic Singapore, I know of some contemporaries (mostly non-Catholics) who have been completely taken in by the tragic cultural narrative of having “child-free” lifestyles. These people embraced the DINK (“double income, no kids”) mindset and claimed that having babies would “impede” their career and lifestyle desires, such as having twice-a-year holidays in Europe or Australia, or gallivanting around Singapore city in the latest sports car. Sadly, some of these people were not against the idea of killing babies to further their own personal ends.  (Up north, the situation in Communist China echoes the unfortunate reality of women choosing their careers over having kids.) 

To complicate matters,  many so-called TikTok influencers are unabashedly flaunting their child-free lifestyles.  As the left-leaning Forbes outlet claimed: 

“DINKs have more financial independence without having to outlay a fortune on raising children and get to engage in a flexible lifestyle. They are not burdened with costly expenses associated with starting a family, such as purchasing a larger home or car and spending more for health insurance, child care, groceries, clothes and toys. This cohort doesn’t need to allocate money toward college funds, buying them a car and having boomerang young adults returning home after college. Instead, with a greater disposable income, the couples can enjoy frequent travel, dining out regularly and attending nightclubs, concerts and sporting events without worrying about getting a babysitter. According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, couples with no children have the highest net worth out of all other family structures. The median net worth of a childfree couple in the U.S. is around $399,000—over $100,000 more than it was in 2019.”

Predictably, these left-leaning ideologues and hedonists are superficially defining “success” or “happiness” by materialistic barometers. 

Predictably, these left-leaning ideologues and hedonists are superficially defining “success” or “happiness” by materialistic barometers. 

Critiquing the emptiness of the DINK mindset, Itxu Díaz aptly put in The European Conservative: 

“But the DINK cosmos does not bet on anything positive. There is no larger noble goal or pursuit. Hedonism may sometimes be fun, but it is not an end in life, unless you are committed to living a proudly sad and miserable one. Lacking a goal to pursue that they can boast about, DINKs focus their proselytizing on hatred of their parents’ way of life. The effectiveness of their message, and the popularity of the phenomenon, is explained by the TikTok audience. Ultimately, the DINK message resonates perfectly with people who are not yet ready for parenthood. That call of nature does not usually appear at the age of 18, but a little later, which is when one begins to think for the first time that one could die any day and that, short of children, all one is going to take to the grave is an immense succession of empty hangovers. This is from the masculine point of view, From the feminine point of view, a certain longing for motherhood naturally arises from the woman’s bundle of instincts. As such, when a man tries to run away unhealthily from fatherhood, it is women who are best placed to inject some common sense into proceedings. If all reproduction hinged upon the whims of men, perhaps we would have become extinct by the Stone Age. Be that as it may, fighting against nature is a lousy idea, not least because sooner or later nature will exact her revenge—and often in a quite painful way. If what they seek is happiness, they may not know it, but by prioritizing their selfishness over the most elementary needs of their nature, they stand to obtain nothing but a spectacular vital failure. A diagnosis of the immediate future: DINK, give yourself a few years, and you will find yourself contending with all you were not looking for—unhappiness, boredom, depression, and the feeling of having thrown your life overboard. And the worst thing: often, when you realize it, there will be no turning back.” 

Adding, Díaz lambasted the selfish mindset of DINK proponents: 

“The denizens of DINK culture count themselves happy for living in constant homage to their own selves. In doing so, they miss one of life’s paradoxes: it is in selfishness that we are most solidly guaranteed unhappiness.” 

Notably, Díaz talked about the role of Christianity in providing people a blueprint for happiness, even in the world:

“What Christianity brought into the world is a way of salvation for the soul in eternity, but also a masterly formula for secular happiness: think a little more of others and a little less of yourself.” 

Díaz is spot-on. In a culture that exalts one’s “self” over others, it can be challenging to put others ahead of oneself. We tend to associate “happiness” with one’s “self-care” and “self-interests”, without looking beyond this narrow equation. 

Focusing our attention on others is good for our mental health; in fact, many people who do volunteer work actually find that it helps ease their depression and anxiety.

Nonetheless, many women who choose to have children are certainly bucking this aforementioned self-centered narrative. As writer Gina Florio penned: 

“Motherhood thrusts you into a space where you must think about another human being for a change. You don't have time to obsess over someone else's opinion of you or your shallow physique flaws when you have a hungry, teething baby on your hands. Focusing our attention on others is good for our mental health; in fact, many people who do volunteer work actually find that it helps ease their depression and anxiety. That's the beauty of motherhood – you think you're going to lose yourself because you have this new baby to take care of 24/7, but what actually happens is you find new meaning in yourself and in your life because you're not obsessing over yourself and your petty thoughts for a change. And that meaning is much, much more fulfilling than all the free time you had on your hands when you were childless.” 

Elaborating on the joys of motherhood, Florio went on: 

“It's certainly not easy, but it's actually not as difficult as you think it might be. Becoming a mother is one of those joys in life that will never be replaced with anything else, and knowing that you're devoting your life to something greater than you will bring you a deep sense of fulfillment.” 

While much has been said (in Catholic circles) about the nobility of motherhood, here’s what one of my favorite writers, G.K. Chesterton, had to say about motherhood and child-rearing:

“Babies need not be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, a woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren’t. It would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist. Now if anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worthwhile to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes. and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

Latest from RTV — Addressing the Clans: Michael Matt Speaks in San Diego