Hillary Clinton Has Said Abortion “Rights” are “Human Rights.” Do We Really Want Her as President?
Throughout the August digital edition of National Right to Life News you’ll find story after story laying out in chapter and verse what is at stake Tuesday, November 8. And because so much depends on our willingness to fight through every obstacle, I’m depending on you to read the edition cover to cover and forward NRL News to your entire list of pro-life contacts.
Will it be easy? Is it ever easy? No. Our job, in season and out, is to never take our eye off the objective: moving us forward to the day all unborn children are welcomed in life and protected in law.
Let’s talk about just a few of the many, many election-related stories. On page one, we have a to-the-point presidential comparison piece–the Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Hillary Clinton, the poster child for abortion extremism on steroids.
At the bottom of page one is a line-by-line comparison of the party platforms on life. If you read nothing else in this issue, these two stories paint a contrast so stark, no single-issue pro-life voter could ever be confused which about direction the candidates and their party will take us and, most importantly, the littlest Americans.
We wrote and wrote and wrote about last month’s Democratic National Convention. That much of the last night was a veneer of kudos to Middle America intended to cover the party’s foundational out-of-the mainstream agenda was the final and best example of Hollywood slick.
For our single-issue purposes, give the devil her due. Clinton did not mention the “A” word, but abortion advocacy saturated the three-day event.
SIGN THE PLEDGE! We Oppose Hillary Clinton!
The last couple of years we’ve written several times about Cecile Richards’ decision to at long last talk about her abortion. I argued that the likely explanation was she was flushed out by militants so radical the head of Planned Parenthood was afraid of being dubbed a “moderate.”
By now it’s routine for Richards to expound on her abortion, although her role at the Democratic National Convention was more about bashing Donald Trump and vouching for Clinton. As she said
As first lady, Hillary declared to the world that, “women’s rights are human rights.” …
As Secretary of State, she was a champion for women and girls around the globe.
And she will always stand up for Roe v. Wade and the right of every woman to access a full range of reproductive health care, including abortion, no matter her economic status.
Talking about her own abortion fell into the willing hands of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Ilyse Hogue. Her remarks were hailed as nothing short of historic, a landmark–the first time a woman had talked about her abortion at a national political convention.
To those eager to “normalize” abortion and to demonstrate the Democrats’ complete capitulation to the outer fringes of the pro-abortion movement, Hogue 4 ½ minute long speech was a breakthrough.
For almost everyone else, it was also a sight to behold and depressing to hear. Hogue began by announcing that she was a fourth generation Texan and that
Texas women are tough. We approach challenges with clear eyes and full hearts. To succeed in life, all we need are the tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path. I was fortunate enough to have these things when I found out I was pregnant years ago. I wanted a family, but it was the wrong time. I made the decision that was best for me – to have an abortion – and was able to get compassionate care at a clinic in my own community. Now, years later, my husband and I are parents to two incredible children.
I have no doubt that Texas women are tough. But this Texan evidently was not tough enough to spare an unborn child’s life if his/her presence came “at the wrong time.”
I am glad that she and her husband have “two incredible children.” I would be even gladder if she had three incredible children, whether that third child resided with them or with a loving couple that would have taken that first baby into their home.
But Hogue did us one favor, she was straightforward. She unambiguously explained the reason why that baby is dead: because that decision “was best for me.”
As for Hillary Clinton, like virtually all Americans–and certainly as a husband, the father of three adult daughters, a father-in-law to my son’s wife, and the grandfather of Emma–I celebrated that a major political party could endorse a woman for President of the United States. But what I celebrate in principle is what countless millions like me lament in practice: the choice.
Once Hillary Clinton officially became the Democrats’ presidential nominee we were informed (to list just a few items) that we should set “petty partisan differences” aside; recognize that she is more qualified than her husband was when he ran for President (and won) in 1992; and that anything less than flattery of the former Secretary of State is thinly-disguised (or not so thinly-disguised) sexism.
However when you are talking about Hillary Clinton, the epicenter of the worldwide campaign to eradicate not disease but as many “unwanted” unborn babies as possible, then your happiness that a woman can ascend to the most powerful political office in the world is negated by who that woman is.
Put another way, I lament with every fiber in my body that the woman who ”broke the ultimate glass ceiling” did so at least in part over the broken bodies of unborn babies all over the world.
In what sense is that charge true, and not an exaggeration? Look on page one which links to a downloadable flyer. Ask yourself these questions:
Is there an abortion–any time, any place, for any reason–that Clinton would say, “That goes too far.”
No.
Does the unborn child have any recognizable rights, let alone constitutional protections?
In April, Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked Clinton: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?” She answered,
“Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
On the off-off chance Clinton wanted some wiggle room, two days later, Paula Faris (of The View) asked this follow up question:
“And Secretary, I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on Meet the Press regarding abortion. You said, ‘the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’ My question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?
Clinton responded,
“Under our law, that is the case, Paula. I support Roe v Wade.”
By overwhelming margins, the American people do not want to finance abortions. Surely, as a “pro-choicer,” Clinton believes that the public should have the choice whether to pay for abortions, right?
Surely you jest.
When she pocketed Planned Parenthood’s endorsement last January in Manchester, New Hampshire, Clinton boldly went into unchartered territories.
Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it, is no right at all. … and not as long as we have laws on the books like the Hyde Amendment making it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”
As a reflection, for the first time, the party platform calls for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment. And, needless to say, her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine (Va.), quickly jettisoned his support for the Hyde Amendment in favor of supporting “all elements of the Democratic presidential nominee’s agenda.”
As Americans, our first thoughts are what a President Hillary Clinton would mean for our unborn children here at home. But we care about unborn babies everywhere, and a President Hillary Clinton’s global influence is enough to make your blood run cold.
On May 19, Clinton delivered a video message to the Women Deliver 2016 conference in Copenhagen. Clinton called for renewed efforts to “break down the barriers holding back women and girls around the world” and stated, “Gender equality, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, must be a core priority.”
As Marie Smith, of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, has written
It is well-known that Clinton has long supported abortion on demand throughout pregnancy calling it not only a woman’s right, a human right and a ‘reproductive right’ but unabashedly proclaimed in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in April 2009 that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.”
Activists have pushed for expansion of the sexual and reproductive agenda since the 1995 Women’s Conference in Beijing when Clinton led the US delegation as First Lady. In her remarks she referenced Beijing and stated,
“And the gains we’ve made since then prove that progress is possible. But as you all know too well, our work is far from finished. This is an important moment as we chart a course to meet the new Sustainable Development Goals. We have to break down the barriers holding back women and girls around the world.”
Hillary Clinton believes Americans should not hide the light of abortion under a bushel. We should put it on a stand and share it with the world.
I have called Clinton a True Believer’s True Believer. But this really does not do justice to a woman whose determination to multiply the number of abortions around the globe is unmatched.
Could the stakes be any clearer?
