By Dave Andrusko
As a husband, the father of three adult daughters, a father-in-law to my son’s wife, and the grandfather of Emma, I celebrate 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? If you go elsewhere on NRL News Today, you’ll find a story by Political Director Karen Cross that compares Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on abortion which links to a downloadable flyer.
So let me offer just a few additional points here.
Is there an abortion–any time, any place, for any reason–that Clinton would say, “That goes too far.”
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?
“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.”
And, as a reflection, for the first time, the party platform calls for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment.
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.
Forewarned is forearmed.