By Dave Andrusko
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention
Editor’s note. My family and I will be on vacation through September 6. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked over the last five months. This first ran August 8.
Hillary Clinton and her army of media defenders want to have the former Secretary of State’s absolute abortion on demand position both ways. To the never-enough-abortion crowd, shout (not merely signal) that there is no limit to how far she will promote the killing of unborn children. To those whose conscience is not completely dead, signal (not shout) that she has (as Myriam Renaud writes) “moral conflicts on abortion.”
Of course, this alleged “moral conflict” never gets in the way of supporting absolutely every item on the radical agenda menu–abortion on demand, exporting abortion to the rest of the world, gutting the life-saving Hyde Amendment, (as a U.S. senator) to early and often opposing the ban on partial-birth abortions and (as a presidential candidate) the pain-capable unborn child protection act.
And in case anyone was unclear how far Clinton is willing to go, she recently insisted that the unborn has no rights–no rights— “just hours before delivery.”
So in the face of all this, how in the world can Renaud argue Clinton’s abortion views are “more nuanced” then the list just cited would suggest? Her argument is so painfully inaccurate, out of date, and thrown together, it hurts just to cite it.
The long and the short of it is that as a life-long Methodist, Clinton reflects the Methodist Church’s position on abortion, specifically the UMC’s Book of Resolutions which “accepts abortion but only in a qualified way.”
But, of course, as NRL News and NRL News Today have pointed out (in running multiple columns by pro-life UMC ministers), this “qualified” support for abortion didn’t prevent the denomination from being up to its institutional eyeballs in pro-abortion advocacy and (until recently) its General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and the United Methodist Women (UMW) from being members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
I could go and on but you can read Renaud’s argument. But keep in mind two things. First, it’s as if time has stood still and the old Bill and Hillary Clinton formulation of abortion “safe, legal and rare” is still both the Democratic Party’s position and Hillary’s. Neither is true. They have “evolved.”
Second, seeing abortion through “a Methodist lens” has completely obscured the unborn child. “Spurred by this religious mandate,” Renaud writes, “Clinton seems to have set aside her personal reservations about abortion in favor of ‘the good’ of public protections for women’s health which, in her view, includes access to safe, legal procedures.”
Fortunately, this sense of the “good” just happens to offer carte blanch for someone obsessed with battering down all protective laws at home and aboard.
In other words, for the zillion time, a pro-abortion Democrat has wrestled her or his conscience into submission.
More abortions, now and forever is the mindset of candidate Hillary Clinton. Imagine what the results would be in the hands of a President Hillary Clinton.