A defining issue for many conservative voters, though one that hasn’t been discussed much in this election, is abortion. Donald Trump has recently had a pro-life conversion (to be determined if it is a legitimate one), leaving voters with a potential pro-life Republican and a definite pro-choice liberal.
During the final presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News asked the candidates about their position on abortion. Hillary Clinton replied:
“Well, I strongly support Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make the most intimate, most difficult, in many cases, decisions about her health care that one can imagine. And in this case, it’s not only about Roe v. Wade. It is about what’s happening right now in America.”
He followed up with another question, asking her, “I’m going to give you a chance to respond, but I want to ask you, Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?”
Her reply is telling.
“I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.”
She never denied that a fetus has no constitutional rights. Instead, she framed the debate in terms of a “woman’s health.”
Trump took her to task, albeit imperfectly, pointing out, “Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”
Rip the baby apart indeed. A gruesome, yet accurate, portrayal of a partial-birth abortion.
Hillary Clinton’s position on abortion has waffled. She claims to support restrictions, but her position seems like one more of convenience than principle. Her rhetoric about women’s rights being human rights and the emotion in her voice betray her “official position,” especially with the way she defines those terms.
If WikiLeaks has shown anything, Hillary Clinton is the master of presenting public and private positions, from Wall-Street regulation to guns. A healthy skepticism requires temporary disbelief of any public position she takes until all of her private statements are taken into account.
Stepping back for a moment, removing all of the political posturing around this issue, the abortion debate is a sign of a person’s commitment to humanity.
As a mother, Clinton would know what it feels like to receive the news that she is pregnant, what she felt like when her baby kicked for the first time, and even the joy of seeing her child’s face first experiencing the world and the love of its parents.
Parents describe that moment as one of the happiest times of their lives. Most can recall many details of the day, from what they were wearing to what they ate for lunch.
Yet, under Hillary Clinton’s America, unborn lives do not matter. In fact, she bases her entire position on a nebulous claim to “reproductive health” — as if reproductive health somehow included an abortion.
Since when did sexual dysfunction, menstrual regulation, or birth control fit into the same category as taking the life of one’s own child? As a lawyer and a person who claims she is “careful with her words,” she understands the implications of her positions and public statements.
Never mind though.
A fetus has no constitutional rights. Black lives “matter,” but unborn lives do not.
In the end, Hillary Clinton likely believes in unfettered access to abortion for any woman for any reason. That alone should give even the most strident liberal pause, for how can a person support human rights and a just society without advocating for the absolute least among us? To rid the world of them for relational or economic convenience?
Let the effects of the sexual revolution continue to march on.