The Pro-Life Case for Hillary Clinton (and other Democratic Presidential Nominees)

Every election cycle, pro-lifers are subjected to a seemingly endless parade of editorials and opinion pieces claiming that pro-life interests would be well served by electing a presidential candidate who supports legal abortion. This year has proven to be no exception. In August, Evangelical blogger Rachel Held Evans wrote a widely circulated article encouraging pro-lifers to vote for Hillary Clinton. This week in The Christian Post, Eric Sapp wrote a similar piece entitled “Hillary Clinton is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion.” The arguments made by these commentators are almost identical every election cycle. Furthermore, they have not aged well over time.

One of the key talking points that Sapp and others make involve abortion trends. He argues that the number of abortions went up under President Reagan, who was pro-life, and declined under President Clinton and President Obama, both of whom supported legal abortion. However, here Sapp engages in a statistical sleight of hand. The U.S. abortion rate has been falling consistently since 1980. The number of abortions increased during the 1980s because there was an increase in the population of women of childbearing age. Abortion rates have fallen because 1) more states are passing pro-life laws, 2) public opinion has shifted in a pro-life direction, and 3) a higher percentage of unintended pregnancies are carried to term. The U.S. abortion decline, therefore, cannot responsibly be attributed to the election of pro-choice presidents as a single factor in a vacuum.

Sapp also criticizes Republicans for not doing more to enact pro-life legislation during the presidency of George W. Bush. However, in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law which banned partial birth abortion. It was not until 2007 that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal partial birth abortion ban by a 5-4 margin. As such, given the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems likely that more ambitious legislative efforts to protect the unborn would have been found unconstitutional at the time. Furthermore, in the past few years most Republican elected officials have publicly supported defunding Planned Parenthood. This is an important issue to pro-lifers and one that was largely ignored by Republican Members of Congress in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Even if one agrees with Sapp’s premise that Republicans are going to do little to advance pro-life policies, the election of Hillary Clinton could still do considerable damage to the pro-life cause. Her Supreme Court nominations may well strike down pro-life laws that were previously upheld. Furthermore, for the first time in history, the Democratic Party adopted a platform plank which calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. First passed in 1976, the Hyde Amendment largely prevents federal Medicaid dollars for being used to pay for abortion. There is a very substantial body of research which shows that public funding limits reduce abortion rates. In fact, my recent Charlotte Lozier Institute study shows that the Hyde Amendment stops approximately 60,000 abortions every year, and has saved over two million lives over its 40-year history.

Sapp then returns to the tired argument that more spending on welfare and contraceptive programs would result in dramatic declines in abortion rates. He does not cite any studies – he only links to the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative which calls for more spending on a variety of social programs. In reality, there is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that spending additional funds on welfare significantly reduces abortion rates. Furthermore, many studies show that few sexually active women forgo contraceptives due to cost or lack of availability. Considering that there are already programs in place to subsidize contraception, it is not clear that additional funds would do much to lower the unintended pregnancy rate.

As I have said before, the current presidential election has put some pro-lifers in a tough position. For part of his professional career, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump identified as “pro-choice.” Furthermore, unlike previous Republican Presidential nominees who held some level of elected office prior, Donald Trump does not have a history of voting for pro-life legislation or supporting other pro-life initiatives. However, supporting Hillary Clinton is clearly no answer to this dilemma.

No. It is all for appearances and the Clinton’s needed grandchildren for sure-—to soften the b*tch’s evil, vile persona. Hillary wanted no children but her handlers made her have at least one child (it is in autobiography of Billy’s whore who said Hillary hated males) and Hillary aborted all others or sterilized herself, since they were told by Clinton’s handlers that to look “normal” and be acceptable to the masses (esp. pre-sodomy is a virtue, days) They had to be married and have at least one child. She aborted all the boys.

BTW, politics are ALL about perceptions. Same was done with Bathhouse Barry in Rev. Wright’s church of homosexuals (and dead bodies). It is only perceptions that matter in their Brave New World, so the masses (useless idiots) can be totally fooled as they put their sodomites in position of power, so they will have their evil Jackboots all in place. No moral people whatsoever in sight-—all like Comey, who can be bribed and controlled at will-—because they all have dirt, and they can’t afford moral people who will NOT follow orders.

The system—even SCOTUS is now made up of majority of evil, bribable people.....much like Hitler’s Germany.

Solzhenitsyn told us in his 78 Harvard Commencement address that our “Free Press” was exactly like Pravda—except that America “thought” they had Freedom of Press. The Press has been forming EVERYONE’s perceptions for 100 years and I guarantee-—everything you “think” you know is not so.......exactly as Reagan and JFK, Jr. warned us.

For the NWO, total deceptions had to be created and Truth (God) was banned in the 60s so that the minds of children could totally have Good and Evil flipped——(mass indoctrination using psyops) and parents LOVE the schools that are destroying virtue formation in children-—the ability to be critical thinkers and have habits of virtue (Agency). Boys are being emasculated and desensitized to destroy all morality and be little order takers like the Prussian army.

Without Virtue, civil society collapses-—the Cultural Marxists knew this in the 30s and took over all our institutions-—first skools and forced in Sex Ed in young ages to destroy sexual identity formation (morality) with Hollywood (satanists) help-—to form “worldview” so children are devoid of Reason and Logic (Classical Education) so they are easily controlled and have no virtue-—are like the obamaphone lady-—happy with stealing and crumbs. Slavery IS Freedom, Vice is Virtue-—and Boys are Girls.

For BNW, reason is removed from children so they remain herded cattle for life and can easily be culled and killed, put into the elites’ wars/killing fields, whatever.

We need to take back the minds of our children and reestablish God’s Laws. Man’s are a slippery slope to complete annihilation. Always was.

Thanks for posting!

Such arguments as those cited herein are illogical and not principles-based.

It's past time that citizens who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in Creator-endowed rights and liberty, speak out to defend both against assault from Clinton's campaign and the "liberal/progressive" movement whose ideology makes population control the seeming centerpiece of their coercive agenda.

Until now, in this campaign, there has existed a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting the "destroying" of human life in the womb.

Yet, she recently threw out a line about how "every child deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. . . ."

Does that apply to the late-term child in the womb, Mrs. Clinton?

On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.

There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.