Surely it is understandable if a pro-lifer might come to the conclusion that, in effect, if you’ve seen one pro-abortion President, you’ve seen them all. They could be forgiven if they asked themselves, could Hillary Clinton possibly be any different –any worse–than her husband, former President Bill Clinton, or the current pro-abortion occupant, Barack Obama? After all both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are pro-abortion to the core.
But unless you understand the progression–in our view, the degeneration–of leading Democrats’ position on abortion and how she represents the nexus for the intersection of the International Abortion Industry, you can’t fully appreciate how devastating a President Hillary Clinton would be.
Bill Clinton didn’t accidently come by the moniker, “Slick Willie.” A deft politician, he hid the practical abortion-on-demand implications in the mantra of abortion as “safe, legal, and rare.”
Obama slid down the slope even before he became President. As an Illinois state Senator he thrice opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. We remember his comment at a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. If either of his daughters were someday to “make a mistake,” he said, “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
And there was his glib “it’s beyond my pay grade” answer to Rick Warren’s question, “at what point does a baby get human rights?”
His record as President has been an unmitigated disaster, much too long to detail. Suffice it to say that he threatened to veto a bill to prevent sex selection abortion, is attempting to strangle laws that protect freedom of conscience, engineered ObamaCare which resulted in federal funding of over 1,0000 health plans that pay for elective abortion, and threatened to veto a bill that would protect pain-capable unborn babies from abortion.
Can Hillary Clinton be worse? Oh, yes. Let me count just some of the ways.
Clinton likes to talk about herself as a “grandmother.” But because of the policies she has supported–and would vigorously advance as President Hillary Clinton–there are far fewer grandmothers, and mothers,
Proud “feminist” that she is, Clinton is not shy about her unabashed, four-square support for abortion on demand, at home and abroad.
Before itemizing just a portion of her many extremist positions, remember that Clinton is a founding mother of the Sisterhood of Death. PPFA loves her, EMILY’s List adores her, NARAL thinks she is a secular saint. Collectively they will spend multiple tens of millions of dollars to elect “one of theirs” to the White House.
In the administration of a President Hillary Clinton, PPFA et al. won’t just have access. You can bet a slew of its key leaders will not only advise on policy but also be in appointed positions where they can make policy.
Half of her appointments (at least) will be women. Can you imagine any woman making the cut if she didn’t pass the pro-abortion litmus test?
As a U.S. Senator, Clinton had a 100% voting record against the babies. While some others of her ilk balked at partial-birth abortions, not Clinton. Clinton voted repeatedly to keep partial-birth abortion legal.
It gave her no pause that an abortionist could deliver a baby’s entire body, except for the head, jams scissors into the baby’s skull and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, and suck the baby’s brains out.
What about more recently?
Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain. Clinton issued a statement saying that she opposed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
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.”
Somehow or the other, Paula Faris (of The View) was able to ask a follow up question two days later.
“And Secretary, I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on Meet the Press regarding abortion. You said, quote, ‘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.”
It gets worse. Clinton has never made any bones that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.” She reiterated that position less than two months ago.
To the International Abortion Industry, near the top of the wish list is securing an international right to abortion. With this as a battering ram, the already aggressive campaign against protective abortion laws would take on new urgency and new deadliness against countries in South America, Africa, and elsewhere.
A major goal of a President Hillary Clinton would be to secure an international “right” to abortion.
At home Hillary Clinton hates the Hyde Amendment, hates it with a passion. At least a million people are alive because of it.
A President Hillary Clinton would do her best to eliminate the Hyde Amendment which is a limitation provision within an annual appropriations bill. If successful, once again our nation would fund massive numbers of abortions.
Hillary Clinton is a True Believer’s True Believer. She is wired into the Abortion Establishment, both domestically and internationally. She is resolute that there can never, ever be a limitation on abortion, including your right not to pay for them and (if you are medical personnel) not to participate in abortion.
It is no exaggeration to say a President Hillary Clinton would be catastrophic.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.