Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand lumped pro-life advocates and racists into the same category this week during an interview with the Des Moines Register.
Calling both decidedly immoral, the New York senator said she would never consider appointing anyone with such beliefs to a court if she was elected president, according to National Review.
Gillibrand is one of more than 20 Democrats hoping to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. She has a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record and recently voted against a bill to protect newborns from infanticide.
“I will only appoint judges and justices that see Roe v Wade as settled precedent, because it is,” she said. She also claimed abortions are “basic human rights” for women.
Asked if such a litmus test was an encroachment on judicial independence, she waved away the idea.
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society have decided that the other side is not acceptable,” she explained. “Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who is racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America I think that we have — I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
Follow LifeNews on the Parler social media network for the latest pro-life news!
Gillibrand said she respects “the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves,” but America does have a “separation of church and state.” She criticized the Trump administration for appointing “ultra-radical conservative judges and justices” who “impose their faith on Americans.”
“There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism,” Gillibrand said, “and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”
By claiming the moral high ground, Gillibrand tries to justify her plan to appoint biased, activist judges to the highest courts in America. In her mind, there should be no question about whether abortion is moral – she insists that it is, despite polls consistently showing that a majority of Americans disagree.
Unlike Gillibrand, most Americans recognize that abortion is, at the very least, troubling because it kills an innocent human life. Like racism, abortion devalues some lives by allowing certain groups of human beings to oppress others for their personal gain. That oppression is what Gillibrand would support if elected president. By nominating only activist judges, she would use her power as a tool of oppression against unborn babies and the millions of Americans who believe unborn babies deserve to be protected under the law.