Trump Defends Life, Hillary Defends Partial Birth Abortion (Guest Post)

By 20 Comments 22,022 views

plannedparenthood7

Hillary Clinton likes to say she has waged a lifelong crusade to save the children, but in the final presidential debate

She defended the right to end their lives In the womb using the barbaric procedure known as partial birth abortion, which involves the physical dismemberment of nearly born infants. As the Washington Times noted, Donald Trump objected to doing to the preborn what you are not allowed to do to dogs and cats:

Hillary Clinton defended the practice of partial-birth abortion in the final presidential debate on Wednesday, obscuring her belief that abortion should be legal at any point during a pregnancy by appealing to the “health” of the mother.

Asked to defend her vote in the Senate against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was ultimately enacted, Mrs. Clinton said she was not convinced the legislation did enough to protect the “life and health of the mother.”…

“Well, I think it’s terrible,” Mr. Trump said. “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month [of pregnancy], you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”

Mrs. Clinton responded that her opponent was using “scare rhetoric” in describing partial-birth abortion.

“Well, that is not what happens in these cases, and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate,” she said.

It is more than scary rhetoric, Hillary and the “health of the mother” is a loophole you could drive the proverbial truck through. Including factors beyond physical health, but also including psychological, emotional and familial considerations. In other words, you can kill a preborn  child if you fell being a mom is too much of a hastle. Isn’t that the logic used by Casey Anthony to kill her child?

As Dr. Nancy Romer, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wright State University; Pamela Smith, director of medical education in obstetrics at Mount Sinai in Chicago; and Dr. Joseph Cook, a specialist in fetal medicine at Michigan State, state in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 19, 1996 :

“Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman’s health or fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant threat to both the pregnant woman’s health and her fertility.”

In cases where it is medically necessary to separate an unborn child from the mother carrying it, why not simply deliver the baby and make every effort to save it? If it is necessary to separate mother from child, why is it also necessary to kill the child?  Why is it necessary, Sen. Durbin, to have living infants extracted from their mothers’ womb, feet first, up to the neck, and then killed by forced removal of their brains, a procedure sanctioned by a society that does not tolerate the clubbing of baby seals or the sale of eagle feathers?

Of course, it is nor surprising that Hillary would support such a barbaric procedure. As has been pointed out, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist who believed tht abortion could be used as tool to improve the human race by removing the undesirables, a view shared by Dr. Mengele.

Back in March of 2009, Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, an organization originally called the American Birth Control League. In accepting the award, the Weekly Standard noted, Hillary had high praise for the noted eugenicist:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Really? Rep. Chris Smith reminded Mrs. Clinton in a speech to Congress in 2009 of the nature of Sanger’s belief that eugenics, something the Nazis would put into horrifying practice, was Margaret Sanger’s solution to all our problems, particularly racial ones. As LifeSite News reported at the time:

Addressing Mrs. Clinton, Smith said, “Are you kidding? In ‘awe’’ of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ‘Eugenics … is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems’. And who also said in 1922, ‘The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it’?”….

Highlighting the racist nature of eugenics, Smith further quoted Sanger, who said in 1939, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities … We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Abortion supporters claim they want to make it “safe, legal, and rare” but when you are selling dismembered baby parts, like any other business, volume is important in improving the profit margin. Presumably young mothers entering a Planned Parenthood clinic aren’t told about this part of the operation.

Kermit Gosnell was a Philadelphia doctor who was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder for killing seven babies who survived his abortions  and a woman who died after a botched pain-killer injection. As Investor’s Business Daily noted, comparing what went on at Gosnell’s clinic to the school shooting at Newtown, Connecticut:

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, there ought to be agreement that a squirming infant on a table outside the mother’s womb is as worthy of protection from harm as children in classrooms in a school in Connecticut.

If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.

Hillary Clinton has clearly embraced the culture of death and Donald Trump the culture of life. Why doesn’t Hilary reject the “deplorable” on her side, starting with Margaret Sanger and Kermit Gosnell? If she is really concerned about women’s health, why did she applaud the Supreme Court overturning a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to have the same health and quality standards as any hospital or emergency room instead of unregulated blinics like Gosnell’s?

Just as in Roe V. Wade the Supreme Court discovered in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution a right to an abortion the silly Founding Fathers forget to be specific about, SCOTUS has discovered a footnote to that right which entitles women to get their abortions in clinics unregulated by the states they live in.

You see, it seems some silly Neanderthals in the Texas legislature thought it might be a good idea since, as pro-abortion groups insist, we are talking about a women’s health issue, that abortion clinics ought to meet some sort of health standards, namely those required of ambulatory service centers.

So the Texas troglodytes passed such a law, thinking it might be a good idea to have standards slightly higher than your nearest auto mechanic or butcher. The practical effect of the law was that it forced many Texas abortion clinics to close and required those seeking an abortion to travel longer distances, taking as long as 45 minutes to reach a clinic. In the finite wisdom of the Supreme Court, after revisiting those penumbras and emanations, was to strike down the law, saying requiring the same health standards as, say, an emergency room in a hospital put an “undue burden”  on  a women’s right to choose – not to mention the burden it put on these clinics’ bottom line.

As The Blaze described Gosnell and his operation:

… we’ve seen what happens when abortion clinics are unregulated. We don’t have to come up with hypotheticals. Kermit Gosnell killed born-alive infants and grown women in a dingy butcher shop with blood stains on the walls and dead bodies piled up in the refrigerator and the corpses of infants clogging up the toilets. He hired unlicensed kids to assist in dangerous operations and distribute medicine to desperate, poor women. He didn’t even bother to sanitize his equipment before he sliced open his patients, sometimes giving them infections and venereal diseases in the process. He did all of this for 30 years in a facility situated right in the middle of a major American city. And he wasn’t alone. There are other Gosnells, and they all clearly demonstrate what happens when the abortion industry is allowed free rein to govern.

The Supreme Court and who gets to fill the current and future vacancies does indeed matter. Hillary Clinton has called the decision a “victory for women”. Well, not for the unborn ones.

20 Responses to “Trump Defends Life, Hillary Defends Partial Birth Abortion (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    July 4th American

    The woman will defend the children as long it depends on what the meaning of children is. For mrs clinton, children are babies the left were unsuccessful murdering.

    But, when the nasty woman had an opportunity to defend the child raped by contemporary of bj clinton, she vilified the twelve year old, got evidence dismissed, got the dirtbag a five month sentence and then laughed about it.

    And I am supposed to be shocked to the core because trump use the p word……

  2. 4

    Reem

    Sleazy liars. Is this what we want?: “When Daniel and Taylor Mahaffey learned at 20 weeks that a pregnancy complication meant that their child would not survive, they just wanted the pregnancy to end. But because of a horrific law that has no basis but to torture and shame pregnant women, they were told they needed to leave the hospital, go home, and wait for their baby to die in utero.

    That’s right. Taylor Mahaffey was forced to deliver a stillborn baby rather than be induced and end her suffering. It wasn’t about saving a child’s life — they all knew the baby would not survive outside the womb. But because of a “Women’s Health Law” that bans late term abortions, grieving parents were sent home to wait for their child to die. In utero. And a mother was forced to deliver that baby that had died inside of her.”

    Hey Donald, This Is What Late-Term Abortion Laws Do To Loving, Expectant Parents http://www.scarymommy.com/donald-trump-late-term-abortion-debate/

  3. 6

    Pete

    Stop with the misnomer of “abortion to save the life of the mother”. That is pro-abort hogwash.

    The only conditions where continuation of the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother are pre-eclampsia (which NEVER occurs until after the infant is viable, and delivery of the infant cures the problem) and cancer requiring chemo or radiation treatments, which is so rare in child-bearing age women as to be virtually non-existent. This “save the life of the mother” tripe is nothing but pro-abort emotion-manipulating propaganda meant to justify the murder of the preborn.

    It is absolute insanity for people to accept the idea that leftists have a better grasp of science when they argue against the scientifically proven fusion of maternal and paternal gametes as the point upon which a new, separate biological entity exists, while advocating for the assinine stupidity of transgenderism.

    Ask a leftist how transgenderism fits within the framework of Darwinian Theory, and watch their little brain cells demonstrate apoptosis.

  4. 8

    July 4th American

    Roe is flawed law and never should have been a USSC dictate to the states. It flies in the face of Federalism and intrudes on the very Constitution and its design and intent to protect the liberty of all.

    What the Court did was nothing more than Judicial activism. But, the pro-abortion crowd views this as a win for an agenda, not an affirmation of adherence to the Constitution.

  5. 9

    Bill… Deplorable Me

    @john:

    abortion is but one reason that Clinton has such a tremendous lead.

    Hillary is one of the reasons I can see a need for abortion.

    @Reem:

    Sleazy liars. Is this what we want?

    Seems to be what you liberals want. Hillary is sleazy, a liar and she tells sleazy lies.

    But because of a horrific law that has no basis but to torture and shame pregnant women, they were told they needed to leave the hospital, go home, and wait for their baby to die in utero.

    You can thank your idols Tiller, Gosnell and Karpen. Due to the lack of regulation assigned to abortion, those performing ghastly partial birth abortions have committed criminal acts.

    You are so worried about the dignity of the mother and child that you support the jamming of instruments into the base of the skull of a baby and its brain scrambled… for the convenience of those who can’t be bothered with the life they have created. How considerate of you.

  6. 13

    Bill- Deplorable Me

    @Reem: It absolutely is, you ignorant dipshit. You gutless liberals LOVE to regulate everyone else but forbid regulations to apply to your favorite pastimes, such as getting knocked up and dodging responsibility. So, you happily allow monsters like Gosnell to abort live babies so big they “could walk to the bus stop” because waiting 30 weeks or so to make the decision to abort is a “right”.

    You stupid asses also love to ignore the fact that unregulation gets the mothers killed as well. But, small price to pay for a large dose of political pandering, huh, idiot?

  7. 15

    July 4th American

    Wrong, Hillary: No Medical Evidence Finds Abortion Can Save A Mother’s Life

    Not only does abortion fail to reduce mortality rates among women, it actually contributes to higher mortality rates, notably from suicide.

    In the most recent presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed late-term abortions are sometimes necessary to save women’s lives. That’s great rhetoric, but it is not supported by even a single medical study.

    Before examining the “abortion to save women’s lives” question, it is first important to note that only about 1.2 percent of abortions (about 15,000 per year) take place after 20 weeks of gestation. Of these, a good portion are due to partner abandonment or parental pressure.

    Another chunk are due to an adverse diagnosis of fetal development or simply fear of a fetal defect after exposure to some drug, for example. So only a small percentage of late-term abortions are done with the sole intent of saving the mother from a dying from complications with pregnancy.

    But even that small number of “lifesaving” abortions is questionable, because the best medical evidence reveals that of the few women who die of disease while pregnant it appears there’s not even one cause of death abortion can prevent (see “Therapeutic Abortion: The Medical Argument,” in the Irish Medical Journal).

    Abortion Is Never a Lifesaving Procedure

    Here’s a quick example. Abortion is often recommended for pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer. But there is zero evidence that those who have abortions are more likely to beat cancer or survive compared to those who refuse abortion. Similarly, the researchers found, there was not a single death among the women who died that an induced abortion could have predicted or prevented.

    Now, skeptics may rightly wonder if they should trust my reliance on a single study. In response, I’ll note this study has been around for more than 20 years and no one advocating an abortion has published a study to dispute these findings—despite the abortion industry’s access to hundreds of millions of abortion records worldwide. If they had data to support the myth that abortion saves lives, they would have published it. Absent any evidence, they simply ignore contrary evidence and continue to appeal to the “common sense” myth that abortion is necessary, at least in some hard cases, to save women’s lives.

    The lack of medical evidence for any benefit from abortion (in saving women’s lives) is further magnified by the fact that record linkage studies have proven that abortion is associated with a decline in overall health and increase in short- and longer-term mortality rates among women exposed to abortion. There is even a dose effect, with the negative effects on longevity multiplied with each exposure to abortion.

    So not only does abortion fail to reduce mortality rates among women, it actually contributes to higher mortality rates (most notably in a three-fold increased risk of suicide compared to women not pregnant and a six-fold increased risk compared to those who carry to term), but also due to other negative impacts on women’s health.

    Doctors Want Abortion to Save Themselves Trouble

    The real reason doctors recommend abortion for pregnant women facing a disease is that abortion makes it easier for the doctor to focus on just her disease. Abortion instantly reduces the number of patients doctors have to worry about by half.

    After an abortion, doctors no longer have to avoid treatments that may hurt the baby. Plus, they no longer have to worry about lawsuits in the unlikely event the baby will be born with any birth defects, which may or may not be associated with the doctors’ treatment decisions. In short, many, if not most, “therapeutic” abortions are of more benefit to the doctor’s interests than the woman’s interests.

    It is also very clear in the medical literature that women who undergo a “therapeutic” abortion experience the highest rates of depression, grief, guilt, divorces, and other psychological problems. The negative psychological effects of late-term pregnancy are undisputed, even by pro-abortion experts. It’s doubtful parents considering a late-term abortion are informed of this, however, especially when there is any indication of fetal anomaly.

    In these cases, those advising abortion are often operating from a eugenic mindset. They are ideologically biased to encourage abortion of the “unfit” and to exaggerate the negatives of carrying to term while underestimating the psychological, physical, familial, and spiritual costs of inducing an abortion.

    As can be easily imagined, the psychological costs for women (and their families) who originally intended to carry to term are magnified by the fact that they were originally excited about having a child, have been bonding with their babies for many months, and only after this bonding have felt “obligated” to abort for therapeutic reasons.

    Here’s the bottom line: even if a doctor is convinced abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, he or she should disclose to the patient and her family that a “therapeutic” abortion poses its own risks to her future physical and mental health. The doctor should also admit that the recommendation to abort can only be justified by appeals to the “art of medicine,” not any actual statistically validated studies.

    David C. Reardon, PhD, is the director of the Elliot Institute and one of the world’s most published experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/26/wrong-hillary-no-medical-evidence-finds-abortion-can-save-mothers-life/

  8. 16

    Bill- Deplorable Me

    @July 4th American: Keep in mind that these are the same geniuses that think imposing more gun rights restrictions on law abiding citizens (those who respect the law and do not commit crimes) is going to reduce crime.

    Their agenda is not what it appears to be.

  9. 17

    July 4th American

    @Bill- Deplorable Me:

    These leftists are more than dangerous. The outright lies designed to obscure the truth in exchange for votes is nothing short of criminal. Evidence the unaffordable nocare act, I can assure you the majority of Americans have no idea the plan is to confiscate money from working Americans to give to those Americans and non Americans who do not work.

    The unaffordable no care act can not be fixed because it was never designed to work. It will become the most confiscatory entitlement of allowed to continue.

  10. 18

    Bill- Deplorable Me

    @July 4th American: Look at them cheer that a proven criminal, corrupt, incompetent despot is leading in the polls (maybe, maybe not). They don’t care about the health of the nation. They only care about power for the sake of power.

  11. 19

    July 4th American

    @Bill- Deplorable Me:

    The polls are artificial as most polls are over sampled in the favor of democrats. The dirty little secret is there is a reason that nasty woman, mare clinton, is polling as she is, the reality is the polls are not in her favor. Begin to watch the various polls shift as each day closes in on November 8.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *