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.