Regarding the following:

Of course Hillary Clinton, if president,, will promote unlimited abortions. She can't even bring herself to oppose the late term and excruciating painful partial-birth abortion, because she is beholden to the Abortion Industry for their large contributions.

This is a prime example of selling one's soul to the devil for political gain. Eighty percent of Americans want this barbaric procedure banned, but not Clinton. She voted NOT to ban it. What kind of a person would want children to be tortured and killed while they are being born?

Frank Joseph MD

---

Make No Mistake, President Hillary Clinton Would Promote Unlimited Abortion

by Laura Echevarria
LifeNews.com Editorial Columnist

August 14, 2007

I've entertained no doubts about Hillary Clinton's position on abortion but if I had, they would have been dispelled after the speech she gave before Planned Parenthood political activists on July 17th.

During her speech, the Democratic presidential candidate pledged continuing support of Planned Parenthood, bragged of her 100 percent voting record with that organization and said of her relationship with Planned Parenthood, "I'm very proud of our partnership, of working together over so many years on behalf of reproductive freedom and health care and fundamental Constitutional rights and values"

After lamenting President Bush's pro-life record that included reintroducing Mexico City Policy that prevents funding from going to organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas, the woman-who-wants-to-be-president promised Planned Parenthood "[W]hen I'm president, I will devote my very first days in office to reversing these ideological, anti-science, anti-prevention policies that this administration has put into place. Starting with the ‘Global Gag Rule' [Mexico City Policy] and going from there and I will not rest until we once again protect women's health, honor families' privacy and restore our fundamental Constitutional freedoms"

A "President Hillary" would roll back pro-life policies that were instituted under President Reagan and continued under both Bush presidents. A President Hillary would make judicial appointments reflective of her opinion that abortion on demand must be upheld through Roe and, "That no one—no judge, no governor, no senator, no president has the right to take away"

There have been few times over the years when Senator Clinton has stepped away from her carefully prepared speeches that say just enough to reassure her pro-abortion base but not enough to alarm the average American. And while her speech before activists with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund was also carefully scripted, it departs from her usual general vagueness on abortion. This carefully scripted speech was designed to "rouse the troops"—so to speak—and contains definitive statements about Candidate Clinton's position on abortion that, before now, would have been defined strictly by her pro-abortion voting record and her deliberately ambiguous public statements.

Doubt not, Gentle Reader, Senator Clinton has sworn her fealty to Roe and the cause of the pro-abortion movement. She considers Roe, "the touchstone of reproductive freedom and the embodiment of our most fundamental rights"

If it weren't for Planned Parenthood posting the video on one of their many campaign websites, I believe that it would have remained an obscure footnote in a relentless presidential campaign. Senator Clinton's campaign website doesn't include this speech in the list of her recent appearances, there is no press release announcing her attendance at the event and there is no transcript of her speech.

Why?

I'm interested to know if Senator Clinton's campaign is embarrassed about the event and the Senator's relationship with Planned Parenthood or if someone just hasn't gotten around to posting the event and speech text on the website? If it's embarrassment—why? If abortion is supposedly such a good thing, then why be embarrassed? Or is it—despite repeated assertions to the contrary by pro-abortion groups and their sympathizers—that Senator Clinton recognizes the truth, that the vast majority of Americans are either opposed to abortion or very uncomfortable with abortion on demand? Does she recognize that her pro-abortion base is smaller than the public is led to believe—that these groups, while loud and demanding, nonetheless represent a minority of voters?

Whatever the case may be, we can know this: a President Hillary would be, at a minimum, at least as bad as her husband was on pro-life issues and probably worse. At stake are not only issues such as abortion on demand and the right to life but also new, more expansive right to life issues such as stem cell research and cloning. President Hillary, hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood and Democratic leadership, would seriously undermine the right to life.



Home