LifeNet

Clinton & her support for late term abortion; a comprehensive look

On Wednesday, October 19th Mrs. Clinton went full throttle for abortion throughout pregnancy. It occurred early in her debate with Mr. Trump. Below is the dialogue; you can see the full article where this is excerpted from here at LifeNews. It was originally published  in  National Right to Life News Today.  Below the excerpt we have responses to her support for what amounts to infanticide. Bear in mind that there is never a medical justification for late term abortion, because abortions after approximately 16 weeks are 2-3 day procedures. This is because of the necessity of dilating the cervix with laminaria, which are left in for at least one night. If it's a life threatening situation, the procedure should be an emergency caesarean section and an effort to save both patients.

Wallace (Chris Wallace, the debate moderator) drilled down another thousand feet on Clinton as well:

I wanted to ask you Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you think the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term partial birth abortions. Why?

Clinton gave her usual answer–that Roe allows for some “regulation,” provided there is an exception for “the health of the mother.” Of course, for 43 years the health exception has swallowed the rule as thoroughly as a python gulps down its supper.

To his great credit, Trump called her out:

Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Clinton responded that this is just “scare rhetoric,” as if what she supports doesn’t frighten mainstream America. “And I will stand up for that right,” she added.

Trump’s answer?

And honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said. Doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that [right].

 

The NY State health department keeps extensive statistics on abortion in the State - age, race, ethnicity, gestation, number of prior abortions, where done, financial coverage, and operative procedures. according to the latest statistices (2014) there were 2,106 abortion at 20+ weeks.

Some rejoinders to Clinton -

This from the Catholic League - hit the link for the full PR -

Apologists also contest what partial-birth abortion really is. Dr. Jen Gunter, for instance, protests Trump’s comment about “ripping” the baby out of the mother’s womb. She says “we don’t ‘rip’ anything in OB/GYN.” So what do they do? “We use sharp dissection and blunt dissection, but we don’t rip.” How reassuring to know that when a scissors is jammed into the skull of a baby about to be born that nothing is “ripped.”

This from Consistent Life, the Consistent Ethic of Life website

Clinton and Children
 
        Hillary Clinton showed something about her often-stated concern for children in the October 19 US presidential debate. For full protection, the children need to be entirely born. Being near birth isn’t good enough. She defended very late-term abortions for reasons including “something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy.”
        Though not specific, this could mean when the child is discovered to have “fetal abnormalities” – at least, this is a common justification for very late-term abortions.
        Killing someone because she has disabilities is horrible enough, but a positive portrayal of aborting those with disabilities (as is common in the media) can be devastating to efforts to stop discrimination against disabled children and adults.
        But did that vague phrase mean that? The current Democratic Party Platform is extreme enough to suggest so. If only the press would dig down deeper and ask for clarification.  

The NY Times had an op ed today (October 21, '16.) promoting just that - the baby destroyed at 22 weeks because of a disability.

In National Review today, touching on the Second Amendment and abortion - we only are concerned here with abortion -

Hillary Clinton Relentlessly Exploits Voter Ignorance

 

But Hillary has been steadfast in her belief that a woman should be able to hire a doctor to kill her child at any moment before the child is entirely delivered. Yes, even when it’s halfway out, the doctor should be able to lawfully jam scissors into the back of the child’s skull. That’s Hillary’s belief. She cannot, however, own it honestly to the American people. Defending her vote against banning partial-birth abortion, she said this:

 

The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with womenwho have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.

 

She’s counting on the fact that most Americans have no idea that when she’s referring to health, she’s referring not just to physical health — physical harm or injury to the mother — but also to the mother’s psychological, emotional, and even familial sense of “well-being.” How do we know this? Because it’s in the very Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Doe v. Bolton case, that she so proudly protects. Hillary’s tactics wouldn’t work so well in a functioning media environment. But when reporters largely agree with her policy positions, the various “fact checkers” and other watchdogs are off to the races to find some way, any way that her arguments have merit.

 

 

Lastly, The Eclipse of Reason is a video produced by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson in 1987 showing an abortion at 20 weeks. Nathanson was an Ob-Gyn and secular Jewish atheist who was a co-founder of NARAL (National  Abortion Rights Action League) an abortionist himself (he aborted one of his own children) and for several years the director of the largest abortion "clinic" in New York City. But he began to realize what he was doing, re-thought his own life, became pro-life and eventually became a Catholic. He is better known for the video The Silent Scream showing an abortion at 12 weeks, but he also produced the aptly named Eclipse of Reason. You can view the Eclipse of Reason either embedded below or hit the link above. Charlton Heston introduces the video.

 

 

 

 

Catholic League on Tim Kaine as Clinton VP

A purported Catholic; save the wolves not the babies

The Catholic League website is down right now so we cannot link to the press release. We have posted it in it's entirety.

Kaine Wants to Save the Lobo
 

July 25, 2016

Bill Donohue comments on Sen. Tim Kaine's pro-life record:
 
Tim Kaine wants to save the lobo, but not the kids.
 
I confess I had no idea what a lobo was until I looked it up—it's a Mexican grey wolf. Tim says we are running out of them (he does not say whether we should build a wall to save them). How do I know? Because the Defender of Wildlife Action Fund gave him a 91 percent rating in 2015, and a 100 percent rating in 2013; on the front page of its website the #1 cause is "Don't Let the Lobos Go Extinct."
 
The Defender of Wildlife Action Fund is also worried about saving the eggs of the bald eagle, a goal that Tim no doubt shares (as do I). What about human eggs? Tim has no interest in protecting them. How do I know? Because he merits a 100 percent rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and they support abortion-on-demand.
 
The Washington Post calls Tim "A Pope Francis Catholic." But the pope's position on abortion would receive a 0 from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. The pope also supports marriage, properly understood.
 
In a Polling Company survey we commissioned of Catholics last year, we learned that 61 percent of Catholics reported that abortion should not be permitted in all or most instances; the figure for practicing Catholics was higher. That means Tim is not representative of most Catholics on this issue.
 
Tim likes gay marriage. How do I know? Because he received a 100 percent rating from the radical gay group, the Human Rights Campaign. Once again, Tim is out of step: our survey found that 58 percent of Catholics think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
 
If Tim were to treat unborn children the way he treats lobos, and acknowledge the obvious—marriage was meant for the only two people who can create a family—he would improve his standing among Catholics. As it is, his positions make him an outlier.
 

Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: [email protected]

The Catholic Leaague remarks on Mario Cuomo

A couple of days ago there was an interesting take by the Catholic League on the late governor, who was tragically the trailblazer for pro-abortion Catholic politicians, with his 1984 speech at Notre Dame.

 

The Catholic League:

MARIO CUOMO’S LESSONS ON LIFE

Bill Donohue comments on the passing of Mario Cuomo:

Mario Cuomo will be buried tomorrow. The former governor of New York is remembered for many things, but as a Catholic he is most remembered for his 1984 speech at the University of Notre Dame.

In his address, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” Cuomo explained why his personal opposition to abortion could not be his public position as governor. Invoking the principle of separation of church and state, he said that in order for  Catholic public officials “to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.”

While most of Cuomo’s remarks framed abortion as a religious issue, he also recognized the humanity of the unborn child. “For me life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me.” Indeed, he said it demanded “reverence.” However, he noted that “not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda [his wife].”

In his lengthy speech, Cuomo made only one passing reference to the death penalty. On that subject, which Catholic teaching presumptively opposes, he had no problem adopting the Church’s position: he strongly opposed the death penalty and as governor he consistently vetoed legislation that allowed for it. In 2011, he defended his position by saying, “Capital punishment raises important questions about how, as a society, we view human beings.”

Cuomo never explained why abortion did not raise the same societal questions about how we treat human beings that capital punishment does. Nor did he explain why it was okay for him to “impose” his Catholic teachings on others when it came to capital punishment but not abortion. Nor did he say why the intentional killing of innocent children should not summon the same legal safeguards that are extended to convicted serial murderers. But these were his lessons on life.

The Catholic League extends its condolences to the Cuomo family.