No foetus can beatus.
Kill babies but not Islamic Fadscists?p> Kill Jews but not Arabs?p> Kill Republicans but not Dems?p> Hillary has a Krystal Nacht somewhere in her make up.
I did not have sex with that woman!
Posted on 08/14/2007 4:13:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
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.
It would be A LOT worse!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
So, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" don't factor into it, for She Who Must Not Be Named...
Then the GOP needs to try a whole lot harder to pretend to be conservative.
It would just balance what China is doing, because she would demand aborting MALE fetuses.
Sounds like she's thrown down the gauntlet to God.
Her nastiness would crank up the baby grinders more than ever.
Abortion...before or after birth? Or both? Or both, but the latter mandatory only for conservatives?
No foetus can beatus.
Kill babies but not Islamic Fadscists?p> Kill Jews but not Arabs?p> Kill Republicans but not Dems?p> Hillary has a Krystal Nacht somewhere in her make up.
I did not have sex with that woman!
Obviously, she is referring to SCOTUS appointments. Shows how much at stake in this upcoming election.
I don’t believe that there is anyone on the Right or the Left that does not anticipate a President Hillary would budget substantial tax payer funds to promoting and funding abortion. Planned Parenthood? would be a major beneficiary of public money. And just like with the with Fairness Doctrine, abortion opponents would be muzzled by Federal authorities.
Question to be asked by Bill Plante..
“Uh, Senator Clinton! How old were you when you had your first abortion?”
My advice would be: Don’t mess with God. He’s the real deal. And you thought Bill was.
“Reproductive freedom” - I’m so sick of transparent, politically correct liberal speak that I could hurl.
I’m pretty sure that Hitlery’s only heterosexual encounter produced Chelsea.
lucky for the Beast the thing that spawned her didn't have that option or she just might of ended up a few grisly bits in a bag someplace.
Hillary would promote abortion on a large scale. She would also promote euthanasia, the natural next eventual step in that scenario.
And national health care to give the government more control over the populace, and to raise taxes up the gazoo.
Also, if you think Bush is negligent on border patrol, you ain’t seen nuthin yet! The entire country would go under the auspices of the UN, with Hubby Bill the head of the UN!
She's still a bag of gritsle.
Ummm, no she wouldn’t. She would like to, but she won’t be able to accomplish that lofty goal of the Left.
The simple reason is that because the majority of Americans are decent, fair-minded people.
If either extreme of either party ever managed to implement it’s full agenda, there would be open revolt in this country. Therefore: Do not despair of a President Hilary for she can do no more than affect American life in very small ways, and always at the margins. The damage she might do will only be temporary, domestically.
I’d be more afraid of a President Hilary performing a repeat of her husband’s asdministration and subordinating American foreign policy to the UN and European Union.
THAT frightens me in a world full of Al-Queda’s.
i heard that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.