Every time her campaign hit a rough spot, Hillary Clinton has artfully played the role of defender of the downtrodden or misty-eyed damsel-in-distress. But the sympathy vote began to tire of that routine. So now Mrs. Clinton has taken on a new role: Mother Superior.

First the Clinton campaign accused opponent Barack Obama of “plagiarism” for borrowing a couple lines written by Massachusetts governor Patrick Duvall. A close friend of Obama, Duvall was flattered by the move, but Hillary was ready to haul out the rope noose.

Then Obama tagged Clinton an ardent supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a label that could doom Hillary’s chances with the blue-collar vote in Ohio.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton charged, denouncing her opponent by name this past Saturday. “Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics.”

Recalling Hillary’s make-nice remarks in their debate just two days before, Obama seemed surprised by the attack: “I’m puzzled by her change in tone.”

Now that Mrs. Clinton has injected morality into the campaign, maybe it’s time we turn the tables. Let’s probe Hillary’s stand on the issue that defines one of the greatest moral debates of our era: abortion.

Husband Bill Clinton was not an abortion hard-liner. In his memoirs he wrote, “Everyone knows life begins biologically at conception.”

Yet on January 23, 1993, newly-elected President Clinton issued a stunning rebuke to his centrist coalition. Marking the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he signed five executive orders that dramatically increased federal funding for elective abortions.

So why did Bill Clinton plunge his fledgling presidency into the seething abyss of the abortion controversy? Because Hillary told him to.

Based on memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, it is now known that Mrs. Clinton was a central player in the Clinton administration’s abortion working group. According to Judicial Watch, she was the “driving force behind the White House’s abortion policy.” And tapped for the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, Hillary vowed that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.”

Needless to say, Hillary’s self-appointed role as abortion flag-waver troubled many.

On February 3, 1994 Mother Teresa was invited to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast. With Hillary seated just a few feet away, the Lady from Calcutta was unerringly direct: “I feel that the greater destroyer of peace today is abortion.” Mother Teresa then drove home her point: “By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.”

As the ballroom was swept up in rousing cheers and thunderous applause, Hillary sat silent and expressionless.

In 1999, exactly six years after her husband signed the five pro-abortion orders, first lady Hillary Clinton delivered the keynote address to the National Abortion Rights Action League. There she uttered her famous aspiration of “keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare into the next century.”

She then dutifully laid out the difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-abortion is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

In his book God and Hillary Clinton, Paul Kengor points out the sexist double-standard of Hillary’s statement. “The father cannot be the moral arbiter in this decision because he is not endowed with the right of ‘choice,’” he explains.

As the 2000 Democratic candidate to the Senate, Hillary embarked on a listening tour of New York. Visiting every county in the state she professed a willingness to consider all perspectives on all issues — except for one: abortion.

Once elected to the Senate, Clinton would vote “nay” against every bill that might infringe on a woman’s right to abort. She opposed the Child Custody Protection Act that would have required parental notification. And she wouldn’t stand for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

Then there was the Informed Choice Act, a bill that would have provided money for the purchase of ultrasound machines. That would have allowed pregnant women to view the unborn child in their womb. What better way of “trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself”?

But Hillary couldn’t stomach that idea, either.

Every year one-quarter of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. That represents a colossal breach of human rights and a moral travesty that Hillary Clinton zealously seeks to preserve.

Yet Mrs. Clinton, incorrigible defender of a woman’s dubious right to abort, wants to cast shameful aspersions on the candidacy of Mr. Barack Obama.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...