Hillary: Let the babies starve until we fund abortions

posted at 3:10 pm on June 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Anne Halpine and Greg Pfundstein ask why the Obama administration wants to derail efforts by the G-8 to send aid to improve maternal and infant health in the poorest nations of the world.  The G-8 met this week to discuss a wide variety of topics, mainly focusing on economic growth but also foreign aid.  In their National Review column, Halpine and Pfundstein report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants that aid held hostage in order to push an abortion agenda:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe.  The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements? …

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs.  But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus.  Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” …

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia?  Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement?  Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand?  What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

The short answer appears to be yes.  It’s laden with irony, since the Left accused the Bush administration of politicizing aid in insisting that its family-planning subsidies around the world not be used to fund abortions.  That at least was narrowly targeted at the the same issue.  This is literally taking food and medicine out of the mouths of infants in order to push for abortions despite the values and desires of the local populations.  It’s every bit as arrogant as the cultural imperialism that the Left likes to accuse Americans of committing when we push for democratic reform.

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic.  Maternal health does not depend on abortion.  In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The point is that an infinite weight for human life leads to a contradiction no matter what Jeff’s beliefs about war happen to be. Infinity is alleged by Orthodox Judaism to apply to HaShem and they may be right, but infinity doesn’t lead to sound conclusions about things on this planet. I do know that I am a finite creation of HaShem.

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Quite right, Thuja. As Margaret Sanger, your hero most excellently and effectively reduced the numbers of lesser humans like African Americans, Jews, Catholics and Eastern Europeans… they all deserve to be phased out right?

Stoddard claimed in 1940 that the “Jew problem” is “already settled in principle and soon to be settled in fact by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich.”
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, made Lothrop Stoddard a board member of the forerunner to PP (the Birth Control League). Why was the Birth Control League reconstituted as Planned Parenthood? The ‘Nazi smell’ of BCL was so bad, that some ‘cosmetics’ were required.


http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

/sarc off

theCork on June 27, 2010 at 1:03 AM

economics, the science of allocating scarce resources

Nope.

hillbillyjim on June 27, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Well, at least she’s consistent in her indifference/contempt for the unborn.

Cylor on June 27, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Progressives: The only people left on earth still carrying a torch for eugenics.

SuperCool on June 27, 2010 at 3:10 AM

Oh, and by the way, I might have considered bankrolling Hillary’s 2012 White House run. But when she digs her heels in like this and goes all Auschwitz.

What does this woman have against black babies? It’s like she sits up at night seething that somewhere a black woman is giving birth. Like she sees that as some incredible evil.

We know Obama’s not right in the head, but Hillary? I think she’s going over the edge.

jeff_from_mpls on June 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Leopold II would’ve sold his soul for someone like Hillary to run the Congo Free State for him.

SuperCool on June 27, 2010 at 3:39 AM

My argument against abortion has nothing to do with the value of born human life.

All unborn human life is infinitely valuable, as the unborn human life has not been granted the same opportunity, as you enjoy right now, to become born and ultimately make choices.

Those individual choices (mixed with chance), made by the born individual, move the value of the born individual closer to, or further away from, being infinitely valuable.

[deleted stuff]

Those words do not mean what you think they mean.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM

I suspect that you are changing your own definitions to meet criticism, but no matter. Your clarification doesn’t affect my point that the concept of infinity in moral arguments only leads to nonsense.

Your formulation above clearly makes fetuses more valuable than everyone else, like say my mother or your mother. I couldn’t disagree more. I would hold in deep contempt a woman who died so that her fetus could live. You would have to find her noble. I’m imagining how I would feel if my mother had died for my younger brother. Perhaps if you contemplate the death of your mother while you were a young child, you may come to a view closer to mine.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 6:55 AM

They only want to get rid of the “undesirable people” … As Justice Ginsburg once said. What has happened to the soul of the Democrat party.

And who decides who is undesirable? Isn’t that the real problem, Democrats friend the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany had one answer ….

tarpon on June 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM

“They…invent ways of doing evil…” –Romans 1:30

That’s the verse I thought of when I read this article.

Evil. Just pure evil.

Grace_is_sufficient on June 27, 2010 at 7:22 AM

Quite right, Thuja. As Margaret Sanger, your hero most excellently and effectively reduced the numbers of lesser humans like African Americans, Jews, Catholics and Eastern Europeans… they all deserve to be phased out right?

Margaret Sanger is certainly a woman deserving of great praise. I suppose that the “pro-life” movement has nothing better to do but lie about her in the most disgusting ways. You may wish to consider where you’ve heard the expression “Bearing false witness against your neighbor.” I should make a historical argument to defend Margaret Sanger, but I find the febrile minds who wish to attribute to Margaret Sanger every evil of the 20th century just not deserving of the time for a good argument. Instead, I’ll simply point out that I’m much more afraid of the Chamberlain/Obama mindset of subservience to dictators with evil ideologies than I’m afraid of family planning advocates.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Ah, there’s the assumption that American liberal women are about protecting women. You have to forget that nonsense. They are the furthest thing from it. If you remember that tidbit, them a lot of their retoric starts making sense.

Thuja,
I’m glad you found legitimizing your claims to be unworthy of your time. I imagine your are about to get a ream of quotes other evidence to counter your ideas. Some people actually thing women and children ARE worth the time and effort. See my first paragraph.

caygeon on June 27, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Oops
them=then
thing=think

only two sips into the morning coffee.

caygeon on June 27, 2010 at 8:27 AM

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 7:25 AM

So Margaret Sanger didn’t give speeches to Nazi rallies after all?

And she didn’t say the following?

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whew. That’s good to know. And here I was thinking she was a bad person.

Squiggy on June 27, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I suppose that the “pro-life” movement has nothing better to do but lie about her in the most disgusting ways.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Listen, sport. Throwing around ad hominems in the form of words like “febrile minds” doesn’t erase what come out of Margaret Sanger’s mouth. You can bread her crap sandwich, fry it, and serve it with a side of steak fries–or in your case, escargot–and it’s still a crap sandwich.

Margaret Sanger thought minorities and the disabled were a lesser breed and should be eliminated. Do you agree with what she said? Is she your hero? Or do you like abortion for reasons not pertaining to eugenics? Do enlighten us.

Grace_is_sufficient on June 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM

I suspect that you are changing your own definitions to meet criticism, but no matter.

Suspect all you want, to use your words, you are wrong.

Your clarification doesn’t affect my point that the concept of infinity in moral arguments only leads to nonsense.

The nonsense exists in your mind.

Your formulation above clearly makes fetuses more valuable than everyone else, like say my mother or your mother.

The born may maintain a value of infinitely valuable through choice, the unborn start with the value as they have not made any choices.

I couldn’t disagree more.

Ditto.

I would hold in deep contempt a woman who died so that her fetus could live. You would have to find her noble.

You would hold the mother in contempt if she dies while giving life to the unborn. You would honor a mother that lives while causing death to the unborn. Got it.

I’m imagining how I would feel if my mother had died for my younger brother.

Imagine not having a younger brother. You should thank your mother for being pro-life. Had she been pro-abortion while pregnant with you or your brother, neither of you exist.

Perhaps if you contemplate the death of your mother while you were a young child, you may come to a view closer to mine.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Perhaps if you contemplate the fact that you get to make choices today because your mother was pro-life, you would not be so fond of allowing the unborn to die.

Margaret Sanger is certainly a woman deserving of great praise.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Thank you for joining us at meal.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

I’m imagining how I would feel if my mother had died for my younger brother.

Imagine this as well:

You have no mother.

Every choice you made, every person you met, every thought you entertained, every tear you shed, every laugh you laughed, never existed because your mother did not want you to be born.

Perhaps if you contemplate the death of your mother while you were a young child, you may come to a view closer to mine

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Has this happened to you? How is this relevant?

My mother and your mother are going to die. When death happens to the born is not relevant to the issue of abortion.

“Thank you for joining us at meal.” – unclesmrgol

Forgot to cite the author.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 11:30 AM

You would hold the mother in contempt if she dies while giving life to the unborn. You would honor a mother that lives while causing death to the unborn. Got it.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Yes!

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Yes!

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM

The words honor and contempt do not mean what you think they mean.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 1:01 PM

You would honor a mother that lives while causing death to the unborn.

Yes!

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Yes, unless the unborn was you. Got it.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 1:05 PM

It occurred to me just after my prayer after cleaning up my synagogue’s garden a good response to the unfair, unhistorical approach to Margaret Sanger and the idea that her putative evil is some relevant to Planned Parenthood. We can play the exact same game with Mother’s Day. Mother’s Day was a racist concoction by Teddy Roosevelt. If there was any fairness to how Margaret Sanger is being attacked, we’d give up Mother’s Day.

Racism was popular in the 20′s, 30′s, and 40′s. Supreme Court justice Hugo Black was a Klan member in the 1920s.
Henry Ford was a Hitler supporter. In particular in the 20′s, the second Ku Klux Klan was at its height–boasting 3 million members. It all but shut down the Democratic convention of 1924 and led a march 40,000 strong past the White House in 1925. This is the political context in which Margaret Sanger lived. So yes it is true that in 1926 Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the KKK. However, she described it as “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.” She claimed she had to use “the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.” This certainly doesn’t sound to me like the view of a someone who supported the KKK’s racist agenda.

And then there is the funny little fact that Margaret Sanger become a mainstream Republican and supported Eisenhower.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Oh please. And, btw, attacking Hillary is way stupid for the GOP.

But, I trust most politicians know this.

AnninCA on June 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Somehow some where it is starting to look as if the clintonistas are out to derail bumma and his team.
Leaks and cross purpose statements,Holbrook,goofy ambassadors,
next thing we know slick willie will announce foreign policy while out of town.
Abortion is a third rail and Hill dragging this up is not an accident or misspeak.

Col.John Wm. Reed on June 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

And then there is the funny little fact that Margaret Sanger become a mainstream Republican and supported Eisenhower.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 1:24 PMShe was a political animal to the end. When Hitler as on the ascendance, she was very comfortable with him.

He regarded inconvenient humanity as something to destroy. Seriously, Thuja, in your prayer, has God told you that many infants should be exterminated? How about the full-grown? Is this the voice of God speaking to you?

theCork on June 28, 2010 at 1:09 AM

And then there is the funny little fact that Margaret Sanger become a mainstream Republican and supported Eisenhower.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Links, cites please.
Prove it.
As for Eisenhower, he was perhaps the least ideological of all Republican Presidents and had a difficult time choosing which party he’d run as a candidate for when he ran for president.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 AM

And then there is the funny little fact that Margaret Sanger become a mainstream Republican and supported Eisenhower.

thuja on June 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM

She was a political animal to the end. When Hitler as on the ascendance, she was very comfortable with him.
theCork on June 28, 2010 at 1:09 AM

I realize that no one is going to read this in the future. I realize I’m basically mumbling to myself. I just have to say that with theCork’s logic there is no way Margaret Sanger could win–even if she were brought back from the grave and made the most conciliatory speech towards the pro-lifers possible. He would condemn her no matter what she did or said. Or what facts I brought up about her. theCork has no interest in making logical arguments. He’s conducting a witch trial. And that’s all he wants to do.

thuja on June 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2