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

It takes a village.

artist on June 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

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?

“Gaaaaggghhh…..the logic!!! Turn it off!!! It hurts!!!!!”

ddrintn on June 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Haha – the ad on the page is for Child Fund international, with a pic of a pig (caption: give a pig).

I think we can spare plenty just from DC.

Give a family the gift that grows. Bwahahaha – government pork sure does keep growing!

reaganaut on June 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

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.

Leftist projection, imagine my surprise…

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion.

To the current crop of Third Wave feminists, oh yes it does.

Spiny Norman on June 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I’m not surprised by the ugliness of this administration. I’m saddened for the absolute hatred it has for “common”people and the fact his agenda is more important than babies. But we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, on the health care curve designed by Ezekiel Emanuel, the majority of the health care dollars are allocated to those 15-40 years old. IT’S IN THE BILL. Oh, that’s right, I’m just a racist who didn’t want Obama’s agenda enacted because of his skin color.

manateespirit on June 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

I gotta say, I’m proud of Stephen Harper on this. He refuses to fund abortions with this maternal health plan and he’s holding strong to his principles, despite the opposition screaming that he must hate women.

I’m pretty proud right now to have a strong leader!

CityFish on June 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

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.

Lefties are not rational beings. They are culturally PC, re: sharia, for ex., but forget all about it when one of their memes surpasses their elitism and ‘sophistication’ of world matters.

Schadenfreude on June 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

How any Woman can take this stand is scary. Good Lord, I can’t stand this sad excuse for a woman. Ugh.

Conservalicious on June 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I read this over at NRO and it is arrogant, idiotic, appalling and pretty damn sad. In the end it actually pisses me off quite a bit. These leftists are truly evil.

Jeff on June 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

It escapes the pro-abortionists that in order to be “PRO” abortion the pro-abortionist had to be born…

Gohawgs on June 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I could understand this if were support for Birth Control, in order to stretch the scarce resources available for mother and child…

But holding aid hostage for some bizarre social engineering experiment is the height of arrogant meanness.

heldmyw on June 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Why does Hillary want to push her Western values onto those people?!?!!?

SouthernGent on June 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Melinda and Bill Gates need to set Hillary straight.

The article announced that worldwide, maternal death figures are on the decline; rates have fallen from 526,300 in 1980 to 342,900 in 2008. The reasons for the reduction in maternal deaths are many, including lower pregnancy rates for some countries, greater access to education, improved access to nutrition and health care, and the increasing number of skilled birth attendants. Abortion has not been identified as a factor in the reduction of maternal deaths. A study on the question was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and at the recent Women Deliver conference, Melinda Gates pledged a further $1.5 billion for maternal health, specifying that no funding would be provided for abortion.

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Kill the brown babies or no aid. Got it.

Little Boomer on June 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

This is just sickening, vile, evil. How can we let them decide what constitutes a human being, when they’re barely human themselves?

capejasmine on June 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

It’s pretty startling just how obsessed the left is with abortion. They seem to want to attach it to everything.

What causes this obsession???

Tim Zank on June 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I think I have seen this bumper sticker:

For every pro-abortionist there was a pro-life mother first

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The only possible difference between Hillary and Obama is their gender. They will do anything to anybody at any time to further their own personal agenda. Both being pathological liars is the tie that binds.

volsense on June 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

It all makes sense if your end game is population control. It’s a Win Win!!

katy on June 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Another thing; how anyone would even entertain the notion that this evil, doctrinaire, broom pilot should be anywhere near the Oval Office is beyond me.

Jeff on June 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

It’s pretty startling just how obsessed the left is with abortion. They seem to want to attach it to everything.

What causes this obsession???

Tim Zank on June 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

They should all be subjected to late, late, late term abortions.

VegasRick on June 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Another thing; how anyone would even entertain the notion that this evil, doctrinaire, broom pilot should be anywhere near the Oval Office is beyond me.

Jeff on June 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Just shows how bad The Obamas are that many of us were rooting for Hillary.

SouthernGent on June 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

And, of course, women who are just interested in saving lives and promoting maternal health but not subsidizing abortion aren’t real women.

JohnJ on June 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

I thought this administration was supposed to be setting about improving our image and our relationships around the world. Hopenchange and all. Good job.

E P I C

F A I L !

hillbillyjim on June 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

You would not need to pay to feed them if you just kill them all before they need to eat.

Thats the motto of planned parenthood.

The most dangerous place for a baby is in their mothers womb.

tjexcite on June 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The only possible difference between Hillary and Obama is their gender.

Yep.

Anyone who thinks she would be better than Obama, doesn’t know her.

artist on June 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes one liberal to kill them with a hose.

Enoxo on June 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Why does Hillary want to push her Western values onto those people?!?!!?

SouthernGent on June 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

She wants as many as possible to be aborted. What does that tell you?

Missy on June 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

It takes a village idiot.

MikeA on June 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Imagine if democrats were as tough on terrorists and illegal immigrants as they were fetuses.

Fetuses can’t fight back.

A shameful party, to be sure.

BruthaMan on June 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

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?

I don’t think it is a moot point. Abortions increase the chances of breast cancer and in subsequent pregnancies they increase the chances of giving premature birth to low-weight infants.

INC on June 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM

unsurprisingly, as with almost all things Hillary, Ed has it backwards. HARPER politicized this, the people who founded the funding idea are appalled, rape victims in Sierra Leone have the right to know their options Ed ALL their options:

Hence, the ongoing struggle for a woman’s right to control her own body and her own fate; played out in Harper’s personal war—exemplified by him—forcing us to have Canada, represented as, and supposedly agreeing; to removing abortion funding resources, in any initiative that’s to be put forth at the G8. (Don’t think he’s stopped there. Planned Parenthood and 11 women’s NGOs have had their funding cut.)

Embarrassment—that’s the general sentiment, says one spokesperson from the field:

“Around the world people ask development workers from Canada, ‘What has happened to Canada?’. Our Canadian program is suffering under the Harper government. In the development world, we used to be leaders in areas such as gender equality, but we have been reduced to laughingstocks in some instances.”

Keith Martin, Liberal Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, is not taking any of this lightly. He’s a physician and a key mover behind The Maternal and Child Health Initiative to be discussed at the summit, and chaired the drafting committees at the 2008 and 2009 G8 International Parliamentarian’s Conferences in Tokyo and Rome, where a comprehensive plan of action to reduce maternal and infant mortality was introduced.

In a recent interview, he points out, “Prime Minister Harper has said he wants to adopt non-controversial measures, but has not missed an opportunity to talk about preventing women in developing countries from having access to the same abortion rights as Canadian women do: a bit rich given that Mr. Harper will never have to personally make such a decision.”

Martin echoes the opinion on the ground and says our PM is missing the mark on this one, “What Harper is doing is incredibly regressive. [Mystified], the other G8 leaders are scratching their heads: Why is Canada doing this?”

At the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies’ Annual Meeting, which is the largest gathering of pediatric researchers, audience response was shock-horror, said Martin, adding, “They can’t believe where Canada is going.” He, himself, is adamant that “Harper is off-track. He’s putting Canada in a corner.”

And, Martin adds, “He is off-side with the other G8 leaders.” Other member states’ support is with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unequivocal position—that, abortion funding must be part of any initiative serving women’s complete health needs, in an international, humanitarian-aid assisted-community context. What Clinton said, needed to be said: “She made a brave move.”

ginaswo on June 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM

sorry link Ed just takes any chance to liberate his CDS, loce the headline, especially memorable Ed.

ginaswo on June 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM

The only possible difference between Hillary and Obama is their gender.

Yep.

Anyone who thinks she would be better than Obama, doesn’t know her.

artist on June 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Yes, and according to polls, they want Hillary back. Hillary likes power and control, too.

mobydutch on June 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Here’s another risk for subsequent pregnancies:

Induced abortion: a risk factor for placenta previa.

INC on June 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

witch

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Why does Hillary want to push her Western values onto those people?!?!!?

SouthernGent on June 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

So much said with so few words.

A+

Saltysam on June 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Imagine if democrats were as tough on terrorists and illegal immigrants as they were fetuses.

Fetuses can’t fight back.

A shameful party, to be sure.

BruthaMan on June 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Excellent point.

mobydutch on June 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM

“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” …

Sadly, this is what reproductive health is all about, for women like Hillary.

“Reproductive health” and “family planning” = access to abortion, and “free” ones, at that.

JannyMae on June 26, 2010 at 3:48 PM

GGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

reaganaut on June 26, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Harper already slapped down the tards and feminists in Canada who insisted that killing children should be part of the package. Perhaps their will be some opposition to Hillarys pro death stance.

BL@KBIRD on June 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM

OT:

Guess who’s sitting next to Bill Clinton at the USA World Cup match?

Katie Couric.

Unbiased CBS anchor.

fogw on June 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

their, there

BL@KBIRD on June 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

The liberal mind destroys everything it touches. Now that conservatives have resurfaced in Canada, France, Germany and Great Britain, liberals have become the laughingstocks they have always been. Those countries have seen up close and personal the insanity that liberalism can cause. Obama must be amusing to them as they have seen his lunacy by being there and doing that. We can probably survive 4 years under a fool like Obama, but can we survive the fools that elected him?

volsense on June 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Here’s another risk for subsequent pregnancies:

Induced abortion: a risk factor for placenta previa.

INC on June 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

The track record of the pro-death crowd shows that it is THEY who “don’t care about women’s health.” They do NOT care about any choice other than the choice to abort. That is why they won’t talk to women about alternatives to abortion, like adoption. That is why they don’t want women to see sonograms of what they destroying through abortion.

JannyMae on June 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Ed, not exactly surprising. Promotion of international “abortive care” IS the solution. Less people (read: babies), less suffering. “Maternal health” is yet another pernicious euphemism for killing in the name of…whatever.

Bee on June 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM

The pregnant women most at risk in the Third World are generally country girls who live in societies so traditional that they wed when they bled (no premarital or extramarital sex to speak of), and see giving a baby to their husbands as a mark of status. They wouldn’t get an abortion were it offered them, even if they were 12 years old and pregnant. City-dwelling women in the same Third World nation may be less tradition-bound, but they have more access to food and modern health care. While living in a more liberal society than their country cousins, it’s often not all *that* much more liberal.

The Third World women who are in such dire need of abortions for all the reasons First World women get them are probably either sex workers or families wanting to…select the gender of their next baby.

Sekhmet on June 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM

fogw on June 26,2010 at 3:52 PM

There is no such thing as an unbiased CBS anchor. I wouldn’t bet that Slick Willie hasn’t hit on the liberal dwarf.

volsense on June 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

This is evil.

CP on June 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Maternal and Child Health Initiative

Maternal and Child Health, hmmmm, those words don’t seem to equate with abortion.

Jeff on June 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I’m sure Billdo says this daily, but gee, I wish her mother was so gleeful about killing babies.
Evil woman.

HornetSting on June 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Kill the brown babies or no aid. Got it.

Little Boomer on June 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

No, you have it all wrong. Prolifers are the racist ones!!!!1!eleventy!

inviolet on June 26, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Give this political movement long enough — another few weeks? — and the starving children will be, literally, the same people Hillary is pushing for “reproductive health” for. If they want to hand condoms out to 10-year-olds, ensuring that pre-pubescent girls have “choice” can’t be far behind.

J.E. Dyer on June 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Bill Clinton is at the US-Ghana game. Apparently he heard the word Vuvuzela and thought it was a sex act.

Holger on June 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

H C Clinton 2012!

txag92 on June 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

It’s pretty startling just how obsessed the left is with abortion. They seem to want to attach it to everything.

What causes this obsession???

Tim Zank on June 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Yes, it is an obsession with them. My opinion? Reaction formation to guilt feelings. Force everyone to do/fund/approve of what you know in your heart is evil and wrong, and you feel better. Simple as that.

inviolet on June 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

“It takes a village” idiot.

skanter on June 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

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?

But I thought she was the smartest woman evah.

chemman on June 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

It’s a shame there are no legal adult abortions or adulticide. I’m sure that would be a very long list.

madmonkphotog on June 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

“There are too many people in the world! Not too much of ME of course. Or my friends. Or the rich liberals. No, there are too many NASCAR hicks and breeding breeding brown people in OTHER countries. Let’s get rid of THEM. That’ll save the earth for the likes of ME and MY friends!”

/pick any population-control leftist

Is it obvious yet how much I’m disgusted with these people? They make me quite literally sick to my stomach.

inviolet on June 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

Only a Clinton would have the absolute, unabashed, soul-less audacity to use the words “health” and “abortion” in the same sentence as if the two go hand in hand.

This is just one of many reasons why this woman SHOULD NEVER be POTUS, under ANY circumstances!

pilamaye on June 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM

fogw on June 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Can a blue stained dress be far behind.

chemman on June 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM

It’s pretty startling just how obsessed the left is with abortion. They seem to want to attach it to everything.

What causes this obsession???

Tim Zank on June 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I’ve been asking myself that same question ever since I moved here. To me it doesn’t make any sense. It’s like such a big deal in the US, whereas in Puerto Rico there are more important issues to attend to.

ProudPalinFan on June 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM

OT:

Guess who’s sitting next to Bill Clinton at the USA World Cup match?

Katie Couric.

Unbiased CBS anchor.

fogw on June 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I guess he’s due for a colonoscopy/sarc

ProudPalinFan on June 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Not surprising as she was taught by nuns. Melinda, that is!

txmomof6 on June 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM

What is that term? Oh, yes:

“Beyond the pale.”

Theophile on June 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Kill the brown babies or no aid. Got it.

Little Boomer on June 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Yep, Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Spiny Norman on June 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Do you suppose that some of these dangerous libs believe that a woman’s right to choose should include choosing life or death for one’s child at any age or stage of life?

maryo on June 26, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I don’t think we should be paying to “improve maternal and infant health in the poorest nations of the world” either. Why must we be the caretakers of all the stupid countries? We have our own problems here.

KSgop on June 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

This is precisely why I have no respect for these groups that put Obama into office: stupid blacks, Jews, Hispanics, catholics, leftist Christians, etc. Everything he does, allegedly, is diametrically opposed to what they stand for in many of these groups, such as the hypocritical ‘evangelical Christian left’ and those catholics. Allegedly, they are all for the sanctity of life, including that which is unborn, and where are they, now? They’re too busy partying down and getting their drink on, because an immoral Kenyan has been elected for president (unless you count him as being nothing more than the result of ACORN mass-fraud, which also runs against what these people allegedly stand for).

My own family told me that they voted for Obama, just because he was black, and as so-called “Christians”, that’s just plain-damned-shameful and a disgrace. Racist BS, and don’t think for a minute that I’ve not called each and every last one of them out on it; maybe you might not be brave enough to do it, but I certainly will. He is bloodthirsty, when it comes to killing babies, and I’m sure he’d probably not bat an eye if a law came through Congress to allow mothers to kill kids after they’d been born, up to a certain length of time.

I’m certainly neither a believer nor fan of catholicism, but allegedly their dogma states that the unborn are to be protected. All that crap, and they couldn’t vote for this killer fast enough. Absolutely pathetic. They fawn at their pope’s feet as he claims they stand against abortion, then they yawn as he tells it to Obama (who also yawned in his face) and as Pelosi supports it with clapping hands. The catholics couldn’t run fast enough to get to Obama rallies and pass out like idiots at a bad Beatles concert, so they could see his policies enacted and watch the kids start dying by the millions.

Then, there’s the Jewish groups in the US that consistently vote democrat, in spite of the fact that the DNC is very clearly an anti-Semite mecca. They were too stupid to learn their lesson with Carter, they still didn’t learn after Clinton tried pushing Bibi around, and now they’re probably still not going to learn their damned lesson, after the shameful spectacle Obama made of himself, again with Bibi (who always seems to have the bad luck of being around for the worst-of-the-worst in American presidents). Jews I know, personally, are allegedly anti-abortion, believe in God, and all that crap, and yet what do they do? They RUN to vote for a guy that aspires to be a mass murderer, and see how quickly he can surpass Tiller the Baby Killer’s record in how many kids he can put under tombstones or in the dumpster.

The hispanics are just as stupid, as the rest. A friend of mine is supposed to be such a strong catholic, and yet he’s yet another hypocrite, as have been all the other hispanics I know. They vote for him, in part, because he’s not white, and they also do it knowing full well his publicized hatred for unborn children, such as when he was more than happy with allowing kids that survived murder attempts (i.e.: abortions) to lay there, suffer and die, for having the audacity to survive. Mr. Empathy (remember when he said that Supreme Court nominees should be so empathetic?) looked right in the face of a nurse that witnessed that kind of evil and was scarred by it for the rest of her life, and he basically looked her in the face and said: “F**k you, b***h. Like I give a f**k.” Yeah, real champions of life he and his ilk are.

I am sick to death of these racist hypocrites that support Obama, and Hillary’s shown herself to be NO BETTER. She’s in full support of world-wide serial killings of unborn children, and is a more than willing participant in this un-Godly “starve ‘em out” campaign to force their evil agenda on the rest of the world. Didn’t Obama just make a fool out of himself a while ago by saying nations shouldn’t force their views on other nations? A guy I worked with said that something bad was going to happen to Obama, and I cautioned him on that, because he was a Christian. He clarified that he wasn’t wishing that on him, but he did say that when it did happen, it certainly wouldn’t hurt his feelings. I was forced to concur. I’m a Veteran Soldier, but I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect it, not Obama. He is not someone I would hazard my life for.

To all you low-life scumbags that voted for this murderous, Marxist, anti-Semite: kiss my ass and reap the rewards of the fruits of your labors. I cannot express how sickened I am by this. Naturally, I’m somewhat of an isolationist, but I’m certainly no cowardly libertarian, and I cannot just turn a blind eye to the suffering of kids across the world. People that support these evil policies, people that push these evil policies and people that carry out these evil policies are signing the lease to their one-room with no windows in Hell, and I will not be sorry when they move.

Virus-X on June 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM

witch

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Serial murdering witch.

GrannyDee on June 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Funny she is of the ilk who in so many instances tell us to not try to impose our culture on other countries.

CWforFreedom on June 26, 2010 at 4:55 PM

It’s pretty startling just how obsessed the left is with abortion. They seem to want to attach it to everything.

What causes this obsession???

Liberalism is a form of Paganism, inspired by our common enemy. It manifests itself as Gaia (Earth) worship, Communism, Socialism, now Neo-Monarchism, and other tyrannical forms. It has been with us since that old serpent at the beginning of humanity. It is enticing to many, but proves to be the cause of most of the world’s sadness and heartache.

scotash on June 26, 2010 at 5:03 PM

txmomof6 on June 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Thank you for the info. I am glad Melinda is in Bill’s life then and that together they made the decision to donate a further 1.5 Billion for maternal health care in Africa/Asia.

I also notice that she didn’t take it on faith. They funded a study on the question and to donate a further 1.5 Billion it must have shown clear data that abortion doesn’t help the health of mothers.

Maybe Hillary should think about that.

journeyintothewhirlwind on June 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Pure evil.

Hening on June 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I’m curious, are those infants that Obama and Clinton wish to slaughter by any chance black babies?

Just want to clarify.

I could be totally wrong. They could totally be talking about white suburban trust-fund babies. Obviously they deserve to die. But I detect Obama and Clinton are aiming the bayonet at black babies.

What the hell?

jeff_from_mpls on June 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

It is hard to believe that that woman gave birth.

ctmom on June 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM

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

Why does Hillary want to push her Western values progressive values onto those people?!?!!?

SouthernGent on June 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

That’s better.

Conservative Samizdat on June 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Who’s racist? Who’s hateful? Liberals are.

Speakup on June 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health

You cannot have paternal health without reproductive health either.

and rReproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe a is concerned with safeguarding the ability of one to reproduce. Abortions perfomed as a result of the new life threatening maternal health or life are only 1.2% of all abortions.

Fixed.

rukiddingme on June 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Yep, ‘smartest woman’ in the world. Says so her own self.

GarandFan on June 26, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Aren’t the left/liberals supposed to be the compassionate ones? This goes 360o against that idea.

Paul-Cincy on June 26, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Any news person got balls enough to ask the administration about this or is Palin going to have to take a swing first so they can ask about it?

aikidoka on June 26, 2010 at 6:30 PM

This is the only issue that makes me passionately wish to vote for Democrats. You’d think that Republicans who understand economics, the science of allocating scarce resources, would also get that we live on finite planet. Population growth without end is impossible under that condition.

I suppose the Democrats are right on a couple more issues also, but no others that matter as much for a decent future.

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Party of baby killers… As always.

RalphyBoy on June 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM

So, do we learn that elections do have consequences, any ‘purist’ conseravatives want to make the arguement that McCain was no better than Obama? Are perishing children in the 3rd world just collateral damage in ‘making a point’ to the GOP? Try explaining it to a child with a distended belly how they are better off that McCain with a 90% pro-life rating would’ve done just the same, that there were no differences between the two.

Those of you who stayed home on election day are equally complicit with the Kool-Aid swillers that foisted this nightmare on our nation. Now that you’ve made ‘your point’, how confident are you that the damage done by 2012 was worth it?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Archimedes on June 26, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Truly despicable! But Hillary will just deem the deaths she causes to infants and women to be ‘late term abortions’. Scratch a democrap and a full blown Stalinist genocidal murderer lurks just below the skin.

eaglewingz08 on June 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM

This is the only issue that makes me passionately wish to vote for Democrats. You’d think that Republicans who understand economics, the science of allocating scarce resources, would also get that we live on finite planet. Population growth without end is impossible under that condition.

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Human life is either infinitely valuable or not at all.

There is no in-between.

The worth of a human being is immeasurable. Someone has to say it. Someone has to be the conscience.

jeff_from_mpls on June 26, 2010 at 7:37 PM

So how many of you guys sttill want an unilateral GOP truce on social issues?

neuquenguy on June 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Human life is either infinitely valuable or not at all.

There is no in-between.

Gee, I can think of lots of numbers between zero and infinity. Similarly, there are whole lots of in-betweens about the value of a human life.

If human life is infinitely valuable, we can neither fight a war nor not fight a war. We can’t fight a war since we’ll kill infinitely valuable people. We can’t not fight a war since infinitely valuable innocents will be slaughtered by our inaction. Thus, your argument leads to a contradiction. You are wrong.

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Except that you did not ask Jeff how he felt about war. Fail.

CWforFreedom on June 26, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Except that you did not ask Jeff how he felt about war. Fail.

CWforFreedom on June 26, 2010 at 8:17 PM

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

thuja on June 26, 2010 at 6:39 PM

It is easy to believe standards must be implemented that limit the lives of others, while secure in the knowledge that your life is beyond the reach of those very same standards you seek to implement.

rukiddingme on June 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I’m pretty proud right now to have a strong leader!

CityFish on June 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Hear, hear ! Thank heavens for our PM, althought I am not too thrilled about him approving HST!

cableguy615 on June 26, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Human life is either infinitely valuable or not at all.

There is no in-between.

The worth of a human being is immeasurable. Someone has to say it. Someone has to be the conscience.

jeff_from_mpls on June 26, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Maybe this is what you meant to say:

Mark 8:36-37

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

fossten on June 26, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Virus-X on June 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM

I know exactly how you feel. I am a Catholic and before the election and since I have talked with many who voted for Obama and vote Democrat regardless of their platform.

It never ceases to amaze me how many older Catholics have no idea that the Democrats they knew when they were young no longer exist. And the younger ones are rebelling against the church and her authority.

I can no longer abide these people. I simply walk away. People I was once fond of, I cannot even look at anymore.

I am so mad at so many that I must ignore all talk of Obama and the Democrats in order to maintain peace in my job and most of my social life, which by the way represents an ever decreasing circle of people.

I console myself with love of God and trust in Him in all things. He knows the heart of His children, He weeps for us and He will triumph in the end.

Jvette on June 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Our leftist media has been pushing the same things, oddly enough.

Somewhere in hell, Margaret Sanger just shed a tear of joy.

andycanuck on June 26, 2010 at 11:42 PM

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?

No. Feminazis are angry when poor women choose to give birth.

itsnotaboutme on June 27, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Gee, I can think of lots of numbers between zero and infinity. Similarly, there are whole lots of in-betweens about the value of a human life.

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.

If human life is infinitely valuable, we can neither fight a war nor not fight a war.

Individuals fighting wars are born. The unborn do not participate. If the unborn could participate, my suspicion is the unborn would only wage war against abortion.

We can’t fight a war since we’ll kill infinitely valuable people. We can’t not fight a war since infinitely valuable innocents will be slaughtered by our inaction.

Fighting a war is a choice. If some infinitely valuable people die as a result of war, in order to save even more infinitely valuable people from same, it is a choice that has to be carefully considered.

Thus, your argument leads to a contradiction.

My argument against abortion leads to no such contradiction.

You are wrong.
thuja on June 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Those words do not mean what you think they mean.

rukiddingme on June 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2