Bad news: Hillary deeply disturbed that Supreme Court upheld statute signed into law by her husband

Thanks to AG Conservative for that headline. First “don’t ask, don’t tell,” then DOMA, now RFRA: Precisely how many statutes signed by Bill Clinton are the Clintons currently horrified by?

Advertisement

It’ll be fun during President Hillary’s administration to try to identify the various laws that Senator Chelsea will be forced to repudiate circa 2036.

Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury but as a central issue is because they’re often the canaries in the mine,” Clinton said. “You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights, some of them never have them, some of them lose them. Among those rights is control over their body’s, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism. Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people – men – to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever. So to introduce this element into our society…it’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.

I knew the Democratic nominee-in-waiting was going to lay it on with a trowel — hot-button SCOTUS case tailor-made for corporation-bashing and “war on women” crap? — but good lord. She’s an inch away here from comparing the Roberts Court to the Taliban. Lying about Hobby Lobby’s willingness to cover contraception is a nice touch too. When you’ve built up a narrative head of steam like she has here, there’s no sense letting facts derail it.

Advertisement

By the way, since Hillary and, presumably, Bill are so mortified to find that closely held corporations count as “persons” for purposes of RFRA, I’m curious: Did either of them demand any clarification of who’d be covered by the statute before Bill signed it in 1993? You would think the Smartest Woman In The World, who hates corporations every bit as much as Elizabeth Warren when she’s not busy hitting them up for contributions, would have flagged that potential wrinkle before Bill made it the law of the land. Huh. Click the image to watch.

hc

Update: Now here’s a campaign platform.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/483752679064092673

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement