Hillary and the Children

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood on the subject of children separated from their illegal alien parents at the border is mind-numbing. The enabler of her husband’s serial lust and adultery, whose greed even led her and her husband to steal from the children of Haiti, and the champion of unrestricted abortion actually invoked the name of Jesus on behalf of separated children:

“Those who selectively use the Bible to justify this cruelty are ignoring a central tenet of Christianity,” failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared. “Jesus said ‘Suffer the little children unto me.’ He did not say ‘let the children suffer.’”…

Over the weekend, Planned Parenthood -- yes, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood -- tweeted that “all of the fathers and parents who have been separated from their children at borders” were in “our hearts and minds” for Father’s Day.

Really? They say nothing about American children such as Kate Steinle and Jamiel Shaw Jr. separated from their families by illegal alien killers lurking in sanctuary cities. They talk of children ripped from their mother’s arms but not children ripped from their mother’s womb. They certainly don’t talk about heads and limbs being ripped from fetal torsos carefully enough so that the fetal body parts can be sold intact.

Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Planned Parenthood and insists it should not be defunded as part of any reform. Planned Parenthood has been credibly accused of selling body parts of aborted babies for fun and profit. Margaret Sanger is Hillary’s role model, someone who advocated population control through abortion and advocated the extermination of the black race.

Back in March of 2009, Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. In accepting the award, the Weekly Standard noted, Hillary had high praise for the noted eugenicist:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision... And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Rep. Chris Smith reminded Mrs. Clinton in a speech to Congress in 2009 of the nature of Sanger’s belief that eugenics, something the Nazis would put into horrifying practice, was Margaret Sanger’s solution to all our problems, particularly racial ones. As LifeSite News reported at the time:

Addressing Mrs. Clinton, Smith said, "Are you kidding? In ‘awe’’ of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ‘Eugenics… is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems’. And who also said in 1922, ‘The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it’?"….

Highlighting the racist nature of eugenics, Smith further quoted Sanger, who said in 1939, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities... We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Hillary Clinton likes to say she has waged a lifelong crusade to save the children, but in the final presidential debate she defended the right to end their lives in the womb using the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion, which involves the physical dismemberment of nearly born infants. As the Washington Times noted, Donald Trump objected to doing to the preborn what you are not allowed to do to dogs and cats:

Hillary Clinton defended the practice of partial-birth abortion in the final presidential debate on Wednesday, obscuring her belief that abortion should be legal at any point during a pregnancy by appealing to the “health” of the mother.

Asked to defend her vote in the Senate against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was ultimately enacted, Mrs. Clinton said she was not convinced the legislation did enough to protect the “life and health of the mother.”…

“Well, I think it’s terrible,” Mr. Trump said. “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month [of pregnancy], you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”

As Dr. Nancy Romer, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wright State University; Pamela Smith, director of medical education in obstetrics at Mount Sinai in Chicago; and Dr. Joseph Cook, a specialist in fetal medicine at Michigan State, assert in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 19, 1996:

“Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman’s health or fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant threat to both the pregnant woman’s health and her fertility.”

In cases where it is medically necessary to separate an unborn child from the mother carrying it, why not simply deliver the baby and make every effort to save it? If it is necessary to separate mother from child, why is it also necessary to kill the child? Why is it necessary, Mrs. Clinton, to have living infants extracted from their mothers’ womb, feet first, up to the neck, and then killed by forced removal of their brains, a procedure sanctioned by a society that does not tolerate the clubbing of baby seals or the sale of eagle feathers?

The mind harkens back to that day in 1994 when Mother Teresa spoke on the evil of abortion in the presence of Bill and Hillary Clinton:

…if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

When Mary, carrying Jesus in her womb, visited her cousin Elizabeth, pregnant with John the Baptist, the Bible tells us the baby leapt in her womb with joy. The baby, Mrs. Clinton, the baby.  Jesus would not and does not approve of abortion, Hillary, something more barbaric than anything the Border Patrol may be doing in enforcing existing law. Note Hillary’s reaction to Mother Teresa’s words on the suffering inflicted on unborn children through abortion:

I was not there, but author and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan was. Here’s what she later wrote:

Well, silence. Cool deep silence in the cool round cavern for just about 1.3 seconds. And then applause started on the right hand side of the room, and spread, and deepened, and now the room was swept with people applauding, and they would not stop for what I believe was five or six minutes. As they clapped they began to stand, in another wave from the right of the room to the center and the left.

But not everyone applauded. The president and first lady, seated within a few feet of Mother Teresa on the dais, were not applauding. Nor were the vice president and Mrs. Gore. They looked like seated statues at Madame Tussaud’s. They glistened in the lights and moved not a muscle, looking at the speaker in a determinedly semi-pleasant way.

Where in the Bible is abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion, justified? So don’t lecture us about children separated from their families and suffering as a result when you would cheerfully support the “right” of their mothers to abort them. Being in a detention center is a lot better than winding up in a plastic trash bag or having your body parts shipped to “researchers.”

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood on the subject of children separated from their illegal alien parents at the border is mind-numbing. The enabler of her husband’s serial lust and adultery, whose greed even led her and her husband to steal from the children of Haiti, and the champion of unrestricted abortion actually invoked the name of Jesus on behalf of separated children:

“Those who selectively use the Bible to justify this cruelty are ignoring a central tenet of Christianity,” failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared. “Jesus said ‘Suffer the little children unto me.’ He did not say ‘let the children suffer.’”…

Over the weekend, Planned Parenthood -- yes, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood -- tweeted that “all of the fathers and parents who have been separated from their children at borders” were in “our hearts and minds” for Father’s Day.

Really? They say nothing about American children such as Kate Steinle and Jamiel Shaw Jr. separated from their families by illegal alien killers lurking in sanctuary cities. They talk of children ripped from their mother’s arms but not children ripped from their mother’s womb. They certainly don’t talk about heads and limbs being ripped from fetal torsos carefully enough so that the fetal body parts can be sold intact.

Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Planned Parenthood and insists it should not be defunded as part of any reform. Planned Parenthood has been credibly accused of selling body parts of aborted babies for fun and profit. Margaret Sanger is Hillary’s role model, someone who advocated population control through abortion and advocated the extermination of the black race.

Back in March of 2009, Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. In accepting the award, the Weekly Standard noted, Hillary had high praise for the noted eugenicist:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision... And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Rep. Chris Smith reminded Mrs. Clinton in a speech to Congress in 2009 of the nature of Sanger’s belief that eugenics, something the Nazis would put into horrifying practice, was Margaret Sanger’s solution to all our problems, particularly racial ones. As LifeSite News reported at the time:

Addressing Mrs. Clinton, Smith said, "Are you kidding? In ‘awe’’ of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ‘Eugenics… is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems’. And who also said in 1922, ‘The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it’?"….

Highlighting the racist nature of eugenics, Smith further quoted Sanger, who said in 1939, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities... We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Hillary Clinton likes to say she has waged a lifelong crusade to save the children, but in the final presidential debate she defended the right to end their lives in the womb using the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion, which involves the physical dismemberment of nearly born infants. As the Washington Times noted, Donald Trump objected to doing to the preborn what you are not allowed to do to dogs and cats:

Hillary Clinton defended the practice of partial-birth abortion in the final presidential debate on Wednesday, obscuring her belief that abortion should be legal at any point during a pregnancy by appealing to the “health” of the mother.

Asked to defend her vote in the Senate against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was ultimately enacted, Mrs. Clinton said she was not convinced the legislation did enough to protect the “life and health of the mother.”…

“Well, I think it’s terrible,” Mr. Trump said. “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month [of pregnancy], you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”

As Dr. Nancy Romer, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wright State University; Pamela Smith, director of medical education in obstetrics at Mount Sinai in Chicago; and Dr. Joseph Cook, a specialist in fetal medicine at Michigan State, assert in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 19, 1996:

“Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman’s health or fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant threat to both the pregnant woman’s health and her fertility.”

In cases where it is medically necessary to separate an unborn child from the mother carrying it, why not simply deliver the baby and make every effort to save it? If it is necessary to separate mother from child, why is it also necessary to kill the child? Why is it necessary, Mrs. Clinton, to have living infants extracted from their mothers’ womb, feet first, up to the neck, and then killed by forced removal of their brains, a procedure sanctioned by a society that does not tolerate the clubbing of baby seals or the sale of eagle feathers?

The mind harkens back to that day in 1994 when Mother Teresa spoke on the evil of abortion in the presence of Bill and Hillary Clinton:

…if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

When Mary, carrying Jesus in her womb, visited her cousin Elizabeth, pregnant with John the Baptist, the Bible tells us the baby leapt in her womb with joy. The baby, Mrs. Clinton, the baby.  Jesus would not and does not approve of abortion, Hillary, something more barbaric than anything the Border Patrol may be doing in enforcing existing law. Note Hillary’s reaction to Mother Teresa’s words on the suffering inflicted on unborn children through abortion:

I was not there, but author and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan was. Here’s what she later wrote:

Well, silence. Cool deep silence in the cool round cavern for just about 1.3 seconds. And then applause started on the right hand side of the room, and spread, and deepened, and now the room was swept with people applauding, and they would not stop for what I believe was five or six minutes. As they clapped they began to stand, in another wave from the right of the room to the center and the left.

But not everyone applauded. The president and first lady, seated within a few feet of Mother Teresa on the dais, were not applauding. Nor were the vice president and Mrs. Gore. They looked like seated statues at Madame Tussaud’s. They glistened in the lights and moved not a muscle, looking at the speaker in a determinedly semi-pleasant way.

Where in the Bible is abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion, justified? So don’t lecture us about children separated from their families and suffering as a result when you would cheerfully support the “right” of their mothers to abort them. Being in a detention center is a lot better than winding up in a plastic trash bag or having your body parts shipped to “researchers.”

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.