Politics

 

Hillary Clinton’s awful month and the mantra of “safe, legal and rare” abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Hillary Clinton

If you’ve paid much attention the last couple of weeks, you already know Hillary Clinton’s been through an awfully rough patch of water someone who (somehow) had heretofore been designated as the likely Democratic candidate for President in 2016.

You know the litany. To name just a few…the skin-crawling-inducing comments about being “broke” and “in debt” coming out of the White House; mixing up the names of the political parties in England (embarrassing, coming from a former Secretary of State); very unflattering details of her defense years ago of an accused rapist; and (as noted over at “Hillary’s ‘Hard Choices’ Plunges Below Amazon Top 100 Less Than Month After Release”) the fact that the sales of her new book have plummeted, meaning the publisher will lose millions and millions just in the advance alone –a staggering $14 million dollar–not to mention the warehouses full of unsold books. The list could be extended…and extended.

And then there is the polite jab Clinton unfairly took today in a piece written by pro-abortion-to-the-hilt Jessica Valenti for The Guardian newspaper. Valenti critiqued Clinton for recycling the abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” mantra which she picked up from her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

There is nothing in the history of either of the Clintons that suggests they ever meant a syllable (in this case) about limiting abortion. What did either do to make abortion “rare”? Nothing. Indeed, the Clintons were and are big into recognizing abortion as an “international right”—to be used as a battering ram against any and all protective abortion laws anywhere. (President Clinton endorsed the Freedom of Choice Act which would have swept aside virtually every state limitation on abortion.)
When Hillary Clinton was President Obama’s Secretary of State, access to abortion became a substantial component of U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. funds are flowing to many abortion-promoting entities overseas. At a 2009 House committee hearing, Secretary of State Clinton openly proclaimed that “we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care,” that “reproductive health includes access to abortion,” and that the Administration intends to advocate for this right “anywhere in the world.”
But it worth a few additional paragraphs to look at what Valenti is criticizing virtually all pro-abortion politicians for. She writes

“In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the

University

of California, San Francisco, wrote that ‘rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur.’”

“It separates ‘good’ abortions from ‘bad’ abortions,” she added.”

Then

“Weitz wrote that calling for abortions to be rare has tangible negative consequences for women and women’s health because it legitimizes efforts to legally restrict abortion – i.e., make it more ‘rare.’ Worse yet, it ‘negates the mandates for routine training in abortion,’ since students and teachers wonder why they should get medical training for something that supposedly should be rare.

“’We want there to be as many abortions as there needs to be,’ [Steph]Herold told me.”

And finally

“And like pregnancy, contraceptive-use, miscarriage or childbirth, abortion is often just one part of a normal woman’s larger reproductive life. … One reason is not better than another, but saying the procedure needs to be rare creates a hierarchy of ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ abortions that runs counter to the notion that abortion is a legal right, a personal decision and a matter of bodily integrity.”

So, abortion=miscarriage=adoption because each is part of a “normal woman’s larger productive life.”
The number of abortions—one or 20—misses the point. It’s a “personal decision and a matter of bodily integrity.” A woman should have as many abortions as she “needs.”
And most of all, any reason (or no reason) is a good reason to have an abortion. On second thought I take that back.
A woman doesn’t need a reason. If she did, it would suggest that some abortions (sex-selection abortions; abortions at 8 and 9 months; abortions even though a baby would endure unimaginable pain, for example) are “bad.”
Valenti may bemoan that even the most solidly pro-abortion politician has to pretend they want a limit to abortion. But the Hillary Clintons of this world know that’s the cover story they must employ.


Source: NRLC News