Right Hooks

Rule of Law vs. Rule of Clinton

Hillary's positions on guns and abortion are, to use her own word, "horrifying."

Nate Jackson · Oct. 21, 2016

In Wednesday’s third and, mercifully, final presidential debate, the subject of abortion came up during the discussion on the Supreme Court. “I strongly support Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make decisions about her health care,” Hillary Clinton said. She became even more forceful, adding, “I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.”

First, let’s stipulate that the federal government wasn’t involved in “those most personal of decisions” until the Supreme Court asserted its own power over the states in 1973. Furthermore, SCOTUS created a right to abortion. There was and remains no constitutional right to take the life of an unborn child — to deny the very right to life upon which the Declaration of Independence is based.

Second, Clinton is no libertarian federalist convert. In fact, we’d challenge her to name a single other issue where she’d say the same thing about the federal government’s role. Marriage? Baking cakes? Which bathroom teenagers use? Purchasing health insurance? What fluids are in our air conditioners? How much water our toilets flush? What kind of light bulbs we use? When a campaign ad can run and who can pay for it? Even more hypocritically, she supports federal funding for abortion. She supposedly doesn’t want government stepping in to restrict abortion, but she’ll make you pay for abortions.

Oh, and what about the personal decision to exercise our Second Amendment rights? She feigned support for the Second Amendment when she would in fact eviscerate it. Regarding this constitutionally enumerated right, she said of DC’s outright handgun ban that the city was just trying to “protect toddlers from guns.” How outrageously wrong. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

One might say she supports keeping guns away from toddlers by preventing babies from growing into toddlers. She’d rather a doctor pull a baby halfway out of the birth canal and stab it in the back of the skull with scissors (that’s what happened during the now-banned practice of partial-birth abortion — a ban the Supreme Court upheld in 2007) than allow Americans to have guns if there’s a toddler around. To borrow her own phrase, “That’s horrifying.” It’s clear there is no abortion restriction she’d support, and no gun restriction she’d oppose.

In short, the contrast here is the difference between rule of men and Rule of Law. As Hillary herself asked, “What kind of country are we going to be?”

Click here to show comments