The Patriot Post® · Bench Marked by Two Different Views
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump shared a stage [Wednesday] night — but little else. From the first question until their closing remarks, the contrast on policies and priorities between the nominees could not be more clear.
At the third and final debate, the two sides kicked the event off by wrangling over one of the biggest concerns for social conservatives: the Supreme Court. Moderator Chris Wallace, who easily outperformed his competition in the job, obviously understands what many Americans do not — which is that no one, including the next president, will have a bigger impact on the future of this country than the justices they pick for the high court. As important as the candidates’ positions are, the final say on most matters will come down to the bench’s nine unelected men and women. So naturally, the question on most people’s minds is: who would either of these candidates entrust to make those decisions?
If voters were anxious to see the clear contrast between the nominees, they didn’t have to wait long. Asked where she would like to see the Court take America, Hillary was clear: she wants an activist court that substitutes its agenda for the plain text of the Constitution.
“…I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people… For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us.”
Notice: not one word on the Constitution or the importance of our founding principles. That’s because Clinton (like most liberals) views the Court’s job as making the law, not interpreting it. Donald Trump, on the other hand, should have silenced plenty of conservative critics by being the first GOP nominee in history to say that he would only appoint pro-life justices to the bench. If you’re wondering how significant that is, consider this — even George W. Bush refused to make that pledge. And frankly, that’s ironic, because appointing men and women to uphold the sanctity of life is as “originalist” as it gets!
“I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint — and I’ve named 20 of them… will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It’s all about the… Constitution the way it was meant to be.”
While other Republicans have tried to nuance the life issue, Trump doubled down, making a powerful case that his administration would reinstate a culture of life. He continued that reassurance to voters in the second wave of questioning on the validity of Roe v. Wade. Tying the issue back to the Court, Wallace pressed the GOP nominee on his sincerity on the unborn and whether he would, in fact, try to overturn the 1973 ruling. “Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that’s really what’s going to be — that will happen,” Trump replied. “And that’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.”
Naturally, that kind of thinking appalled Planned Parenthood’s choice for president, who thinks the government should stay out of women’s decisions — but has no problem asking taxpayers to pay for them! “Donald has said he’s in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. He even supported shutting the government down to defund Planned Parenthood. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade, and I will defend women’s rights to make their own health care decisions.” And, to the horror of most Americans, she supports those “decisions” right up to the moment of birth. Wallace made a point of drawing Clinton out on this, saying, “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?”
In typical Hillary fashion, she tried to cloak her extremism in the excuse that “there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.” But, as the research shows, those incidents are extremely rare. On the contrary, most of the 12,000 late-term abortions performed in America every year have little to do with the medical risks to women. Dr. Elizabeth Johnson of the Charlotte Lozier Institute explains, “Previous survey studies of late-term abortion patients have confirmed that most late-term abortions are performed because of a delay in pregnancy diagnosis and for reasons similar to those given by first-trimester abortion patients: financial stressors, relationship problems, education concerns or parenting challenges.” But what should we expect from a woman who declared that the unborn person “doesn’t have constitutional rights?” In other words, nothing is too radical, no procedure too violent.
In the worst examples of liberal hypocrisy, she went on to add: “The government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice.” Yet, she — along with the entire Obama administration — has not only taken away the right of families to make decisions according to their faith (read: ObamaCare mandate, conscience rights) — but punished people for them! Trump, meanwhile, stayed on message, highlighting the absolute barbarism of Clinton’s position, which very few countries in the world allow.
“Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”
“A nation that kills its own children has no future,” Pope John Paul II warned. Let’s hope more Americans realize that’s exactly where we’re headed under a Clinton presidency: no future for our nation, and more importantly, no future for millions of innocent children.
Originally published here.
Clinton-Richards 2016
Sitting in the auditorium watching Wednesday’s debate, it was clear to me that it was probably Donald Trump’s best. But there was someone else in the audience that I’m pretty confident couldn’t have been happier about Hillary Clinton’s performance: Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. Her organization certainly got its money’s worth off of the endorsement of the former First Lady when Hillary showed how passionate she can be about funding the group at the center of parts-for-profits scandal.
Seemingly more comfortable during this part of the debate than any other, Clinton fired back at Donald for daring to suggest that Planned Parenthood raise its own money — or, better yet, use the massive profits it makes from abortion to keep the grisly mills operating. “So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice to the extent that they are defunding Planned Parenthood, which, of course, provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country.” In the audience, Richards was probably beaming just thinking about the ways her organization could cash in on a Clinton presidency.
While we believed there was a cozy relationship between Hillary and Planned Parenthood, some of the latest WikiLeaks emails from Clinton campaign Director John Podesta confirm what most of us suspected. Podesta and Richards exchanged emails where Richards acknowledged the undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress that exposed the selling of aborted baby body parts “hurt” her operation. Podesta, in another exchange, acknowledged she was “up to her [expletive] in alligators” but needed her to give him a quick call. No speculation is needed on how close a Clinton White House would be with Planned Parenthood. Clinton would ensure your tax dollars not only continue to flow to Planned Parenthood, but she and her party have promised to remove the restrictions on your tax dollars directly paying for elective abortions too.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.