NRL News

Hillary Clinton’s “barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows”

by | Apr 29, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, speaking at EMILY's List 30th Anniversary dinner

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, speaking at EMILY’s List 30th Anniversary dinner

Pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received a fair amount of attention–including from us–for parts of a remarkably candid (and disturbing) speech she delivered last week to the “Women in The World Summit” in New York City [].

More than one person subsequently told me that whatever negative publicity she received at the time for the speech in which she blew kisses to her pro-abortion sisters, it would be small compared to the far greater blowback the former Secretary of State will eventually experience.

I thought of those conversations when I read USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers’ blistering op-ed that ran yesterday.

In case you’ve forgotten, Clinton said the following:

“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half but far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed [applause]. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century, and not just for women, but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

The message was impossible to miss: to bring real “reproductive health care” to the ends of the earth (Hillary and Bill Clinton are anti-life missionaries), a lot that means a great deal to billions of people must be jettisoned.

And you don’t change what Clinton labeled “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases” with pleasantries. You do so coercively, with the power of the state.

Powers asks Clinton to dispense with the euphemisms–she is talking about abortion and contraception— and “Then she should explain why she thinks she, or anyone else, has the right to dictate what religious people believe about either issue. We know she wants to be president — but does she think she is God, too?”

Our issue is abortion, so let’s see what else Powers has to say about Clinton’s speech and abortion. There are three main points.

* “Like President Obama — who famously opined that Americans ‘cling’ to religion out of bitterness — Clinton seems to view religious doctrine in opposition to her political agenda as nothing more than ‘biases’ or ‘codes’ to be dismantled by those who know better,” Powers writes.

There are differences, of course, between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton but they share an abiding faith (so to speak) in the power of abortion to reshape the world and the right/obligation of people like them to make people like us kneel to their agenda.

* Powers offers, “It would take an army of psychologists to determine why Clinton believes that her worldview should override that of centuries of religious doctrine,” adding, “Religious beliefs that differ from mine are not automatically viewed as targets for transformation.” But they need to be “transformed” because the enlightened elite know better. And if you have to do so by legislation, activist courts, or the power of the purse, well, why not?

* A number of writers, including me (and now Powers) placed Clinton’s chilling comments alongside a post by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni. Bruni has not been, is not now, and likely will be even less likely in the future to worry about the religious rights of those who disagree with his agenda on social issues.

As Matt Lewis said of Bruni

Hillary’s comments also remind me of something Frank Bruni wrote in a recent column, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana.” In that piece Bruni argues that “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

And if you and I don’t willing bow “to the enlightenments of modernity”? Bruni doesn’t say and neither (precisely) does Hillary Clinton. But Powers has a pretty good idea. She ends her column

The intolerance, condescension and ignorance expressed about religious people is troubling enough in itself. But what sends chills up the spine is the barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows. … How exactly will Clinton change religious beliefs at odds with her worldview?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Categories: Hillary Clinton