NRL News

Imagining a Clinton Legacy

by | Aug 17, 2016

By Carol Tobias, President, National Right to Life

ClintonpayforabortionsreHillary Clinton is a known quantity. As NRL News editor Dave Andrusko so succinctly summarized Clinton’s position, “Abortion for any reason or no reason, as late in pregnancy as desired, paid for by the public.” If she were elected president for four, maybe even eight years, what would be her legacy to this great country?

The short answer? A further entrenchment of abortion on demand and millions more unborn babies whose lives are ended because they are ‘inconvenient’ or someone deemed them not worthy of respect.

In the 1990s, when Hillary’s husband was president, their often quoted position was that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

No one in the pro-life community ever believed that cover story, but many did.

Her position became very clear, however, with the Health Security Act, also known as Hillary Care. This “health” plan, formulated by Hillary Clinton and pushed by her husband’s administration, was a dream come true for the abortion industry. It would have required that every health plan or policy sold provide a federally defined benefits package which covered abortion on request; that every working American and every employer must purchase the federal benefits package, including abortion; and that abortion facilities be accessible in every region of every state. In addition, the law would have repealed many state laws on abortion including parental consent, waiting periods, limits on third-trimester abortions, conscience clauses, etc.

In other words, Hillary’s health plan would have been all abortion all the time. The pro-life community worked extremely hard to make sure that Hillary’s plan never became law.

For years, even some pro-abortion candidates were unwilling to voice support for tax-funding of abortion, knowing that was not a popular position with the American public. One of the most successful means of reducing the number of abortions was the Hyde Amendment, sponsored by the late pro-life Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). Conservative estimates from five years ago put the figure, at that time, at one million persons who are alive today because abortion funding was not available.

Hillary? She wants to do away with the Hyde amendment and its repeal is now part of the Democrat Party radical abortion on demand platform plank. So what if you have a moral or conscientious objection to paying for abortion? What you and millions of other Americans want doesn’t matter when it comes to killing unborn babies.

What would Hillary do on an international level? She would push her radical abortion on demand policy through the United Nations.

As Jeanne Head, RN, NRLC’s vice-president of international affairs, noted in 2009, achieving pro-life goals at UN meetings became increasingly more difficult when hostile U.S. delegations, led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were determined to pursue a goal of making abortion a fundamental human “right” worldwide. That could and would be used as a battering ram against protective laws around the globe.

Why might that be important domestically? Because some Supreme Court justices have shown a willingness, even eagerness, to recognize international law when dealing with U.S. cases.

In a 2003 address to The American Society of International Law, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “…we find an increasing number of issues, including constitutional issues, where the decisions of foreign courts help by offering points of comparison. This change reflects the ‘globalization’ of human rights, a phrase that refers to the ever-stronger consensus (now near world-wide) as to the importance of protecting basic human rights, the embodiment of that consensus in legal documents, such as national constitutions and international treaties, and the related decision to enlist judges – i.e., independent judiciaries – as instruments to help make that protection effective in practice.”

Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has explained that “comparative analysis [of international law] emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights. We are the losers if we neglect what others can tell us about endeavors to eradicate bias against women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups.” Unfortunately, Ginsburg does not consider unborn children to be members of the disadvantaged groups who are worthy of protection.

There can be no doubt that a President Clinton would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strike down pro-life laws passed at the state or federal level. It is highly likely that her appointees would also use international law to determine whether unborn babies in the United States live or die.

When a new president takes over in 2017, there will already be an opening on the Supreme Court– that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. If Clinton is elected, she will appoint someone whose position on the Constitution is 180 degrees different from Scalia. A voice who recognized the right of states to protect unborn children would become a voice against the babies.

In addition, we have 83-year old Ginsburg, 80-year-old Anthony Kennedy, and 78-year-old Breyer on the court. It’s possible Clinton could appoint four justices and we would be looking at many more years of abortion on demand.

We know a President Clinton would follow any avenue to overturn the Hyde amendment. Her administration will look for any way possible to fund abortion in all health plans established under Obamacare. We could also have an international law that says a woman has a “right” to kill her unborn child, with a majority of the Supreme Court willing to recognize that law as superseding any U.S. law that “limited” abortion.

Pro-lifers are a hopeful people but there isn’t any question our task will get much more difficult with a President Clinton administration.

Editor’s note. This appeared on page three of the August digital edition of National Right to Life News. You can read Carol’s column and all the other many news stories, commentaries, opinion pieces, and editorials at

Please be sure to forward stories to your entire social media network.

Categories: Hillary Clinton