NRL News

Pro-abortion Sen. Gillibrand announces pro-life policies are “against Christian faith”

by | May 17, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

Last time I looked, when Democrats were asked who they prefer, pro-abortion Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), one of 20+ presidential aspirants, ranked so low she registered 0% in the latest Fox News poll: Although to be fair, earlier in the week Gillibrand soared to 1% in the Morning Consult poll.

Not saying there is necessarily a cause and effect, but I couldn’t help thinking of her dismal ratings when I read that while in Atlanta Thursday, Gillibrand announced that laws banning or restricting abortion are “against Christian faith, ” according to WBNS.

“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants of our faith is free will. One of the tenants [tenets] of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort,” she said at a press conference.

She also called on other Democratic presidential candidates (according to the television station), “to lay out reproductive rights policies. ‘Any Democrat who expects to win the presidency must answer definitively where they stand on this issue,’ she said.”

Okay, in reverse order, is there anyone on Planet Earth who has the slightest doubt that the only question for Democrats will be how radically anti-life they can be?

That each and every one will lift loud and high the banner of abortion on demand, paid for with taxpayer dollar? That they will try to outdo each other in stopping passage of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act which would guarantee no more, but no less, than equal treatment for abortion survivors?

As for “free will,” that is hardly an exclusively Christian tenet. Does she mean by this glib usage that we are “free” to do anything we wish? Abuse women? Murder a teenager so you can cut out her unborn child? Of course not!

And, at the risk of stating the obvious, separation of church and state is not (except to pro-abortion Democrats) separation of church from state. Onkar Ghate put it this way:

Did Martin Luther King violate the Constitution when he, often in religious terms, protested governmental oppression of blacks? Should the government have jailed those who advocated for the abolition of slavery in religious language? Should their appeals have been ignored?

Espousing “logic” like this, no wonder Gillibrand’s preference numbers are barely a statistical blip.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Send your comments to

Categories: Politics