A Religious "Pro-Choicer"

Paul Kengor has written his latest book in a series of spiritual biographies of politicians.  This one focuses on Hillary Clinton and I found it very interesting.  I learned some helpful things about Senator Clinton.  There's so much partisan distortion about her for good and ill, but Kengor cuts through that offering what came across as a very fair portrait avoiding the pitfalls on both sides of the political aisle.  It's a fascinating book that I think nearly everyone would learn something interesting from about one of the most prominent politicians of the last decade and a half.

One positive thing I learned about Mrs. Clinton was her vigorous work with Mother Teresa to open a home in Washington, D.C. for mothers in crisis and unwanted children.  Clinton is motivated by a very long-established moral code very much informed by her Methodist religion.  But that is also what puts her at odds with social conservatives because her "pro-choice" convictions are at least partially rooted in her religion.  The denomination supports "pro-choice."  The portrait that forms from this spiritual biography is of a woman who has sincere convictions and won't be swayed from them.

And Kengor offers a warning of what her presidency would mean for the pro-life movement.  Here's Kengor's assessment in an online interview:

If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.

By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.

A President Hillary Clinton would be committed to advancing abortion rights and turning back pro-life policy under her influence.  Many have observed that the abortion debate rests primarily in the courts and President Hillary Clinton would shape the courts at all levels for many years to come, blocking pro-life legislative efforts far into the future.  This would be one of her primary policy commitments.

To avoid this disaster, I'd rather see pro-life leaders unite behind some pro-life candidate rather than threaten a third-party candidate.

Comments

[Kevin W]

A personal struggle I’ve always had is how I view Christian “pro-choicers.” It kills me.

[Doug t]

"Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground."

She can't win unless Dobson takes enough votes away from the only viable opponent; the GOP nomination. No principle can be of God that gets Clinton elected.

Let's be Pro Life in philosophy and in actuality.

[Jared]

"Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it."

It seems she came across as almost a "mindless militant" for her position on abortion. It drives me nuts when people are like this, and it's a perfect reminder to me that I don't want to come across like that when defending my political stances.

[alan aronson]

This rang some bells for me, as I remember this speech:

"So we have a lot of experience from around the world that is a cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. But we cannot expect to have the kind of positive results that all of us are hoping for to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions if our government refuses to assist girls and women with their health care needs, a comprehensive education and accurate information."

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html

"I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton..."

This is just a weird statement. It should raise a red flag as to the author's methodology. Clinton is well within the mainstream on abortion; If one is a social conservative, you will likely disagree with her and all of the other Democrats and Rudy: if one is a moderate or liberal you'll likely agree. Here is a summary on all the current candidates:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Abortion.htm#Hillary_Clinton

[William Wilcox]

Doug,

A couple comments. There were approxmately 50 other Christian leaders in the meeting that discussed the possibility of a pro-choice Republican nomonee. The problem you are concerned about is bigger than Dobson.

Doug said: "the only viable opponent; the GOP nomination".

How viable is a candidate that can't garner the support of Christians concerned about life issues?

I have never heard of this series of books. I am glad to have the opportunity to learn more about Clinton. Her extremism on abortion is interesting and the fact that Kengor couldn't understand where it is coming from intrigues me.

[Rob Newton]

Not disagreeing with the post... However, what to do if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. A pro-choice Democratic president would be better than a pro-choice Republican president.

Having a pro-choice Republican being the head of the party would be terrible in the long-term. I feel it would be better show that a pro-choice Republican cannot win...

[KS]

Regarding alan aronson's comment that Hillary Clinton is "well within the mainstream on abortion," how can that be true when she supports partial-birth abortion and the majority of Americans do not? She made some of the usual comments about reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, but so what?

[Francis Beckwith]

There are three ways to answer Aronson's claim:

1. The "mainstream" includes only the post-natal; so, appealing to its interests begs the question on the issue of abortion, which is whether the pre-natal are full-fledged members of the human community.

2. Respond as KS responds: to support partial-birth abortion as a right is to step outside the mainstream.

Or

3. This only shows that the mainstream is wrong. The fact that set of mistaken people is larger than we supposed does not change the fact that the set is mistaken.

At the end of the day, Senator Clinton has the obligation to explain why the unborn ought not to be accorded under our laws the respect and dignity they are entitled to as members of the human community. To say claim the mantle of "prochoice" is just another way not to give an answer to the most important question that is doing the work in this debate

[Johnnie Hodge]

Sadly, I'm beginning to think Hillary IS in the mainstream on this. It's actually quite rare that I come across people, even most Christians, who believe that abortion should be a crime. They say they're personally opposed, but don't think it should be illegal. Terrible position, but that's the direction I see the thinking going.

[alan aronson]

Hi Dr. Beckwith and K.S., please feel free to call me "Alan: - seeing my last name used has been somewhat traumatic ever since I read 1984 many years ago.

I found the polls interesting and encouraging. The default American position on abortion seems to favor a social democratic/left-libertarian approach. The seeming contradiction with PBA is no doubt due to the deceptive manner in which the issue was promoted (shame on you all). As long as we have a free and open debate, it seems you all will continue to be out of step with the majority of the nation.

Read Hillary's speech that I linked and the poll referenced in the above post. It shows she is right in the mainstream of American opinion and the poll is best summarized as "safe, legal, and rare."

[William Wilcox]

Kengor's comments sbout Clinton are made within a Christian context. He indicates that she is not within the Christian mainstream when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Kengor also indicates that Clinton realizes the problems for her position associated with the proposition that human life begins at conception and avoids addressing it. This is a real problem and may indicate her ambition overriding her intellectual abilities and Christian principles.

Does anyone know if Clinton has ever commented on any personal experience with abortion? Perhaps a close friend or family member?

What ever happens politically, I hope that there are pro-life Christians in her life that will personally and relentlessly engage her on this issue.

[doug t]

William said,
"How viable is a candidate that can't garner the support of Christians concerned about life issues?"

How viable is the Christian supposedly concerned about life when they don't care about the increase of lives taken by Hillary's candidacy over Rudy's? I would say that those Christians deserve to be kicked aside from the political debate. They can go back to their innefective ghetto and pat each other on the back for the next eight years.

[William Wilcox]

Doug,

Chill! I am just pointing out that it is reasonable, from one point of view, to consider a pro-choice Republican candidate as unviable just because of the obvious controversy about positions on life issues. A portion of the population that would otherwise probably be on board with the Republicans is considering other options. Not a good thing for Republicans.

And it is still all hypothetical until Rudy gets the nomination!

So consider what you might say to H. Clinton as her Brother in Christ if you had a half hour to talk with her about life issues.

I would like to know how you think you might approach her most effectively.

[doug t]

William said,
"I would like to know how you think you might approach her most effectively."

...with a hammer.

I think once someone goes so far as to embrace Partial Birth Infanticide, strong rebuke is about all that's in order. The rebuke wouldn't be to change the mind of the individual but to teach listeners about her sin.

I can barely imagine where to start with someone so convaluted in thinking and I would have to get at her feelings-as-God before we even address the subject of abortion. The life message has a logical component: "What is it?" and an emotional component: "Let's watch a partial birth abortion procedure shall we?"

With most relativists the former is useless, it's almost impossible to untangle that spaghetti to even start to have a coherent conversation using reason. But the latter is useful because it bypasses logic and tells a story that is difficult to deny with other emotions.

She would likely counter with passionate stories about girls botching home-made abortions...by the way, I think she had a close friend in college who had a botched home-abortion and this is what made her emotional position so iron clad. Most in the Pro Choice movement assume that when abortion is made illegal that we'll have 5,000 botched back ally abortions instead of 5,000 clumps of tissue neatly erased by a kind surgeon.

I would stick with a rebuke and assume she's beyond convincing.

[KS]

I find it laughable that HRC referred to a "cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's." She is all about the expansion of government power. Maybe we need to use Greg Koukl's approach (as I understand it) and ask pro-choice people, If there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, why do you say that you want to make it rare?

Rhetorical question: Wouldn't pro-choicers like HRC or Anne Lamott, who call themselves Christians, have a bad case of cognitive dissonance?

[doug t]

KS,
well said. It exposes how the abortion stance is untenable. We'd never say, "We want equality to be safe, legal and rare."

I'm making a prediction that in this next election cycle we're going to see them lose the "rare" part and you'll start hearing, "We want abortion to be safe and legal."

[MarieG]

I am very concerned about the weakness of the republican candidates and the terrible possibility that Hilary would be elected because of our lack of a strong candidate. I fear that our only viable pro-life would be Mitt Romney and this is an even scarrier thought because I do believe that this would legitimate Mormonism to outsiders. We, Christians would not be fooled by Romney's strange religion, but many would start confusing true Christianity with Mormonism at home and even more abroad. This could bring an even more dreadful result than abortion: legitimazing Mormonism and loosing many souls for the kingdom. I like Hickabee and I wish we Christians would get behind him. And definitely Dobson is wrong to suggest that voting for a third party is an option. Remember Perot and others. This wold hand the presidency to Clinton for sure. Dobson wake up to the reality and do not sway the votes to a third party, it is political suicide.