The 3 Saddest Things About Hillary Clinton Comparing Pro-Lifers To Terrorists

The 3 Saddest Things About Hillary Clinton Comparing Pro-Lifers To Terrorists

Her extremist rhetoric is deeply wrong and a sign of a flailing campaign helmed by an unsteady leader.

Hillary Clinton compared pro-lifers to terrorists on Thursday. Really. Even the liberal Talking Points Memo admits “Hillary Clinton Compares Anti-Abortion Republicans To Terrorists.”

You can watch it here, if you’d like:

She says:

Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be President of the United States, yet espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century for America. We are going forward. We are not going back.

Her erratic comments showing contempt for those who oppose ending human lives after they’ve begun come in the midst of a campaign that has gone from presumed coronation to questionable, if well-funded, proposition over the past few months.

Here are the three saddest things about someone using such uncivil language against Americans opposed to ending unborn human life.

1) The reversion to the failed War on Women

Democrats have been engaged in something called the “War on Women” since 2010. Women—so long as they stay single and don’t get married—are a key component of Democratic victories. This explains a bit about why ABC’s George Stephanopoulos introduced “contraception” questions, of all things, into the 2012 Republican primary debates.

It seems the War on Women messaging has reached a limit.

Others in the media played along as well, trumpeting Sandra Fluke, the grad student who fought to force religious employers to provide contraception and abortifacients for free in employee benefit packages. Interesting side note is that her public relations campaign (you didn’t think she ended up on your nightly news by chance, did you?) was handled by SKDKnickerbocker — the public relations firm handling the current Planned Parenthood scandal.

It worked really well—President Obama lost married women by 7 points but won single women by a stunning 36 percentage points.

It worked really well, that is, until it didn’t.

2014 should have been the War on Women’s best year. You had Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis running for governor after leading a dramatic filibuster of a late-term abortion ban. Sen. Mark Udall, reliable abortion rights supporter, built his entire campaign around an attempt to portray his opponent—the cheerful Cory Gardner—as an opponent of “women’s health” (the euphemism for abortion used by people who support the right to end the lives of unborn children). And the poster child of the entire War on Women movement—Fluke—tried to win a race for a California legislator position.

Davis’ campaign could not have had more mainstream media support. From head to toe-filled tennis shoes, she was profiled and praised on nearly every major network and cable news outlet, in nearly every major political magazine, and throughout the websites and print editions of the country’s top newspapers. Udall didn’t even need to run a War on Women campaign, so easy was his re-election bid supposed to be. And Fluke raised more than $1 million for her little run.

Fluke’s Democratic opponent beat her by more than 20 points. It was a disaster for Planned Parenthood.

But they all crashed and burned. Davis garnered no more votes than another Democrat who didn’t even run a campaign. Udall’s obsession against pro-lifers was so over-the-top that the media dubbed him “Senator Uterus.” And Fluke’s Democratic opponent beat her by more than 20 points. It was a disaster for Planned Parenthood, which spent quite a bit of money trying to elect Democrats as part of the War on Women campaign.

So while Democrats are heavily incentivized to keep women single and, therefore, as reliable Democratic voters, it seems the War on Women messaging has reached a limit. If Udall went too far by saying outlandish things about his opponent, why would Hillary Clinton think that meant she should behave even more irrationally in her attempt to rescue her flailing campaign? She hasn’t learned the lessons Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke and Sen. Mark Udall had to learn the hard way in 2014.

2) Planned Parenthood and its defender Hillary Clinton overuse hyperbolic statements

Listen, abortion is a difficult topic. Some people, particularly many of those in the media and Democratic political positions, believe that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, and throughout the entire pregnancy. Others believe that killing unborn children for any reason other than danger to the life of the mother is a tragedy that civilized societies should not support. Most Americans believe abortion should be limited but not banned altogether.

Clinton’s whole campaign is based on her not sounding like someone who has no control over her emotions or actions.

Yes, Planned Parenthood treats any position outside of theirs as extreme. But while the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party couldn’t be cozier, this is a tiresome rhetorical posture to take. When Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards was interviewed about her organization’s participation in an organ-harvesting scheme, she kept calling the people who had uncovered the practice “militant” and “sensational” and “extremists.” She sounded histrionic.

Presidential candidates need to gin up excitement and votes. That’s true. That’s definitely true for the flailing Clinton campaign. But calling people who defend human life “terrorists” is completely unbecoming of someone seeking to be president of a country such as ours. I know Donald Trump’s bombastic style is having an effect on other candidates, but Clinton’s whole campaign is based on her not sounding like someone who has no control over her emotions or actions. Calling people who care about human life “terrorists” suggests a lack of balance and thoughtfulness in someone who is already viewed as dishonest and deceptive.

I mean, I hate to pull this card but even Meghan McCain was down on it:

3) The extremism of supporting organ harvesting

But here’s the thing: there really is an extreme position in today’s abortion debate. Every week we learn more about the practice of harvesting organs for sale from unborn victims of abortion. I thought of this after reading a pair of tweets from Ryan Lizza:

It was meant as a joke, except that, well, it’s not a joke! As Stephen Miller put it:

People who support the harvesting of organs from victims, which ISIS does, don’t get to call other people terrorists. It’s as simple as that.

I know that Hillary Clinton is already in trouble with Planned Parenthood for stepping out of line a few weeks ago and admitting that the undercover videos were deeply disturbing. And asking for apologies is frequently a fool’s errand, so I won’t make such a request.

However, calling people who support the sanctity of human life “terrorists” is itself unsettling, unbecoming, and deeply wrong.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Most Popular
Related Posts