With the news that President Barack Obama opposes pending legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to ban abortions pursued due to the gender (or race) of the unborn child, I was fascinated to find out that this puts him at odds with not only the vast majority of Americans, but also his own secretary of state.
That’s right: Hillary Clinton told the New York Times in 2009, in a special issue titled “Saving the World’s Women,” that she is uncomfortable with the practice of female infanticide and abortion:
Clinton: “…Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.”
So if Secretary Clinton finds this practice objectionable in foreign countries such as India and China, how much more offensive must it be to her that this practice of sex-selective abortions is happening right here in America, and is condoned by Planned Parenthood, which receives taxpayer funding?
Opposing sex-selective abortions used to be bipartisan. Now that Live Action’s investigation has revealed that Planned Parenthood is complicit in the practice, I hope this remains the case. Once again we could witness the unfortunate reality that some lawmakers are more attached to funding Planned Parenthood than they are to protecting women and especially-vulnerable unborn women.
Surely there are other politicians -Republicans and Democrats – who have come out in opposition to sex-selective abortions besides Secretary Clinton. We should ask them to continue to oppose this evil practice and to join us in working to end it once and for all in America!
[Special tip of my hat to Tim Stanley of the U.K. Telegraph, who alerted me to Sec. Clinton’s opposition to sex-selective abortions. See his article on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s views right here.]
