The Washington Post calls Hillary Clinton’s pitch to the disabled “unusual,” describing it as part of her bid to appear more positive and compassionate. Not mentioned in the article is the stance that makes her outreach to the handicapped particularly unusual: she never wanted them born.
Recall the position she took during the debate in 2003 over partial-birth abortion. She defended the grisly practice on the grounds that women needed it to eliminate children with disabilities. In her upcoming debate with Trump, Hillary is likely to castigate him for his alleged insensitivity to the handicapped. Trump could remind voters of her cold view that unhealthy babies possess fewer rights than healthy ones.
She made that view explicit during a crass exchange on the Senate floor with Rick Santorum, who had shown pictures of what a partial-birth abortion entails. “Where are the swollen heads?” she demanded of Santorum. She said that she was “concerned” that the photos only showed healthy children: “They show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. Because if we are really going to have this debate, then we should have a chart that demonstrates the tragic abnormalities that confront women forced with this excruciatingly difficult decision.”
On the campaign trail this week, she said that the lives of the handicapped are “undervalued.” It takes considerable chutzpah for a eugenics advocate to make that claim. Should she win, her health care policies will target the disabled unborn for extinction. She has promised Planned Parenthood that she will not let concerns about eugenic abortion undermine its gains. When Indiana legislators proposed protection for unborn children diagnosed with disabilities, Hillary blasted it, saying earlier this year that “I will defend a woman’s right to make her own health-care decisions” and that “I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks.”
The media, which loves to play guilt-by-association games against Trump, has never asked Hillary to explain her admiration for the brutal eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Reporters hector Trump about the racist views of figures whom he has never met or praised. Meanwhile, Hillary offers extravagant praise for Sanger, who straightforwardly promoted abortion as a tool of eugenics against minorities and “morons,” and reporters fall silent.
In 2009, as Hillary received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award, she gushed, “I am really in awe of her.” Hillary praised her renegade views, “taking on attitudes” in pre-enlightened America. Sanger’s support for eugenics could not have been more direct. She once wrote that the disabled “should never have been born” and that they pose a burden on the “healthy elements of the nation.”
Sanger is Hillary’s ideal of an activist and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is her ideal of a judge. Just as Hillary feels no need to distance herself from Sanger’s eugenic views, so she feels no need to repudiate Ginsburg’s view of Roe v. Wade, which is that it aimed to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Hillary has promised a judiciary stacked with Ginsburgs and a cabinet full of Sangers, even as she campaigns on making the disabled less “invisible.” Under the frosty progressivism of Hillary, their invisibility is the whole point.
As secretary of state, Hillary would often condemn countries for this or that “unenlightened” practice, but she never condemned them for eugenics. China’s sterilization programs, for example, escaped her scrutiny. Indeed, the Obama administration sympathized with China’s people-elimination policies, as a bumptious Joe Biden once revealed. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” he said during a trip to China.
How a society treats its most vulnerable members, we’re told by Hillary, is the true test of its character. But by that standard she has none. She favors killing the weak in the womb. Look at her clamoring for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment. That policy is nothing more than Margaret Sanger’s vision of government-financed abortions for undesirables (which will lead ultimately to government-forced abortions).
Meanwhile, her campaign runs ceaseless ads attacking Trump as the foe of the disabled, all on the basis of one moment in his campaign when he may or may not have mocked a reporter’s handicap. Has Trump ever said anything as insensitive as “Where are the swollen heads?” It would behoove his campaign to study up on the heartless eugenics of Hillary.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.