UPDATE, 3:15p: Here's video of Congressman Smith's condemnation of Margaret Sanger and SOS Clinton's love of her:
[HT: SuzyB.org]
_______________
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) fabulously called out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:
First, the stellar Congressman Smith:
In receiving Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's award in Houston on March 27th, you said that you were in "awe" of Margaret Sanger; you said that Sanger's "life and leadership" was "one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race" and that Sanger's work both here and abroad was "not done".With all due respect, Madam Secretary, transformational yes; but not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race. Sanger's prolific writings drip with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live....
I've actually read many of Sanger's articles and books. Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist and racist who said "the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it." And said on another occasion, "eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."In her book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger devoted an entire chapter, which she entitled the "Cruelty of Charity," to explaining a shockingly inhumane case for systematic denial of prenatal and maternal health care for poor, pregnant women.
"Such benevolence is not merely superficial and near-sighted" Sanger wrote "it conceals a stupid cruelty" and leads to a "deterioration in the human stock" and "the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents."
So it is extraordinarily difficult how anyone especially a Secretary of State could be in "awe" of Margaret Sanger, a person who made no secret whatsoever of views that were antithetical to protecting human rights and that suggest that "her work" remains undone here and around the world.
In 2007 alone PP killed over 305k children by abortion in the United States and millions more worldwide.
As part of "Sanger's work" that remains undone, is the Obama Administration seeking to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in African and Latin America countries either directly or through multilateral organizations including and especially the UN, African Union, or the OAS, or by way of funding NGOs like PP?
And so we have total transparency, does the United States' definition of the term 1) "reproductive health" or 2) "reproductive services" or 3) "reproductive rights" include abortion?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded:
Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concerns and views, which you have championed and advocated for over the course of your public career. We obviously have a profound disagreement.When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women around the world - I've been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions. I've been in African countries where 12- and 13 year-old-girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship. So we have a very fundamental disagreement. And it is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate and everyone who agrees with you should be free to do so anywhere in the world, and so are we.
We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health. And reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare. I spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions and it has been my experience that good family planning and good medical care brings down the rate of abortion. Keeping women and men in ignorance and denied access to services actually increases the rate of abortion.
During my time as First Lady I helped to create the Campaign Against Teenage Pregnancy, and while we were working to provide good information, access to contraception, and decision-making that would enable young women to protect themselves and say no, the rate of teen pregnancy went down. I'm sad to report that after an administration of 8 years that undid so much of the good work, the rate of teenage pregnancy is going up.
So, we disagree. And we are now an Administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.
Jill's follow-up for Mrs. Clinton:
Prove your claim that in Brazilian maternity wards half the women are delivering babies and half being treated for botched abortions.
So your concern is that 12- and 13-year-olds be able to abort when the real problem is they're being RAPED.
And exactly why do you want abortion to be "rare"? Why have you "spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions"?
[Images courtesy of: NJ.com, Cleveland.com]
Comments:
Congressman Chris Smith hit the ball out of the park.
* * * *
"I've been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions."
My response to Hillary's statement would be, "then maybe they are better off having their babies instead of aborting." Duh.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 1:43 PMMy response to Hillary's statement would be, "then maybe they are better off having their babies instead of aborting." Duh.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 1:43 PM
-That's a fairly myopic viewpoint, wouldn't you say? Maybe she would have been better off having access to safer medical treatment.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 1:48 PMDanielle,
I have no problem being myopic when it comes to saving a child from abortion.
" A safer medical treatment" (abortion) is an oxymoron, wouldn't you say? An abortion is never safe for the baby who dies.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 2:06 PMI have no problem being myopic when it comes to saving a child from abortion.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 2:06 PM
-Yes, of course. I thought we could discuss, but I guess not. Never mind.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 2:22 PMI applaud this congressman. I'm sure the mainstream media will be demonizing him as an "extremist".
And I'm sick of liberals describing abortion as "health care."
Posted by: Joanne at April 22, 2009 2:28 PMLiberals and pro deathers are sick.
"And I'm sick of liberals describing abortion as "health care." "
Why did Hillary lie? Is she a liar? Most women in a hospital are not there regarding matternity care. Women having d&C's are not admitted on maternity wards. They go in general surgery. Any one defending Clinton's above statement is defending lying.
In fact Tiller the killer is still botching abortions.
There was much more truth in Congressmean smith's statement than pro deathers can handle.
Danielle,
I'm sorry for being snarky. My frustration is due to Ms. Clinton, not you.
Janet, you weren't being myopic. Danielle was being myopic. She can't see anyone beyond the mother. She refuses to recognize the right to life of the baby. And I still would like to know what kind of god Danielle claims to believe in and obey. He can't be the Christian God, Danielle.
Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 2:59 PMClinton completely sidestepped the issue of being in awe of Sanger and her eugenics philosophies. THAT's the issue that no one can address because no one can admit to it and certainly no one wants to say they agree with.
Congressman Smith may have just single-handedly restored my hope that there is such a thing as a moral and courageous politician in America. Bravo to him! His words were impressive to say the least.
i would like to thank mr smith for confronting hillary on this subject. i'm sure she was caught off guard and wondered how he knew she had rcv'd this so-called "award" thanks to jill and co. for providing the 411 for us readers. i would like to know if mrs clinton understands how an abortion is performed? does she understand the pain a child growing in the womb is murdered by the "doctor?"
Posted by: robyn at April 22, 2009 3:03 PMHow bizarre is this. Chris Smith basically says "look at this; this is evil." Clinton's response is "but look at all the problems that allowing what you call evil to occur solves."
What? Does it get any more utilitarian than this? Is there NO other solutions for the problems that Clinton discussed? And if there indeed are absolutely NO other solutions, is it just simply assumed that we can do evil to bring about good? It's just an a priori assumption that the ends justifies the means?
Why in the world didn't Clinton actually try and argue that what Smith was calling evil was in fact NOT evil? She never once denied it. She didn't say anything addressing the concerns that Smith brought up except that doing this stuff can solve other problems. Is this really clear, moral thinking?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino
at April 22, 2009 3:19 PMJanet, you weren't being myopic. Danielle was being myopic. She can't see anyone beyond the mother. She refuses to recognize the right to life of the baby. And I still would like to know what kind of god Danielle claims to believe in and obey. He can't be the Christian God, Danielle.
Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 2:59 PM
-Which one of us couldn't write a novel exploring our relationship with God/our maker? I'm no different. I'll put it this way Jon, I'm agnostic. You and I will likely fall on two different camps as to what that means, but to me it means I (and everything else) was created by a higher power that means us no harm, means to protect, and makes no mistakes - including mankind's responses to the infinite situations in life.
Anything beyond that is up for grabs, IMO.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 3:21 PMJen, you're completely right. The most important response to Clinton would be as to why she completely avoided the issue with her Sanger obsession. She did completely side step it, which baffles me, since even Planned Parenthood has in the past jumped on the opportunity to try to distance themselves from Sanger's eugenics. Why wouldn't Hilary?
Posted by: Greg at April 22, 2009 3:28 PM"She didn't say anything addressing the concerns that Smith brought up except that doing this stuff can solve other problems. Is this really clear, moral thinking?"
Bobby, excellent point. We better check Obama's moral compass for the answer to that. :(
* * * * *
And exactly why do you want abortion to be "rare"? Why have you "spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions"?
Jill, Hillary would say something like "well, um, it's just kind of "icky".
* * * * *
Does Chris Smith get a rebuttal question? I don't know how those hearings are conducted.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 3:45 PMThanks for answering my question, Danielle. Doug also claimed to be agnostic. But the God whom I serve is the Father of Jesus Christ, and unless you submit yourself to the Lord Christ, you are--in Christian terms--godless. To be godly means to keep His commandments, but you don't acknowledge the Bible as His Word. We share very little, if any, common ground.
Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 3:50 PMI'll take a shot at how one might answer "why make is rare", Janet. I think the pro-choice advocate would say "well, you want surgery to be rare, don't you? We can all work together to reduce the need for knee replacements, open heart surgery, etc." But where this analogy fails is in the fact that when you are in a position on which you need open heart surgery or a knee replacement, such a surgery is a good. The surgery is an attempt to heal your body and get it to function properly again. This, however, is clearly not the case with pregnancy. Pregnancy is a prima facie good, one which does not need healing or fixing. It's only when we believe that being pregnant is neither good nor bad in-and-of-itself but relative to the feelings of the individual does the analogy hold. But this is certainly not the case. You are not injured or diseased when you are pregnant. It is a very natural part of life. When someone is injured, we never hear talk of "reducing the need for surgery" because we are already in a position when surgery is needed, and the surgery at that point is ALWAYS a good. But with pregnancy, it evidently can sometimes be a good and sometimes not be a good. Thus as long as there are pregnant women there is a need for abortion because it's neither good nor bad to be pregnant; it just is, and the goodness or badness of it is subject to the whims of the individual.
This is the strange underlying assumption that is made in that analogy.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 22, 2009 3:58 PMOpposition to abortion does not depend upon which religion your follow, or whether you follow any religion. Common decency, as I see it, requires us to oppose the elective slaughter of the innocent among us, no matter how small, no matter how young. And I am agnostic.
Posted by: Doyle at April 22, 2009 7:25 PMMan, I can't believe this devil is Sec. of State.
Here she is just today talking about the immorality of harsh interogations for terrorists.
Dana Rohrbachor gives it to her at the end when she attacked Dick Cheney.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/hillary-i-dont-consider-cheney-a-reliable-source-on-torture/
How do we end up with wretched people like Obama and HRC in power.
This is hipocrisy at it's very best. This woman and the BO cabinet are more concerned about the "torture" endured by grown men, combatants, than little babies being tortured to death, in the act of abortion.
Shame on them!
Thanks to a brave Congressman for exposing the real motive behind the abortion movement.
How do we end up with wretched people like Obama and HRC in power.
Posted by: Jasper at April 22, 2009 7:43 PM
Will of the majority, perhaps.
Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 8:21 PMMy sister voted for BO even though the health care policies he is planning would have forced her to kill her son because he has down syndrome. You can bet dollars to donuts that BO will push a Sangeresk approach to eliminate non-productive babies through mandatory genetic screening. It wil be done in the name of reducing health care cost to taxpayers.
Also, did you notice that Billary didn't say a word in response to the truth of that crazy witch Sanger's racist eugenics views? She came awfully close to denying Sanger ever said or wrote such things. Lying by omission is still lying.
My local Fox News just reported on the story. Without explaining how Plan B works, they are asking the listening audience to answer a poll question - "Is this a good idea or not?" What kind of reporting is this?
* * * * *
Hal, A majority by a very slim margin.
Posted by: Janet at April 22, 2009 9:10 PMGood summation, Bobby.
* * * *
"Does Chris Smith get a rebuttal question? I don't know how those hearings are conducted."
Again, does anyone know?
Doyle, opposition to abortion does depend on your religion. Religion is one's response to God, so everybody has a religion. You say that common decency requires us to oppose the elective slaughter of the innocent among us. I'm glad you think thus, but both Doug and Danielle are agnostics who think otherwise. Through the centuries and even at the present time, opposition to abortion and infanticide has been the result of uniquely Christian thinking. Do you know of a non-Christian society or civilization that was actively opposed to abortion? I'd like to know about it.
Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 10:44 PM
"My sister voted for BO even though the health care policies he is planning would have forced her to kill her son because he has down syndrome"
Cite please. Or just go away.
Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 11:05 PMSo no on investigations of the bush admin. but you will investigate a dead person. Way to beat a straw-woman.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at April 23, 2009 1:37 AMChris Smith would certainly disagree with sentiments like these then:
"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
and this:
"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
Yep, those are the words of a real "pro-abort" aren't they?
Posted by: Sadie Sachs at April 23, 2009 2:30 AMWhose words are they, Sadie Sachs?
Posted by: Carla at April 23, 2009 8:36 AMDon't those statements contain weasel words, Sadie: "there are cases... where... an abortion is justifiable" and "contraception was the better way, the safer way" (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but sometimes the cure is necessary). As isolated statements they're not too bad, I suppose. Who said them? I would want to weigh them against the other statements and actions made by the same individual.
A condom every night keeps the abortionist out of sight! Actually, because of the failure rate of condoms and the lifestyle they accommodate, we should say: a condom every night keeps an abortionist on site. Anyway, I think I'm against contraception too: there's no need for it when family planning God's way. Only yahoos and prostitutes require contraception. I'm all for planned parenthood: live chastely and get married!
Posted by: Jon at April 23, 2009 8:41 AMThey're Sanger's words, Carla. However, Smith mentioned nothing about Sanger being "pro-abortion" nor did he say anything about her supporting it. All he mentioned was that she was a racist, eugenicist, and that the organization taht now bears her legacy is the largest killer in the US.
So it's the tactic that was used by Sadie was a red herring. Those quotes don't deny anything Smith said nor do they somehow make what other things Sanger said and did OK. But we've all moved off the scent, now haven't we?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 23, 2009 8:43 AMIn fact, who are you quoting when you put the words "pro-abort" in quotes, Sadie? The only time that word appears in this thread is when you wrote it.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 23, 2009 8:45 AM
"Only yahoos and prostitutes require contraception."
Charming, simply charming.
Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2009 10:47 AMsordid but true, Hal
Posted by: Jon at April 23, 2009 10:49 AMOops! I mean they are sordid, and my observation is true (correct).
Posted by: Jon at April 23, 2009 10:51 AMThank you, Bobby. Sometimes I veer off course. Wonder why.
Posted by: Carla at April 23, 2009 11:36 AMYou go Jon.
No contraceptives for me!
Posted by: YCW at April 23, 2009 10:13 PMGezz, what a bunch of crap in this blog... How much does the Vatican pay you, anyway?
Posted by: Mark at April 24, 2009 1:06 PMWow, good point, Mark. I never thought of it like that...
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2009 2:02 PM