Clinton intolerant toward Americans who don’t share her views on abortion

Posted in: News By House Divided on October 23, 2016

As long as you are alive, you believe something, and what you believe about God is one of the most important things about you.

In recognition of these truths, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on Dec. 15, 1791. This amendment guarantees to every citizen freedom of religion. Congress may not enact laws imposing religious views on citizens, nor may it pass laws that require a citizen to change his views in order to achieve a political agenda.

It is clear Hillary Clinton, as an attorney, understands what the First Amendment says. It is unclear, however, whether she really believes what it means.

Today, Americans have reason to fear that Clinton, if elected president, intends to violate this basic human right. Why is that?

In 2015, shortly before she launched her presidential campaign, Clinton spoke at the Women of the World Summit on the subject of abortion rights. During her remarks, she declared, “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” in order for women to have unlimited access to abortion. Clinton has not told us how she plans to help people change their religious beliefs, except to say, “resources and political will” must be used.

If she is elected, Americans should expect Clinton to use all the resources and political will of the Oval Office to accomplish her abortion objectives. Clinton has been accused of lying to the American public about almost everything, but, on this matter, I believe she’s telling the truth.

Clinton’s words have prompted some to allege she’s declared war on religion, but this is not accurate. Clinton professes to be a religious person. Therefore, her comments are best understood in the context of a religious war: a clash between Clinton’s brand of religion and the religious views of anyone who opposes her abortion agenda.

The battlefield on which this war is fought is the ballot box, which bestows upon the victor the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. If elected, Clinton has pledged not to nominate anyone who disagrees with the decision of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion because, she says, “An unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Where would our nation be today if Abraham Lincoln had pledged not to nominate any judges to the Supreme Court who disagreed with the Dred Scott decision, which made slavery a national institution? Following Dred Scott, millions of Americans remained convinced the Supreme Court’s decision was terribly wrong. But there were those, like Democrat presidential candidate Stephen Douglas, who argued that whatever community wanted slaves had a right to have them.

On the matter of slavery, Douglas was pro-choice. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln said Douglas was right if slavery was not wrong. But, said Lincoln, “If you admit that slavery is wrong, you cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

To all Americans who remain convinced that abortion is wrong on religious grounds, Clinton says: “Your deep-seated religious beliefs must be changed.”

Clinton’s words reveal a dismissive intolerance toward those Americans who do not share her views on abortion. This hostile religious bigotry, when combined with the resources and political power of the White House, ought to concern every American — regardless of their views on abortion, religion or their party affiliation — for at least two reasons.

First, if a President Clinton can change a person’s religious views on abortion today, what stops some future president from attempting to change a person’s religious views on eugenics, euthanasia or human cloning tomorrow? Second, more Americans are becoming secular in their beliefs, and if there is one thing I’ve learned from my secular friends, it is how bitterly they resent anyone’s attempt to impose their religious views upon them.

If a President Clinton can change a person’s religious views to align with hers today, what keeps a future president with traditional religious views from seeking to change the deeply held beliefs of secular Americans tomorrow? Paybacks can be unpleasant.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.” This is one of those times.

On Nov. 8, as Americans head to the ballot box, they should remember the words of Lincoln, which translate well to the issue of religious liberty: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”