Saturday, May 27, 2017


by -
bill clinton

Could Bill Clinton actually be pro-life?

The President who once said that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare”—a big departure from the Democratic Party’s current all-abortion, all-the-time programming—doesn’t believe that.

According to newly-released audio recordings from a longtime Clinton friend and presidential biographer, Clinton had plenty to say about abortion. The audio was recorded in the late-1990s, when Clinton was still in the White House.

Decrying the “insensitivity” of the pro-choice lobby, Bill Clinton complained that activists were handing Republicans a winning issue and hurting their own cause.

He was also afraid that pro-choice activists “framed the question selfishly by putting it in terms of a woman’s right to do whatever she wanted,” which he thought made the whole movement seem like it was only about a “selfish woman’s right to crush her baby’s skull.”

But, unlike today’s Democrats who refuse to put a timestamp on when abortion should not be legal, Clinton was firmly against so-called “partial birth abortions.”

Clinton said: “I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion.”

Hillary Clinton is running for President—and intends to make her being a woman one of her strongest qualifications for office.

Part of that—the focus of the Left’s “war on women” rhetoric—is centered around abortion. It remains to be seen whether or not Bill’s comparatively conservative values (at least by the standards of the Democratic Party) will have any impact on her standing with liberal women.

by -

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that a controversial piece of pro-life legislation from Texas–which is credited with slashing abortions by 13%, and closing a number of abortion clinics statewide–should be allowed to stand.

House Bill 2, which was signed into law by then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, doesn’t actively target abortion clinics: it just makes sure they’re meeting the same safety standards as other Ambulatory Surgical Centers and requires abortionists to be actual doctors with admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Which makes sense, considering an abortion is a complicated surgical procedure that, if it has to happens at all, should require basic safety standards and a competent doctor, like any surgery.

And, after all, Democrats support abortion because they want what’s best for “women’s health,” right?

Except, no: Democrats predictably had a fit over the law.

Their ludicrous argument was that, by mandating actual safety standards to bring abortion clinics in line with other medical providers, Texas was creating an “undue burden on women.”


In practice, House Bill 2 did shut down a number of abortion clinics because they didn’t meet safety standards. But the clinics that were shut down were, by the very nature of this law, substandard.

Unfortunately, this case isn’t over yet–it’s expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That makes the stakes incredibly high: depending on which way the Supreme Court ultimately rules, that could have dramatic impact for the future of abortion in America–and could dramatically change how a state is able to demand safety standards for medical facilities.


Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the US House Oversight Committee, claimed on Sunday, that he has planned a private talk with James...