In an article this week in the Princetonian,
“Key issues of the 2016 presidential election: Faculty members' perspectives,” two political scholars at the Ivy League university reveal themselves as anti-choice extremists.
Robert George, an American legal scholar, political philosopher and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, shared that “[Hillary] Clinton has never, to my knowledge, been able to think of a circumstance in which she believes that the right to life of a child in the womb should meaningfully be protected.”
Similarly, Bradford Wilson, executive Director of the James Madison Program in the Department of Politics, told the paper that “Secretary Clinton has declared in favor of an unlimited right to abort, presumably up until the day before birth.”
In fact, by expressing support for Roe v Wade, Hillary Clinton has affirmed her belief in circumstances when the life of a child in the womb should be protected. Roe v Wade’s “trimester framework” codifies the right of the state to protect a fetus later in a pregnancy (with exceptions for the life and health of the mother).
These two legal scholars seem to understand Roe v Wade less well than one might expect.
Hillary Clinton said in 2008, “I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
“I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.”
West’s Weird Words
A raspberry also goes to fellow Princetonian Cornel West, who according to George, believes Hillary is not “a candidate who meets the threshold to be acceptable as the leader of our nation.”
Really? Because she was Secretary of State when four people died in Benghazi? Because she used a private email server? Because she is a lawyer? What is Mr. West’s criteria for placing an individual outside the range of acceptability for high office?
Perhaps he prefers individuals who, before running for president, had not dirtied themselves in the international political arena. Who were never subject to Congressional scrutiny or investigation before seeking office. Someone with a faith-centered political approach and a pro-life stance. Someone outside the Washington bubble.
Well, based on these criteria, I have the perfect candidate for him: George W. Bush in 2000.
