Pro-Human Slaughter Fanatic Kirsten Gillibrand Unfit for Office

Written by Laurie Higgins

In a recent interview with the Des Moines Register, presidential hopeful U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was asked about her support for abortion, abortion litmus tests for judicial nominees, and the Hyde Amendment. Her responses demonstrate exactly why she is morally and intellectually unfit for the highest office in this once-great land.

Gillibrand began her interview by accusing President Trump of causing terrible “suffering” in America by “dividing us along every… religious line.”

Then later, with no apparent sense of irony, Gillibrand said this:

We believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the right of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves. But our country and our Constitution always demanded that we have a separation of church and state, and all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution.

Gillibrand evidently believes that prohibiting Christians from having their religious faith shape their political decisions does not cause suffering or religious division.

She asserts that opposition to legalized feticide is solely a religious belief. Further, according to Gillibrand, “our country and our Constitution always demanded we have a separation of church and state.” Therefore, according to Gillibrand, litmus tests for judges and justices are defensible and even necessary to weed out those who hold religious anti-abortion views that (allegedly) violate the Constitution.

Let’s grant her (false) premise that opposition to legalized feticide is solely and exclusively a religious belief. If so, then she has asserted that she ardently endorses a religious test for holding office—something that is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, unlike, for example, the “separation of church and state” which is not found in the Constitution.

Once more for the constitutionally obtuse or tactically dishonest: The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. It’s in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in which he was assuring them that the government would not intrude into their free exercise of religion. People of faith are not constitutionally prohibited from having their faith shape their political decisions.

Someone needs to ask Gillibrand to opine on these words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written when he was fighting racial injustice for explicitly religious reasons:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God….

I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership…. too many… have been more cautious than courageous…. I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?…

I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, non-biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular….

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society…. By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide….

Gillibrand is, of course, wrong about the relationship between government and religious free exercise. What is prohibited are laws pertaining to matters that are strictly and exclusively religious, which laws prohibiting human slaughter are not. It’s inarguable that the product of conception between two humans is a human, and both an atheist and a person of faith could believe that humans have intrinsic rights and worth. Does Gillibrand propose a Department of Religious Inquisition to ferret out whether citizens’ positions on every issue are grounded in secularism/atheism/scientific materialism before they’re allowed to vote on those issues?

Gillibrand’s epithet “ultra-radical conservative” has no meaning relative to objective, transcendent truth. What is deemed “ultra-radical conservative” today was mainstream yesterday. And when anti-life atheists successfully legalize infanticide—first for those deemed unworthy of life—the current “progressive” opposition to post-birth abortion (i.e., infanticide) will be deemed ultra-radical conservative. In Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver wrote,

The believer in truth… is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideals and values, we are looking toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

Gillibrand tried to peddle some more baloney about herself to the Des Moines Register claiming that,

As president I would have a commission to study how do you depoliticize the [Supreme] court….

But exactly one minute later, Gillibrand exposed her special kind of “depoliticization”:

I will only appoint judges and justices that see Roe v. Wade as settled precedent.

Nothing says “depoliticize” the U.S. Supreme Court quite like having a pro-Roe litmus test.

Not only does Gillibrand view Roe as “settled,” but she also pontificates on the settled nature of the moral status of abortion, which, I was surprised to learn, our entire society has concluded is morally jim-dandy:

I think there are some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable.

But, I’m confused. If all of “society decided” with crystal clarity that the “other side” is unacceptable, who makes up this other side?

Maybe Gillibrand was using the royal “we.” If not, she may want to do a bit more research. The issue that she has proclaimed from on high has “such moral clarity” continues to roil and divide the country. While she views her pro-feticide position as morally clear, “the other side” views it as morally repugnant—you know, the side that remains—much to Gillibrand’s displeasure—part of society.

In her explicit defense of litmus tests for judicial nominees and implicit defense of unconstitutional religious tests for holding office, Gillibrand compared women and men who oppose human slaughter to racists and anti-Semites.

Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge that’s racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think those are political issues anymore.

Issues pertaining to homosexuality and feticide are no longer political issues? Wow! When did that happen?

Let’s take a closer look at Gillibrand’s analogies.

If anything, it is the pro-feticide view that sees humans in the womb as property to be disposed of at will that is analogous to the views held by racist slave-owners. And it is the pro-feticide view that sees imperfect humans in the womb as disposable that is analogous to the anti-Semitic views of the Nazi Party that deemed some lives “unworthy of life.”

When Gillibrand uses the epithet “homophobic,” she’s not referring to an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. She’s referring to anyone who holds theologically orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexual acts. Her suggestion that moral disapproval of homoerotic acts and relationships is equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism depends on a prior and unproven assumption that race per se is analogous to homoeroticism per se—an assumption that leftists don’t even try to prove because they can’t.

In an earlier part of the interview, Gillibrand was asked about her opposition to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of government money to fund abortion:

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Democrats who claim we are the party of women to impose religious views on other people…. Why would you punish low-income women? Why would you say, “All women are entitled to this choice unless you don’t have any money”?… So, I just don’t support candidates who don’t see women’s reproductive freedom as a civil, constitutional, human right that it is.

First, it shouldn’t need to be said but evidently it is: Prohibiting women from killing their kinfolk is not a punishment.

Second, intellectual consistency demands that Gillibrand oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion, since “progressive” religious people believe the government should pay for them.  Can’t have those religious views imposed on other people now can we.

Setting aside the fact that there exists neither a moral nor constitutional right to have one’s offspring killed, Gillibrand fails to acknowledge the difference between “positive rights” and “negative rights.” Using the language of “rights,” feticide-defenders appeal to the respect Americans have for “negative rights”—also known as liberties—(e.g., the right to vote, assemble, exercise one’s religion, and speak freely), which are not accompanied by any obligation for others to subsidize them.

But what feticide-defenders are really suggesting—without explicitly saying—is that women have a “positive right” (i.e., an entitlement) to abortion, which imposes a duty on others to subsidize it. Abortion, however, is not an entitlement, and society has no obligation to pay for anyone to get one. Neither wanting something; nor really, really wanting something; nor experiencing suffering from not obtaining this desperately desired thing means the public has an obligation to provide it.

Gillibrand relentlessly appeals to the appealing concept of freedom without acknowledging that no decent, healthy, flourishing society grants absolute unfettered freedom to its citizens. Certainly, no decent, healthy, flourishing society can grant to one citizen the freedom to kill another. If the right to what Gillibrand refers to as “bodily autonomy” comes into direct conflict with the right of another human merely to exist, the right to existence takes precedence. It is after all, the right upon which all others depend.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

IFI Banquet Speaker Announced!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.