In case you’ve been recently living under a rock or fasting from the Internet, former U.S. Secretary of State and former First Lady Hillary Clinton is running for President. Not surprisingly, she’s already launched into the typical political doublespeak common to Democratic politicians who wish to trample religious liberty and deny human rights to unborn human beings. For those of you who are miraculously unfamiliar with such rhetoric, here is a handy translation guide to what Clinton says versus reality.
The full video of Clinton’s speech at the “Women in the World Summit” can be viewed here (unfortunately, I’ve been unable to locate a text transcript, but I’ll update this post if I find one).
Clinton said:
Yes, we’ve cut the material mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care [which is a euphemism for abortion and contraception] and safe childbirth. All the laws we pass don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper.
Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I – (Applause) as I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century, and not just for women but for everyone, and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.
Translation:
Hillary Clinton has just gone on record as saying that she wants to use “resources and political will” to “change” the “religious beliefs” of those who oppose abortion and contraception (a.k.a. “reproductive health”). This from a woman who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian. We’ve seen evidence of this mindset already with the HHS Mandate, the bullying of the Susan G. Komen foundation, and Department of Justice harassment of pro-life sidewalk counselors. She also seems ignorant of the fact that you don’t have to have religious beliefs to oppose abortion. I suppose non-religious pro-lifers will just need to undergo a different type of government-sponsored brainwashing.
Clinton said (bolding mine):
America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby.
Translation:
Clinton is using a common euphemistic tactic – she confuses “health care choices” with “contraceptives subsidized by employers.”
We all know that Hobby Lobby did not take away any health care choices from their employees. What Hillary Clinton is trying to claim is that Hobby Lobby has denied its employees the choice to use contraception. The reality is that Hobby Lobby (a Christian, but not a Catholic, business) have always offered their employees 16 different forms of contraception, and only object to 4 types that are abortifacient (i.e., that could possibly cause a newly-conceived human being to die), since the owners of Hobby Lobby are opposed, per their religious beliefs, to facilitating the death of unborn human beings.
Moreover, Hobby Lobby employees who desire contraception have the same choices they have always had. They can (a) work for Hobby Lobby and use one of the 16 different forms of contraception that are subsidized; (b) work for Hobby Lobby and pay out-of-pocket for abortifacient contraception (or get it for free or at a very low cost from Planned Parenthood or local county health clinics); or (c) work for a different employer who chooses to subsidizes abortifacient contraception. None of these choices have been taken away – and so far, the Supreme Court agrees.
Clinton said:
There are those who offer themselves as leaders who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay. There are those who offer themselves as leaders who would defund the country’s leading provider of family planning and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.
Translation:
Clinton conveniently neglects to mention that she is one of the leaders who apparently sees nothing wrong with denying women equal pay.
She also neglects to mention that the “country’s leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, has several facilities that are under investigation for (and in some instances has been found guilty of) massive Medicaid fraud. Does Clinton support the “country’s leading provider of family planning” defrauding the American government, and by extension the American taxpayers? Seems like a funny thing for a Presidential hopeful to support.
She also neglects to mention that the “country’s leading provider of family planning” in Texas, and elsewhere, would rather close abortion clinics than abide by common-sense safety regulations, the same standards that all other ambulatory surgical centers are required to meet (for example, requiring that clinic doors are wide enough to accommodate ambulance gurneys, or requiring that doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals to ensure continuity of care). Does Clinton oppose common-sense safety regulations for ambulatory surgical centers?
She also neglects to mention that many Planned Parenthood facilities have violated mandatory reporting laws by failing to report cases of statutory rape and/or sexual abuse of a minor (facilities in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Ohio, among others, have been so accused). Does Clinton support the sexual abuse of minors?
She also neglects to mention the horrendous conditions of many Planned Parenthood facilities, some so bad that pro-choice staff members were speaking out against them. Nor did she mention that Philadelphia Planned Parenthoods knew about the conditions at the horrific Gosnell abortion facility, but did nothing other than to (allegedly) encourage women to report the facility to the Department of Health (which admitted that it neglected to inspect Gosnell’s clinic, despite negative reports, because it didn’t want to make waves in the pro-choice community). Does Clinton oppose routine and rigorous inspections for abortion facilities?
Also, I have no idea what she’s talking about when she claims that health insurance companies “charge women just because of our gender.” Is she under the impression that men get free medical care and women’t don’t? Last time I checked, both men and women had to pay for health care.
Her speech had some good points – she spoke about the importance of families, and the need for better maternity leave options for women in the U.S. – but the good points were far outweighed by her cringeworthy political doublespeak.
74 thoughts on “Translating Hillary Clinton’s Doublespeak”
This is an excellent post. I appreciate the way you take Hilary Clinton double-speak and then translate it into normal English to unmask its naked evil.
Pingback: WEDNESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION - Big Pulpit
“Does Clinton oppose common-sense safety regulations for ambulatory surgical centers?”
I’m not saying that the health and safety of patients isn’t important, but everyone knows that states like Texas have passed legislation that causes abortion clinic closures under the guise of regulating health and safety. It is really anti-abortion legislation first and foremost. Its intent is to make it difficult for abortion clinics to stay in business. It is working.
So, Bill, you are opposed to common-sense safety regulations for ambulatory surgical centers? Why? Do you want ambulatory surgical centers to be unsafe?
How can anyone speak out against safety regulations? That’s the beauty of this whole approach. If I say these rules are more for the purpose of shutting down clinics, you can accuse me of being against health and safety improvements (which may or may not be really necessary). Brilliant strategy by the prolifers.
Well, Bill, let’s look at the logic here.
State legislatures impose common-sense safety regulations for ambulatory surgical centers.
Some ambulatory surgical centers close because they are not willing to put in the effort and/or spend the money to make the necessary updates.
Whose fault is it that the centers are closing? The legislature, or the centers themselves?
It is a matter of economics. The prolifers knew how to drive the clinics out of business and that’s what they are doing. They must feel really good about themselves taking away women’s options for reproductive health.
I see. So, by your own admission, abortion activists didn’t think that women’s safety was worth spending money on, and thus they chose to close the clinics rather than adhere to the exact same standards as every other ambulatory surgical clinic in the state.
I’m glad we agree.
Most abortion clinics are not ambulatory surgical centers. Requiring them to meet those standards was sure to put many of them out of business. It was an underhanded move that is working. Celebrate. That’s what you want.
Wrong, Bill. They very clearly fit the definition of an ambulatory surgical center. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.243.htm
If they do, there should not be a need for a new law requiring them to meet the requirements for it. All that would have been needed was the enforcement of the existing regulations.
Previously abortion proponents got around the safety regulations by claiming that their clinics weren’t ambulatory surgical centers. The Texas law stated that abortions could not be performed anywhere other than ambulatory surgical centers, since to perform them in other settings would not be nearly as safe. Basically, it closed a loophole that abortion clinics had exploited in their quest to make abortion as profitable (and unsafe) as possible.
I had a D&C for a missed miscarriage in 2006, and it happened in a hospital. I was under full anesthesia. I am shocked that abortion proponents would want a woman to undergo a procedure like that in a doctor’s office. It is not a minor or a simple procedure.
“The Texas law stated that abortions could not be performed anywhere other than ambulatory surgical centers, since to perform them in other settings would not be nearly as safe.”
While trying not to come across as uncaring about safety, I see here a law that was crafted for the primary purpose of putting clinics out of business. Well done, faithful servants.
Yes – putting clinics out of business that placed profit as a greater priority than the safety of women. That is a GOOD thing, Bill.
If I were to show you an overall view of the consequences of taking options away from women who wanted to use these clinics, there would be far more hardships put on those women than benefits to them. It is very debatable as to whether the closing of those clinics could be considered a good thing or a bad things. I’m sure some women’s lives were ruined but you will never know that.
You would prefer that clinics place a higher priority on profit than on the safety of women? That seems rather mercenary, and cruel. Would a woman be best served by dying of a perforated uterus because the EMTs had to waste time figuring out how to get the patient out of a building that couldn’t accommodate ambulance gurneys? I think that would spoil a woman’s life even more than an unplanned pregnancy.
Yes. You can make all of these nice hypothetical arguments that are hard to dispute. But this was more about saving babies than saving mothers. So it accomplishes both. Still, many women’s futures will be changed forever because they couldn’t end their unwanted pregnancies. And that is just what the zealots wanted. They won. I guess there is nothing more to say about it.
Oh, the irony. Bill, your arguments are equally hypothetical. You wax on about how all these hypothetical women may hypothetically have a hypothetical crisis pregnancy that will hypothetically ruin their lives, and then when I point out a very real danger – one that has happened before, see here: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ – you criticize ME for positing a hypothetical situation!
We are both dealing in hypothetical situations that can arise in Texas. Mine are just as realistic as yours. This will cause hardships to people’s lives. Hardships that you have decided are worth saving the lives of embryos and fetuses. It shouldn’t be the zealots’ call.
Why is it your call – or anyone’s call – to decide that an unborn child should die? You are just as much a zealot in your thirst to ensure the demise of unborn children, to the point where you think women’s health and safety should be sacrificed toward that goal.
It’s the woman’s call all the way. How people don’t see that is beyond me. How could it be anyone else’s.
You wonder why I think it’s a bad idea to allow anyone the choice to deliberately kill an innocent human being? Seriously?
By that logic, school shootings are perfectly okay, in your book.
Not anyone. The pregnant woman. We could differ on how far into a pregnancy a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy. I think the 20 weeks that Texas chose is as good as any limit. All I am saying is that it is entirely up to a woman to decide what goes on in her body.
What I think you are hung up on, though you would never admit it, is the issue of the embryo or fetus having an eternal soul. That is not a problem for those who recognize that as a superstition. That is why so many religious people fight so hard to prevent the destruction of embryos from IVF and stem cell research. No one wants to admit that, but it is the truth. What happens to the “soul” of a frozen embryo can become an absolute obsession. The rest of the world doesn’t have that concern. That is why there are such blaring differences of opinions on embryonic stem cell research, IVF, abortifacients, abortion, etc. One group believes everyone has a soul from conception and the other doesn’t. I’m sorry that I don’t see this your way. It is a very unusual way of looking at life. No?
Why? Why should anyone be able to decide to deliberately kill an innocent child?
The issue of ensoulment is absolutely irrelevant. See secularprolife.org
I don’t see most abortions as “killing an innocent child”. You would say that even about a woman taking a morning after pill. I am glad that you don’t worry about ensoulment. If you don’t, then you must be able to agree that a woman a day or week pregnant is hardly doing anything when she terminates a pregnancy. And destruction of an embryo is a nonevent. You said ensoulment is irrelevant. Then those things should be irrelevant as well.
I’m sure that slaveowners didn’t see black people as anything other that slaves. Doesn’t mean they were right. Doesn’t mean you are right. It is a biological reality that an unborn child is a human being. That is scientific fact.
You didn’t read the link I gave you, Bill. This is why the issue of ensoulment is irrelevant to the abortion debate:
1. The fetus is a human being.
2. There is no consistent, objective distinction between “person” and “human being.”
3. Human beings possess human rights.
4. Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify most abortions.
Ensoulment is a religious debate and has nothing to do with the SECULAR question as to if human beings have the right to life.
I will never understand those women who take so much pride in this most abhorrent atrocity.
How right and just can a murder in the womb be?
How can we call a “human right” the freedom for a mother to kill her child?
And if a mother can kill her own child inside her own body, then any other evil is possible in this world. Indeed, let us take a look at the state of this world.
To abort is not only to kill one person, but to also erase a possible future generation of human beings who might have sprung from the now suppressed baby.
Please, reflect on this subject as a human being who could have possibly gotten aborted in her mother’s womb long ago, and who would not be having this online conversation in 2015 if her mother had been a bit more selfish.
“Still, many women’s futures will be changed forever because they couldn’t end their unwanted pregnancies.” Quit with the euphemisms, Bill. Women won’t be able to deny human rights to unborn human beings as easily, and that is a good thing. It’s also good that women will be safer if they make that horrible choice, because two deaths instead of one would compound what is already a horrific tragedy.
“Women won’t be able to deny human rights to unborn human beings as easily, and that is a good thing.”
Ah. Now you’re talking. Spoken like a true prolife zealot. How can you decide what is a good thing for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? That’s not your call.
Enough. I’ve degenerated to name calling. Nothing good can come out of this discussion. I need to get off my fat ass and iPhone and go to the gym.
How can you decide what is a good thing for an unborn child? That is not your call.
Now that you’ve descended to name calling, as per usual, you’ll likely be banned again. Perhaps you should actually stay away this time, instead of sneaking back with new IPs and new pseudonyms. Get professional help if need be.
You’re going to be my downfall again. Like I said, you bring out the worst in me. I’m sorry I referred to you as a zealot. Maybe you could take it as a compliment.
Quit blaming me for your poor choices. If you are too infantile to control your behavior, that is all on you. You make the choice to come here, usually under false pretenses, and you make the choice to engage in hateful rhetoric. Own your choices, Bill. You’ve plainly shown your conscience is torturing you — that’s why you fight so hard to suppress it.
JoAnna,
My conscience focuses on matters such as wasting what could be productive time on the Internet when there are things I should be doing.
I really don’t want my conversations with you to get me booted off Catholic Stand. Let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I hope Stacy will cut me some slack. Peace.
Sorry Bill, you can’t use that same old tired excuse again and again and expect to be “cut slack.” And no, I won’t “agree to disagree” when it comes to denying rights to human beings. The issue is too important.
So. You want me thrown off. That’s why we should end this.
You’re getting yourself thrown off by your behavior, Bill. You can end it at any time by leaving the site and never commenting again, as you’ve been asked to several times.
Even though I would like to share some kind of commonality between humanists and Catholics because we do want some of the same things for humanity, people like you are such a turn off. You practice anti-evangelization. I can’t imagine that anyone who discusses world issues with you would want to have anything to do with the Catholic Church. You seem to be more for having a smaller number of hard-core, very orthodox Catholics than less zealous people looking for ways to get along with one another.
Funny, I seem to get along with a lot of people who aren’t obsessive stalkers.
That is name calling. You accused me of it for calling you a zealot. Now you are doing it. Bye.
Accurately describing your past and present behavior is not name-calling, Bill.
Um. Actually it is. Even accurate name calling is name calling. That’s why I appologized for calling you a zealot.
I don’t care if you call me a zealot. I am fanatical and uncompromising about human rights, and proud of it. You are obsessive and regularly stalk and harass bloggers on this site and other Catholic sites, under several assumed names. I don’t think that is something to be proud of.
“uncompromising about human rights”
You do realize that the right to have an abortion is recognized internationally as a basic human right?
Actually, it’s not. But you know, owning slaves was once considered a “right,” too.
For someone who is such an advocate for human rights, you should know that a woman’s right to an abortion is an internationally recognized human right. I don’t care that owning slaves was once a right, that is irrelevant to this discussion. You don’t recognize a woman’s right to an abortion so you get a D in human rights. Maybe even an F.
You’ve yet to provide any proof for your assertion. The word “abortion,” for example, is never mentioned in this document: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It DOES say, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” How can it be a human right to take away the rights of other humans?
International human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments by U.N. expert bodies compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion. Where women’s access to safe and legal abortion services are restricted, a number of human rights may be at risk.
That is a steaming load of bullcrap. Abortion is not mentioned in the above document. You have not produced any evidence to prove your assertion. Why keep lying? You’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
And where abortion is legal, human rights are ALWAYS at risk – the human rights of unborn children.
You are out of step with the world and in step with your religion. That’s the best you can do. I will go with the ways of the world. That decision has been solidified after my discussions with you and Leila. No religious sentimentality for fetuses or anything else. Only worldliness from now on. Consider me damned. I don’t want to go where you two are going no matter how good it might be.
You don’t need to be religious to oppose abortion, Bill. Start looking at secularprolife.org.
So. You are basically disregarding the human rights of women. No concern about it whatsoever.
Not at all. I fully support a woman’s right to life, just like I support an unborn child’s right to life. After all, I am a woman. A pregnant woman, no less. I don’t have the right to kill the child growing within my womb. He or she is a unique individual, and he or she has a right to life.
You, however, have absolutely no regard for the right to life of unborn human beings.
“I don’t have the right to kill the child growing within my womb”
That is where we disagree. You do have that right. It is to your credit that you choose not to exercise that right. Congratulations by the way.
No, I may have the legal right, but legal does not always equate to just. Legal does not always equate to moral. If I owned slaves back when it was legal to do so, would you think that I was morally justified in doing so?
My unborn child has the right to life, and no one should take that away from him or her.
“My unborn child has the right to life, and no one should take that away from him or her.”
You might feel that way, but another woman in a similar situation might choose to terminate her pregnancy and she should be given every right to do it by whoever is in authority.
My feelings are irrelevant to the fact that unborn children have the right to life (even if they currently sometimes denied that right due to unjust laws). Black people had the right to freedom even when 90% of the country thought that they didn’t.
Ok. But don’t say your feelings are irrelevant. You believe your morality is written on your heart. I respect your stand on this issue. I can see that there is no circumstance where you could condone the taking of any life from conception to natural death.
My feelings ARE irrelevant. I don’t have to like someone to recognize their right to life.
Ok. It is strictly a rational decision to believe that human life should be protected by the state from conception of the first living cell to the natural death of a terminal patient. If we accept the sanctity of life, it is logical that we do not have any right to ever willfully and unnecessarily (assuming not for self defense or the defense of others) terminate a life. I can’t refute your argument on the basis of it being irrational or illogical.
Give the that the argument is not irrational or illogical, you should accept it as true.
Your argument makes sense if life is sacred, which I don’t believe it is. And there is a rational and logical argument for letting the woman decide whether or not she wants to go on with an unwanted pregnancy and raise an unwanted child.
It has nothing to do with life being sacred. Sanctity is a religious concept and so it is irrelevant to the secular debate regarding abortion. Human beings have human rights. First and foremost is the right to life. If woman does not have to go through an unwanted pregnancy – she can choose not to become pregnant by not having sex. If she chooses to have sex anyway, she is risking pregnancy and must accept the consequences that result. She can’t kill a person to escape the consequences of her poor choices. If a woman doesn’t want to parent – adoption is an option. She does not have to parent.
So. There is the way you think it should be, giving the embryo or fetus rights over the rights of women. And there is the way it is, giving women the rights over the rights of the embryo or fetus.
I don’t think you will ever get your way. You are ignoring women’s rights and that will get you nowhere.
Where God’s way conflicts with the way of the world, the world wins.
No, Bill. Human beings have EQUAL rights. You want to put the rights of the woman over the rights of the child. Since pregnancy is temporary and death is permanent, it is only logical that the right to life trumps the “right” not to be pregnant (especially since pregnancy is preventable).
I’m sure slaveowners thought abolitionists were unrealistic too. Didn’t stop the abolitionists from working to free slaves.
“it is only logical that the right to life trumps the “right” not to be pregnant”
I guess it doesn’t matter. It is what it is. Blame it on politics. Women vote. Babies don’t.
Irrelevant. Children don’t vote either. Should we legalize infanticide or child abuse?
Nobody voted to legalize abortion. That was decided by nine old white men, not women.
I was just trying to point out that the women’s rights movement has more political clout than the prolife movement. But you are right, it was the judges who made the final decision. Not the voters. Don’t forget though that the judges were appointed by those elected.
Well, as past elections have shown, whoever wins doesn’t necessarily reflect the will of the people.
Over 50% of the country identify as pro-life. 75% oppose abortion after the first trimester. The tide is turning.
Sorry,just because the woman is responsible for the existence of the fetus that does not mean that she can be obligated to extend its existence.And of course she has the moral right to kill the fetus in order to protect her body autonomy.But what about the body autonomy of the fetus?It is very simple.The fetus violates the body autonomy of the woman.Now you could reply that the mother put the fetus in the womb.But if the mother had not put the fetus in the womb,the fetus would not have existed now,so by being aborted,the fetus only loses the life provided by the mother.The fetus is not made worse off by being conceived and then aborted than never been conceived at all.
How does the fetus violate the bodily autonomy of the woman, Martin? Do you know how babies are made? Not being snarky; honestly asking. Do you think unborn children are moral agents?
Politics? The Democrats are poison! The Republicans are poison! The libertarians are poison! Their platforms are dictated by SuperPacs and their mega wealthy contributors and they all doublespeak. Don’t for a minute assume elections are determined by the common man voting his/her beliefs. They speak the agendas of those who fund their campaigns. Go Bernie Sanders…….
BTW: Bigotry under the guise of religious liberty is still bigotry.
big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
You’re right, Phil, Hillary definitely is a bigot. Her comments are clear evidence of that.
Phil’s comment was deleted. Sorry about that.