Perhaps more so than any other Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has made it a point to try and establish herself as *the* pro-abortion candidate that pro-choice women can turn to.
She told the Washington Post at the time that “As a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be nonnegotiable.” She also endorsed Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski’s (IL-3) pro-choice primary challenger back in April.
Just recently, while on a campaign trip in Iowa, Gillibrand sat down with the Des Moines Register editorial board and gave an interview. During the interview, Gillibrand went on an extreme rant, equating appointing pro-life judges to appointing judges who were racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic:
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,” Gillibrand said during an interview with the Des Moines Register on Tuesday
“Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic,” she continued. “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.”
She then went on to suggest that the reason pro-life Americans wanted like-minded judges on the bench was because they wanted to impose their religious beliefs on society:
“We believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state,” she said.
“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, and that’s what this is,” Gillibrand said.
Watch the interview segment below:
Democrat presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand compares judges who are pro-life to judges who are “racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic” https://t.co/4sq22igVaY
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 11, 2019
Her comments were outright appalling, despicable, and, as Alexandra DeSanctis said, “malicious.” There is literally no one who could make a good-faith argument for appointing a “homophobic, racist, or anti-Semitic” judge. There are plenty of good arguments that could be made in good faith on appointing a pro-life judge.
If I had a dime for everytime someone told me that I was trying to turn America into racist theocracy because of my pro-life views and desire to see a like-minded judge on the bench, I could retire comfortably at an early age. In addition to being a disgusting argument, it’s also a lazy argument made by pro-abortion liberals designed to – you guessed it – shut down the debate.
While it’s true that religious arguments have been made in the past to justify pro-life positions, the more commonly used rationale is quite simple (and has nothing to do with racism): This is a a moral issue much like the debate over slavery was long ago. As I’ve written before:
The “right” to terminate unborn life is most definitely a moral issue much like slavery was when it was legal. The fact that it was legal did not make it “right” no more than abortion being legal makes it “right” to do.
Gillibrand supports the unrestricted right to terminate an unborn life up until the moment of birth, even if the unborn baby is viable and healthy. The next time she wants to brag about how “morally clear” her position is on the issue, someone needs to ask her which abortion option she believes causes the least amount of pain to an unborn baby: Vacuum aspiration or dilation and evacuation?
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–