Kirsten Gillibrand: Pro-Lifers Are The Same As Racists

I haven't written anything of substance recently for various reasons, but felt compelled to write about some recent comments by Senator, and Democrat Presidential candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Yeah... there are some who would say I rarely write anything of substance but that's OK. My psyche doesn't bruise easily.

I'm writing this because it's difficult for me to believe or understand how a Senator and Presidential candidate can say such ignorant things.

In an interview with the Des Moines Register in Iowa on Monday, Gillibrand compared pro-life people, particularly judges, to racists, anti-Semites and homophobes.

“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, responding to a question about pro-life judges.

“Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who is 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.”

With all due respect, Senator - when did abortion become a "human right?" It may be a right in this country but in most other countries it is not. Because most people in the world don't believe that it's OK to kill the unborn - or as in the case of the United States - even those who are born alive. It's not a human right. It's a selfish practice adopted by the American left.

And second - you do know the history of the abortion industry don't you? Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the "mother" of the abortion industry, opened Planned Parenthood in mostly black neighborhoods with the intent of keeping black people from successfully procreating. She was a known racist and wanted to minimize the growth of the black population.

So who are the racists - those who want to prevent abortions of all babies, regardless of color or ethnicity, or those who think it's OK to kill babies anytime?

Gillibrand went on to show how little she knows about the Constitution when it comes to "separation of church and state."

"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, 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 — and that’s what this is."

Senator - I'm just a high school graduate with a lot of life experience but I can tell you that the Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. The First Amendment says that the government cannot mandate a particular religion on the people nor prevent people from worshipping as they choose. There is nothing that says anything about separation of church and state.

Contrary to popular belief - the Constitution doesn't even prevent government officials from praying while performing official duties, praying publicly, or referencing God in the performance of their duties. Judges often get it wrong because they rely on the "separation of church and state" clause that cannot be backed up by the Constitution - because it's simply not there.

And I'm not sure what planet you've been living on but no one in the Trump administration or in the courts is trying to "impose their faith on Americans." It's not about faith. It's about right and wrong and the rights of unborn human beings. Speaking publicly of one's faith does not impose it on anyone. Even politicians are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree with those opinions or not.

Gillibrand finished by saying "For all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side, there is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there’s a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom."

"They are not issues that there is a fair other side." In other words - if you disagree with my views you have no valid point and are to be ignored.

Instead of calling it "reproductive freedom" why not call it what it really is - non-reproductive freedom? Admit the truth. "We want the right to have unprotected sex when we want to but we want a way out if we get pregnant through our own careless behavior." That's the truth about the entire thing. And that's pretty sad.

Gillibrand is polling at 0% right now. She's trying to boost her popularity in any way she can. But telling lies is probably not the way to do it. Perhaps I'm wrong.