I am very proud, if my memory is not correct — I think I am — that I have a lifetime — and I’ve been in Congress a few years — a lifetime 100 percent pro-choice voting record. I am very proud that over the years we have had the support in my state of Vermont from very significant majorities of women.

His memory is correct — from 1993 to 2014, Sanders’s positions and congressional voting records have always gotten 100% scores from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Nearly two decades’ worth of votes for abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy, paid for by taxpayers, and without any regard for parental rights or patient welfare isn’t something to be proud of in many places…except for a Democrat presidential primary.

Clinton’s answer to the same question:

I appreciate greatly Senator Sanders’ voting record. And I was very proud to get the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, because I’ve been a leader on these issues. I have gone time and time again to take on the vested interests who would keep women’s health care decisions the province of the government instead of women ourselves.

I’m very proud that NARAL endorsed me because when it comes to it, we need a leader on women’s issues. Somebody who, yes, votes right, but much more than that, leads the efforts to protect the hard-fought gains that women have made, that, make no mistake about it, are under tremendous attack, not just by the Republican presidential candidates, but by a whole national effort to try to set back women’s rights.

Clinton is equally radical to Sanders on abortion. In the absence of meaningful policy differences (and because Hillary is unwilling to outright say she should be supported because she’s a woman), she has to lean on the idea that she was simply more proactive in her abortion advocacy and campaigning than Sanders — which, conveniently, is the same explanation Planned Parenthood Action Fund gives. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of Clinton over Sanders was met with significant outrage by many pro-abortion advocates.

Finally, Sanders reiterated one of his recurring potshots at pro-lifers:

I will tell you something that really galls me. I will not shock anybody to suggest that in politics there is occasionally a little bit of hypocrisy. Just a little bit.

All over this country we have Republican candidates for president saying we hate the government. Government is the enemy. We’re going to cut Social Security to help you. We’re going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, federal aid to education to help you, because the government is so terrible.

But, by the way, when it comes to a woman having to make a very personal choice, ah, in that case, my Republican colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice for every woman in America.

If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what hypocrisy is.

You don’t know what hypocrisy is, Senator.

It is a testament to how little the pro-abortion movement values reason that this nonsensical line is so popular with them. People advocate for limited government because they believe the state does many things that qualify as unjust interference with private citizens’ truly consensual interactions. Indeed, “limited government” does not mean a blanket answer of “no” whenever “should government do x?” is asked.

It means limiting government to a set of core functions, the primary of which is protecting our individual rights.

Protecting preborn babies from abortion falls under that category, just as surely as we expect the law to protect us from theft, beatings, murder, rape, abduction, torture, etc. To illustrate the absurdity of claiming otherwise to any Bernie fans you may come across, just point out how different his complaint sounds when we replace his euphemisms with a literal description of the practice he’s defending:

When it comes to a woman having to make a choice to have an abortionist kill her son or daughter, ah, in that case, my Republican colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice not to kill for every woman in America.

Pro-lifers have lamented the lack of abortion debate questions because we would like to see these candidates have to explain the extremes of their stances to the public. NARAL, however, just wanted more openings for the Democrat contenders to pander to them. But they needn’t have feared; abortion-on-demand is hardwired into Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders so fully that they’re primed to pander all on their own.

I am very proud, if my memory is not correct — I think I am — that I have a lifetime — and I’ve been in Congress a few years — a lifetime 100 percent pro-choice voting record. I am very proud that over the years we have had the support in my state of Vermont from very significant majorities of women.

His memory is correct — from 1993 to 2014, Sanders’s positions and congressional voting records have always gotten 100% scores from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Nearly two decades’ worth of votes for abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy, paid for by taxpayers, and without any regard for parental rights or patient welfare isn’t something to be proud of in many places…except for a Democrat presidential primary.

Clinton’s answer to the same question:

I appreciate greatly Senator Sanders’ voting record. And I was very proud to get the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, because I’ve been a leader on these issues. I have gone time and time again to take on the vested interests who would keep women’s health care decisions the province of the government instead of women ourselves.

I’m very proud that NARAL endorsed me because when it comes to it, we need a leader on women’s issues. Somebody who, yes, votes right, but much more than that, leads the efforts to protect the hard-fought gains that women have made, that, make no mistake about it, are under tremendous attack, not just by the Republican presidential candidates, but by a whole national effort to try to set back women’s rights.

Clinton is equally radical to Sanders on abortion. In the absence of meaningful policy differences (and because Hillary is unwilling to outright say she should be supported because she’s a woman), she has to lean on the idea that she was simply more proactive in her abortion advocacy and campaigning than Sanders — which, conveniently, is the same explanation Planned Parenthood Action Fund gives. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of Clinton over Sanders was met with significant outrage by many pro-abortion advocates.

Finally, Sanders reiterated one of his recurring potshots at pro-lifers:

I will tell you something that really galls me. I will not shock anybody to suggest that in politics there is occasionally a little bit of hypocrisy. Just a little bit.

All over this country we have Republican candidates for president saying we hate the government. Government is the enemy. We’re going to cut Social Security to help you. We’re going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, federal aid to education to help you, because the government is so terrible.

But, by the way, when it comes to a woman having to make a very personal choice, ah, in that case, my Republican colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice for every woman in America.

If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what hypocrisy is.

You don’t know what hypocrisy is, Senator.

It is a testament to how little the pro-abortion movement values reason that this nonsensical line is so popular with them. People advocate for limited government because they believe the state does many things that qualify as unjust interference with private citizens’ truly consensual interactions. Indeed, “limited government” does not mean a blanket answer of “no” whenever “should government do x?” is asked.

It means limiting government to a set of core functions, the primary of which is protecting our individual rights.

Protecting preborn babies from abortion falls under that category, just as surely as we expect the law to protect us from theft, beatings, murder, rape, abduction, torture, etc. To illustrate the absurdity of claiming otherwise to any Bernie fans you may come across, just point out how different his complaint sounds when we replace his euphemisms with a literal description of the practice he’s defending:

When it comes to a woman having to make a choice to have an abortionist kill her son or daughter, ah, in that case, my Republican colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice not to kill for every woman in America.

Pro-lifers have lamented the lack of abortion debate questions because we would like to see these candidates have to explain the extremes of their stances to the public. NARAL, however, just wanted more openings for the Democrat contenders to pander to them. But they needn’t have feared; abortion-on-demand is hardwired into Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders so fully that they’re primed to pander all on their own.

Calvin Freiburger

Calvin Freiburger