Mass grave? No, no. We call that common ground.

By Diogenes (articles ) | Feb 02, 2005

Charlotte Hays asks, Is Hillary becoming ever-so-faintly pro-life? Count me in with the skeptics -- correction -- count me in with those who insist there's nothing to be skeptical about. She's pure pro-abort, red in tooth and claw.

But didn't she claim to respect the consciences of pro-lifers? Yes, she made that claim. She also announced, back at the beginning of the 1996 campaign, that she and the President of the United States were exploring the possibilities of adopting a child. A bright tear of sympathy coursed down Uncle Diogenes' cheek at the thought of the wee bairn sucking his toes on his cot in the Lincoln Bedroom, and I'm sure you were similarly affected. Regrettably, the agencies were unable to make a successful match.

Hillary's "common ground" appeal offers pro-family citizens a choice between defeat (the status quo), and even worse defeat. She believes pro-aborts and pro-lifers can compromise by joining to increase government sponsored access to contraceptive services. "Don't like abortion-on-demand? Then let's do abortion-on-demand plus tax-funded contraception and morning-after pills." It's as if you complain to your boss because he cut your vacation time in half, and he responds with a deal whereby your paycheck is halved as well as your vacation time. What can be fairer than that?

Politically, Hillary's family planning compromise is a shrewd move. She doesn't budge on abortion (except by sniffling before the cameras that it can sometimes be a "tragic" choice), and she'll maneuver pro-lifers into the position of fanatics after we refuse the bait. She has correctly gauged the popular sway of the myth that contraception reduces abortions. She's right in thinking that many folks who are anti-abortion are shaky on contraception, and that virtually everyone who's shaky on abortion has no problem with contraception. Thus, it's hard to see how she stands to lose any votes she hasn't already lost irredeemably. It's a win-win situation for her.

We Catholics, of course, have little to be concerned about. The instant Hillary proposes federal support for contraception, Cardinal Patrick Aloysius O'Boyle, the fire-breathing Archbishop of Washington, will come roaring out of his residence -- bounding over the bodies of dissenting priests he suspended -- and rally bishop, priest, and layman across the nation in furious and unflinching opposition to the measure.

Oh wait.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 7 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: Vincit omnia amor - Feb. 03, 2005 12:16 AM ET USA

    75 in July, eh? maybe we ought to post a counter for the minutes left until he submits his resignation...and while we count, we pray: that the Good Lord will raise up Shepherds after His own heart---bringing them through the bureaucratic blindness and political intrigues which apparently drive the selection process. Yes, there are many fine examples of recent memory of Princes of the Church in whom the Apostles could be seen! (and not all of them are Irish!)

  • Posted by: opraem - Feb. 02, 2005 11:00 PM ET USA

    this is just step one in hillary's quest to win red states on her 2008 presidential run. expect the media to hail her wisdom and some of our shepherds to buy it. sean hannity has begun a 'hillary watch' segment on his radio show to track her apparent move to center. probably many american catholics will buy her bilge, like they voted for her husband twice.

  • Posted by: - Feb. 02, 2005 8:00 PM ET USA

    July 7th is Cardinal McCarrick's 75th? Thanks for the information. By the way - please visit to see how some of us would like to see that birthday celebrated!

  • Posted by: - Feb. 02, 2005 5:21 PM ET USA

    Would Hilary Clinton be ready to sponsor a law requiring all abotioin clinics to luse ultra sound and show it to the patients before the procedure begins?

  • Posted by: - Feb. 02, 2005 12:56 PM ET USA

    Cardinal McCarrick turns 75 on July 7. Maybe "Cardinal O'Boyle" will be his replacement.

  • Posted by: - Feb. 02, 2005 9:47 AM ET USA

    Of course, most contraception - the pill etc. - is already abortive. It just doesn't require surgically intrusive means to accomplish its goal.

  • Posted by: extremeCatholic - Feb. 02, 2005 8:55 AM ET USA

    One question to ask people who are delighting in Hillary's new tone - as opposed to delighting in Hillary's apparent ability to scam (oops, I meant to write "appeal") to some red-staters - is this "Is there an abortion that took place in the United States, last week or last year, which was wrong in some moral sense and the proper role of the government to make a crime?" She continues to say every abortion is moral and it is an absolute right to have one paid for by the government.