By David French
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Let’s suppose for a moment that you’re a normal human
being. And by “normal” I mean a person who keeps politics at a healthy
distance. You’ve got kids, a challenging job, and thriving relationships. Your
spare time is precious, so when you do get those few extra hours, you’re far
more likely to spend them binge-watching Stranger
Things on Netflix than brushing up on the latest trends in abortion
legislation or on the text of unconstitutional municipal statutes.
So, as a matter of necessity, to make informed political
decisions, you depend on candidates and members of the media to tell the truth.
I mean that you depend on them not just to avoid bald-faced lies but also to be
forthcoming, to accurately describe,
as best they can, the issues and the meaning of any given controversy. At the
very least, we demand that they not be deceptive, that they not exploit our
understandable ignorance for partisan gain.
If last night’s debate was a preview of a likely Clinton
presidency, get ready for the Great Exploitation. On two key issues, the Second
Amendment and abortion, Hillary Clinton so grotesquely mischaracterized the
stakes of the dispute that I literally laughed at the television screen — until
I realized that her points just might hit home.
Here’s a pop quiz. Before the landmark Supreme Court case
of District of Columbia v. Heller,
how did D.C. regulate gun ownership? It’s okay if you don’t know. I had to
refresh my memory for the details, and I’m an attorney who writes about the
Second Amendment. The answer is pretty shocking: As the Court noted, the city
“generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns.” Regarding registered
rifles and shotguns, the city mandated that they be kept “unloaded and
dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.”
Let’s be clear: These provisions functionally destroyed
the right of individuals to defend themselves in their own home. They couldn’t possess a pistol, and any intruder
would have free reign until a desperate homeowner could unlock or reassemble
his shotgun. But here’s how Hillary defended Heller:
You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying
that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the Court applied
the Second Amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was
trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with
guns to safely store them. And the Court did not accept that reasonable
regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between
saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.
Ahh, so the D.C. handgun ban should be known as the
“Toddler Protection Act.” This is news to D.C., which was plainly and clearly
trying to ban handguns from the city entirely — not for the sake of “toddlers”
but in a foolish and misguided effort to stop gun violence. Hillary is
insulting our intelligence to argue otherwise. Moreover, her reading of the
Second Amendment creates a toddler-protection exception so vast (ban handguns?)
that it swallows the constitutional rule.
The same principle applied when she addressed the
extraordinarily uncomfortable topic of partial-birth abortion. It’s one of the
most gruesome procedures in all of “medicine,” involving the partial delivery
of a living child, killing it with a sharp object, and crushing it to ease
removal from the mother’s womb. It’s barbaric. The vast majority of Americans
are revolted by it, in large part because at that late stage the fundamental
humanity of the baby is undeniable.
But Hillary has been steadfast in her belief that a woman
should be able to hire a doctor to kill her child at any moment before the
child is entirely delivered. Yes,
even when it’s halfway out, the doctor should be able to lawfully jam scissors
into the back of the child’s skull. That’s Hillary’s belief. She cannot,
however, own it honestly to the American people. Defending her vote against
banning partial-birth abortion, she said this:
The kinds of cases that fall at the
end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for
families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their
pregnancy, get the worst news one could get. That their health is in jeopardy
if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or
just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States
government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.
So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the
mother taken into account.
She’s counting on the fact that most Americans have no
idea that when she’s referring to health, she’s referring not just to physical
health — physical harm or injury to the mother — but also to the mother’s
psychological, emotional, and even familial sense of “well-being.” How do we
know this? Because it’s in the very Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Doe v. Bolton case, that she so proudly
protects.
Hillary’s tactics wouldn’t work so well in a functioning
media environment. But when reporters largely agree with her policy positions,
the various “fact checkers” and other watchdogs are off to the races to find
some way, any way that her arguments have merit. I mean, if there are no
handguns in the home, then toddlers can’t grab them, right? If a woman will
suffer anxiety and depression carrying a child to term, we can’t really say
that’s “healthy,” right?
In the meantime, the core founding values of life and
liberty are further diminished, without their chief antagonists even advancing
their core political arguments. Instead, we lose freedom in a haze of misdirection
and obfuscation. The Great Exploitation begins.
No comments:
Post a Comment