Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand told the Des Moines Register that holding a pro-life viewpoint is “not acceptable.” She was answering a question about having a litmus test for judges and compared pro-lifers to racists and anti-Semites.
“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. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s 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 that those are political issues anymore,” Gillibrand said.
“And 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,” Gillibrand continued. “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. And so I believe that 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 is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.
Gillibrand, who barely registered in the Register poll this past weekend, is obviously trying to get attention. Does she really believe that pro-life equates in any way to racism? Or is this a ploy to boost her campaign?
One look at recent Gallup polls will show that a steady 50% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in most circumstances. About 30% believe abortion should be legal in all instances. Obviously, the pro-choice position favored by most in the pro-life movement is perfectly “acceptable” and completely in the mainstream.
But this isn’t about what’s acceptable or mainstream. This is an effort to marginalize and demonize those who disagree with the truly radical position on abortion supported by Gillibrand and most Democrats. Simply declaring that anti-abortion views are the same as racist views is ludicrous, not to mention deliberately disingenuous.
As for conservative judges “imposing” on us their views on morality, as soon as liberal judges stop doing the same, then perhaps Gillibrand would have a case. And the notion that any Democrat elected president in 2020 wouldn’t strive to appoint judges seeking to impose their own moral code on the country is a lie.
And Gillibrand knows it.