Free Thinkers Think Again if You Vote for Clinton…
Free, independent thinking, including deeply held religious beliefs, created this democratic Republic called The
United States of America. Without this fundamental right to think for one’s self and express the same, this country will fall flat on its face, forever unable to resurrect itself. Your vote in this Presidential election will elicit one of two results: more freedom or less freedom to espouse your thoughts about what you believe and why you believe it.
Am I unnecessarily concerned about this issue? I don’t think so. When I hear a candidate state that certain “religious beliefs” of citizens need to…must be…changed by “political will”, that person has my attention. Hillary Clinton expressed this sentiment on more than one occasion. Once is enough for me and that “once” is what I shall address here.
In a speech delivered at the 6th Annual “Women in The World Summit”, April 23, 2015, Hillary Clinton said the following, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” [Italics mine]. It does not take more than a cursory glance through her words to see the deep-seated danger which lies within. Per her opinion, per her own words, “religious beliefs” of people in this country need to be changed. The “how to change” is what remains so disturbing. With whose, and with what, resources and political will shall these beliefs be altered. Moreover, to “whose beliefs and ideas” will they be aligned? Hers?
Lest I be accused of taking her words out of context, allow me to provide it. Her audience was women. The particular issue was abortion. Yet, from the following, this was not the only issue on Clinton’s mind. “As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.” What is her idea of advancement of full participation? The unfinished business of the 21st century? Not just for women but for everyone?
Clinton took the abortion issue further, stating “The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights.” — “The only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe V. Wade is settled law.” Clinton, if elected President, CANNOT appoint people to The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). She can nominate, but the Senate must confirm. It’s our rule of law. It’s what lies in the embodiment of the US Constitution…the one she will SWEAR TO UPHOLD if she is elected. But where is her list of favorites? Why don’t we know with one vacancy already open on the Court?
Contrary to her opinion, Clinton is wrong when she states the unborn person has NO Constitutional rights. That is NOT what Roe v. Wade stated. Read the decision. The majority, the concurring and the dissent opinions if you truly want to be informed. HOW can such a case remain settled law…unchallenged…when it has yet to catch up with science, much less any “religious beliefs”. Our laws say a person is dead when the heart stops beating. What should happen now that science tells us we can hear an unborn person’s heartbeat at six weeks? What about the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, wherein the SCOTUS stated that, despite Roe, partial birth abortion can be banned, a position with which she strongly disagrees? The abortion issue is definitely NOT over. Not by a long shot.
Asserting she wishes to change what goes on in one’s mind with respect to this issue, by force of law and political will, is unconscionable and alien to what lies at the heart of this nation’s foundation. Courts can rule on issues; citizens can respect the outcome. But to authoritatively alter one’s belief…a religious belief…? Never. Or could she?
What if Clinton succeeds in the ushering in of SCOTUS Justices who deem deeply held religious beliefs to be “hate speech”? What if you cannot express your views to another person because it is “harmful” to the hearer, viewed as a form of “aggression”? Think a pastor or individual would not be placed in jail for speaking Scripturally on a controversial issue like abortion? Think again. It’s already happened in other countries. What about the tax exempt status of charitable organizations, churches among them, that speak for the rights of the unborn? What if the SCOTUS decides a tax status can be removed for Scriptural or other speech it deems “hate”? These possibilities are very real.
We have always been able to have an honest, civil discourse in this nation about many very difficult, controversial issues. That could change. We are naïve to think otherwise. Do you want to lose YOUR voice? Do you want to lose YOUR freedom to express deeply held “religious beliefs”? I do not. Hillary says my beliefs have to be changed. I cannot allow that…for me AND for those with whom I DISAGREE. Thus, she cannot have my vote for the Presidency. I seek Justices on the Supreme Court who will preserve my religious freedom not only to believe in Scripture as a Christ follower, but to allow me to express the same.
Deborah L. Neilan, Esq.
“Roe v. Wade”: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
“Gonzales v. Carhart.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Oct 24, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-380>
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Deborah Smith Neilan, is an attorney and constitutionalist hailing from the beautiful Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Learn more about Deborah at: