Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
News Feeds

Hillary caught misrepresenting abortion fight

Recommended Posts

hillary_clinton5.jpg

 

Hillary Clinton long has been working hand-in-glove with the abortion industry, and this presidential election campaign has brought her to the point of confirming she will “defend” abortion with every move she would make as president.

 

But she has her facts wrong, according to an activist who has fought for years against China’s mandatory abortion policies.

 

Reggie Littlejohn, the president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, recently just recently filed a complaint against China with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women over the issue.

 

But during the third and final presidential campaign debate on Wednesday, Clinton claimed the fight was over.

 

“I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China …” she said.

 

That’s just wrong, Littlejohn revealed.

 

It’s true that China used to coerce abortions after one child in the family, and while the government made a splash in announcing most couples now would be allowed two children, that coerced abortion still looms after that second child, she explained.

 

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

“With all her experience as former secretary of state, it is untrue and deeply disappointing for Hillary Clinton to put the Chinese government’s practice of forced abortion in the past. If she thinks that China no longer forces women to abort babies, she should explain that to a couple, surnamed Zhong, who in August of this year were forced to choose between an abortion at eight months or the loss of both of their government jobs. Or she should inform He Liping, who was forced either to pay an impossible ‘terror fine’ of $39,000 or face abortion at six months,” she charged.

 

See Clinton’s comment:

 

 

“Or perhaps she should read the May 4, 2016, BBC article entitled ‘Reinventing China’s Abortion Police,’ which discusses a small collaborative project by Stanford University and Shaanxi Normal University to repurpose 69 Family Planning Officials – apparently on the assumption that they are no longer needed now that China has moved to a two-child policy.

 

“The article follows one Family Planning Official, Li Bo, who has been ‘reinvented’ from ‘hunt[ing] down families suspected of violating the country’s draconian rules on how many children couples can have’ into a rubber duckie squeezing, nursery rhyme singing ‘Chinese Father Christmas,’ complete with ‘a bag full of toys and picture books.’

 

“Has his job really been ‘reinvented,’ or is he really a member of the womb police, masquerading as ‘Chinese Father Christmas’ – the new face of China’s Family Planning Police? Buried deep in the article is the following account of the dark side of Li Bo’s job – an important piece of original reporting by the BBC,” Littlejohn said.

 

She quoted the pertinent section of the BBC report:

 

Since the start of 2016, all Chinese couples have been allowed two children. But they can have no more than that unless they are from ethnic minorities – so Li Bo still spends some of his time working as a birth-control enforcer. In the town’s health clinic he is busy screening local women. All women of childbearing age have check-ups four times a year to ensure they’re healthy . . . and to see if they are pregnant. . . But Li is also a loyal Communist party official who believes the state knows best and society’s needs are greater than those of individuals. So he is matter-of-fact about the unpleasant task of telling women who couldn’t afford the fine to terminate their pregnancies. ‘People didn’t swear at us but they probably did behind our backs,’ he says. ‘It’s natural because we were carrying out the law and they were breaking it so it is just like the clash between a policeman and a thief.’ He adds that as long as restrictions are in place, such clashes will continue.

 

The proof, Littlejohn explained, is in that report about “a Chinese Communist Family Planning Official.”

 

It states, “It is still illegal for single women to have babies in China, and for couples to have third children. It appears that some may be given an opportunity to pay a fine, but Li Bo tells ‘those who couldn’t afford the fine to terminate their pregnancies.’ In other words, if a woman is illegally pregnant and cannot pay the fine – which can be as much as ten times her annual salary – she is forced to abort. Forced abortion, therefore, continues under the Two-Child Policy.”

 

Women are screened four times a year to monitor pregnancies, and, “Li Bo’s statement that women who are pregnant without permission ‘were breaking it [the law] so it is just like the clash between a policeman and a thief’ demonstrates that such pregnancies are still considered illegal; and illegally pregnant women are regarded lawbreakers deserving of punishment, just like thieves.”

 

“The Chinese Communist Party has not agreed to get out of the bedrooms of the Chinese people, and presidential candidates should not be stating or implying that they have. We need to keep the international pressure on the Chinese Communist Party until all coercive population control is eradicated,” Littlejohn said.

 

The organization has set up an online petition on the issue and has created a video about “China’s War on Women.”

 

 

Littlejohn’s Women’s Rights Without Frontiers group long has fought China’s practices of forced killing, explaining the real “war on women” is being fought where forced abortion is triggering surges in suicide, breast cancer, an imbalance between men and women in society and a young population that is too small to sustain its senior citizens.

 

The reason for China’s change has nothing to do with respect for life or an acknowledgment of family rights, her group’s complaint to the U.N. contended.

 

“The reason given for this adjustment is entirely demographic: ‘to balance population development and address the challenge of an ageing population.’ The adjustment is a tacit admission that continuation of the one child policy will lead to economic and demographic disaster. The policy was originally instituted for economic reasons. It is ironic that through this very policy, China has written its own economic death sentence,” the complaint said.

 

In fact, the Chinese Communist Party, in announcing the change, ignored the issue of human rights, with Wang Peian, the vice-minister of the National Health and Family Planning Commission, affirming China’s family planning restrictions would continue.

 

“The problem with the one child policy is not the number of children ‘allowed.’ Rather, it is the fact that the CCP is telling women how many children they can have and then enforcing that limit through forced abortion and forced sterilization,” Littlejohn wrote. “It will still be illegal for an unmarried woman to have a child. Regardless of the number of children allowed, women who get pregnant without permission will still be dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forced to abort babies that they want.”

 

A 2015 U.S. State Department report also affirmed that China has about 23 million abortions a year, not the 13 million reported earlier.

 

“The United States population is about 320 million, with about one million abortions per year. The population of China is almost 1.4 billion, with about 23 million abortions per year. Therefore China, with four times the population of the United States, has 23 times the number of abortions,” the complaint to the U.N. said.

 

WRWF also operates a “Save a Girl” campaign supporting mothers of girls facing financial hardship by raising the child.

 

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

Continue reading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy