More emails released by WikiLeaks concerning the email account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta reveal that Hillary Clinton would be even more of an abortion advocate than President Barack Obama.
The email makes it clear that the Obama Administration was seeking to weaken the pro-life law to allow taxpayer funding of abortion in certain circumstances but was attempting to provide a very modest measure of protection for faith-based groups that did not want to be required to pay for abortions.
In the email from Jennifer Klein, a Georgetown law professor who currently advises Clinton, to Podesta, Klein makes it clear that providing conscience protections for faith-based groups is “a problem, as a matter of substance and also as a matter of politics” for Clinton.
The Clinton advisor makes it clear that Hillary Clinton opposes such a policy. In other words Hillary Clinton would favor dismantling the Helms Amendment and providing absolutely no protection for faith-based organizations or citizens who don’t want to be a party to paying for promoting a referring for abortions.
The groups have been advocating for changing the Helms Amendment to add exceptions for life of the mother, rape or incest (in other words, to clarify that despite the longstanding interpretation of Helms, while US dollars can¹t be spent for abortion as a method of family planning these cases are not family planning.) The groups heard recently that the WH was prepared to go forward, but with two notable limitations. First, that any organization with a religious or moral objection would not be required to provide, pay for or refer for abortion. Second, that an organization that does not provide abortion services could not be discriminated against in the solicitation, application or granting of foreign assistance funds.
Both of these pose problems, and in my view, leaving Helms intact is a better alternative at the moment. The conscience clause is at best odd and at worst harmful. Changing Helms would not require grantees to provide abortions at all, it would simply say that US funds can legally be spent in certain limited circumstances (life, rape, incest) and only in countries where abortion is legal. Since there is no affirmative requirement, why introduce the notion of a conscience exception?…In addition, the non-discrimination clause could be problematic. Again, there is no affirmative requirement that these services be offered so organizations that don¹t provide them don¹t need a leg up in the application process. (I¹d even go one step further to argue that if Helms were amended so that abortions could be paid for in cases of rape, that factor should be considered in the application, given the reality that in many parts of the world, the USAID grantee is going to be the only health care available, and in some of those places (e.g., DRC) the availability of abortion in the case of a rape might be important.)
These changes are a problem, as a matter of substance and also as a matter of politics (including for H). As I said, my intelligence suggests that the groups have effectively stopped this from going forward, but I wanted to be sure you are aware. Happy to talk to anyone further about this if it is helpful.”
Clinton is on record multiple times as wanting to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which has saved 2 million babies from abortion.