As A Woman, Here Are 4 Reasons I’m Not Joining Hillary’s ‘Making History’ Bandwagon

Back in 1992, a young, naive girl was so impressed with candidate Bill Clinton that she signed up to volunteer with the local Democratic party chapter, and helped set up the staging area for one of his last speeches before he was elected president. She later strongly rejected the party’s platform – especially on abortion – and deeply regretted her (admittedly small) role in the national rise of the Clinton machine.

That girl is me. So it shouldn’t exactly be a surprise that I’m one of many women not jumping on the “let’s help a woman make history” bandwagon.

As I’ve written previously, women shouldn’t be guilted or shamed into voting for another woman on the basis of her lady parts, especially if that woman is one you don’t trust and whose ideas you oppose on principle. In the case of Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton, four issues in particular stand out.

1) The extraordinarily “careless” and dangerous ways she handled classified emails while Secretary of State.

Clinton told Fox News’ Chris Wallace this past weekend that, “[FBI] Director Comey said my answers were truthful” regarding her handling of classified emails on her private server. The Washington Post, normally friendly Clinton territory, gave her four Pinocchios for her claim:

Comey said “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

He added: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” He noted that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

That’s a devastating rebuke of Clinton’s ability to recognize what types of sensitive electronic information should not be shared over a private server, especially when using a non-.gov email address. Not only that, but Comey’s statement also indicated that had this been someone else in trouble over the same issue, they likely would been “subject to security or administrative sanctions.” So what assurances have we received that she’s learned her lesson and that this won’t happen again? None, because she won’t admit to doing anything wrong.

2) Benghazi.

Clinton’s failure to be honest with the American people (especially the families of those murdered) on what the motivations were behind the Benghazi attacks was bad enough, but to know they might have been prevented had the State Department – under Clinton’s leadership – not denied murdered Ambassador Chris Steven’s request for additional help two months earlier should, along with the email scandal, disqualify Clinton from the role of Commander in Chief. Full stop.

3. Her support for transgender persons to have the “right” to access restrooms, locker rooms, etc of the gender with which they “identify.”

For some odd reason, unlike other candidates – including her former opponent Senator Bernie Sanders – Clinton, the only female left in the race after Republican Carly Fiorina dropped out in February, has not been pressed on the issue of transgender bathroom access in any great detail. But her tweet opposing North Carolina’s HB2 “bathroom bill” – which passed in late March – along with the LGBT “issues” page on her campaign website make it clear she supports the right of a man who claims he’s a woman to use the women’s restrooms, showers, locker rooms, and fitting rooms.

Bathroom bills are not just about transgender rights. They are also about women’s rights, and her support of a sort of “free-for-all” access to spaces that women have traditionally been able to enjoy reasonable expectations of privacy in is a strong indicator that Clinton prioritizes political correctness over the very valid safety and privacy concerns of women and children – including a prominent ACLU official/civil rights attorney in Georgia, who resigned over the issue.

4. Her unwavering commitment to preserving the “right” for women to terminate their unborn children.

I used to be pro-choice. Fortunately, I had a wake-up call later in life after it finally hit me just how horrible the procedures used to terminate innocent, unborn life in the name of “women’s rights” actually are. In a September 2015 interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Clinton told him what her ground zero was in terms of restrictions on abortions:

“There can be restrictions in the very end of the third trimester, but they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.”

In other words, an abortion anytime prior to the last day or so of pregnancy prior to birth is ok under any circumstances, even after the viability point (read: ability to survive outside of the mother’s womb) of the baby has began. It’s a widely accepted fact by doctors that an unborn baby has the ability – with several more weeks of intensive care provided by trained medical personnel – to survive outside of the mother’s womb at 24 weeks or later which is during the second trimester. Clinton’s position is extreme by any measuring stick, when you consider the developmental stage of a baby at the 24th week.

And especially when you consider she called an unborn child a “person” in another interview with Todd earlier this year, which affords the child the Constitutional rights and protections she said in the same breath didn’t exist “under our laws currently.”

If you feel tempted to vote for a person just because their election to public office will make history, remember this: “Making history” is neat, nice. Exciting. But only if it’s with the right person. Remember, America also “made history” with Barack Obama and it didn’t turn out so well. Think about it.

(I wrote this piece, which was originally published at IJR in August 2016)