Screen Shot 2016 10 28 at 9.05.20 AM 300x199 Mrs. Clinton, the Constitution, and AbortionSeveral decades ago, a political candidate came to our university as part of his campaign. Although many of the young people asked about his views on particular topics, I asked him a question about his “world-view” and asked him to describe how he came to his understanding. Yes, it was not a typical question asked of political candidates, and I remember that the candidate struggled to respond. After the session was over, a friend of mine told me, “Well, that was a good way to find out whether he is a Christian.” Since that time, I have always been acutely aware of how our morality shapes our political views. At the third presidential debate, it was very interesting to me that the debate moderator’s first question asked Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump about their views on constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court.

Of course, this question should have been very easy for Mrs. Clinton as she graduated at the top of her class at the prestigious Yale University Law School. And indeed, her answer was quite revealing about her vision for the United States. Mrs. Clinton said:

The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court. And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the Court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.

Of course, as was once taught in civics classes in elementary and high schools, the Supreme Court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) represent anyone. For under our system of government, that is a task of the elected branches. Rather, courts are nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims. Moreover, our Constitution protects everyone, including the rich and powerful. After all, does not the law protect individual rights, rather than an abstraction that Mrs. Clinton called “the people?” She then went on to criticize both the Heller gun control decision and the Citizens United free speech Supreme Court decisions. But I want to focus on her one right that she considers to be absolute: the right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy up to the moment of birth.

Mr. Trump steered the debate discussion to late-term abortions, and Mrs. Clinton was forced to defend the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. Even my dear friends who support abortion are very uncomfortable with late-term abortions because it is infanticide. However, it appears that Mrs. Clinton may have forgotten about the Gonzales v. Carhart Supreme Court decision of 2007 that upheld a legislative ban on partial-birth abortion. In a survey from November 2015, over 80 percent of women say that they would ban late-term abortion and restrict abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. Stunningly, according to this poll, 82 percent of women and 66 percent of abortion supporters say abortions should be banned after the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, Mrs. Clinton has called for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment which restricts tax dollars from funding abortions. Her announcement came several days after Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortionist, endorsed Mrs. Clinton. In the same poll, 68 percent of Americans, including 69 percent of women and 51 percent of abortion supporters, oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, while only 29 percent support it.

Mr. Trump is, of course, not a legal scholar nor a top graduate of Yale Law School, but he showed a superior grasp of the Constitution. On the topic of abortion, Mr. Trump said that he appoint justices who would support repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision, and further noted that such a decision would return the question of abortion regulation to the states. If that occurred, I would imagine that most states would continue to permit abortions, though with more regulation, but a few states might not allow it, as was the situation before Roe. In the days before Roe, a young woman who sought an abortion had to travel, for example, to New York, which permitted abortions, and Planned Parenthood would make arrangements for her.

It is important to note that Carhart, Citizens United and Heller were all 5-4 decisions, and Mrs. Clinton wants each of them to be litmus tests for her Supreme Court nominations. In the third debate, Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is deeply threatening to American liberty. Mrs. Clinton, in support of her vision of Abortion Utopia, said at the Women’s World Summit on April 23, 2015, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will . . . and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs . . . have to be changed.” Emphasis added. Thus, we have been warned. If Mrs. Clinton is elected president, we can expect that the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, and the other agencies of the leviathan federal government, together with the Supreme Court, will be used against churches, and men and women of faith whose “deep-seated religious beliefs” against abortion, homosexual “marriage,” transgendered people in bathrooms, and countless other moral questions, will be made to pay a very dear price.