Z. - thanks for the link but it went to the trackback. I updated it to take it to the article.

Dim - thanks for the comment. It does very much illustrate the disturbing mindset of this former U.S. President.

Here’s a comment I left on the Canterbury Tales blog:

“In a 1986 letter to Arkansas Right to Life, Clinton wrote: “I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”"

Therein seems to be the problem with slick Willie and slicker Hillary; they seem to formulate their morality on the basis of the majority or, whats worse, on that which will get them the most votes in a party primary.

“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them and, after he had had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.”

Also, I attend Franciscan and so have heard a great deal about what went on at the rally. The person who yelled to Clinton was NOT a Franciscan University student, but was a man from the local area who was protesting as well. He said something to the effect of, “What about all the unborn babies that you want to allow to be killed by abortion??” (These are not the man’s exact words, but this is the gist of what he said.)

I agree with you, but I think Clinton has reached a partial truth (as much as I feel icky to say that).
If abortion is a species of murder, then shouldn’t the punishment prescribed by the law be proportionate? I would think so; in this he is sort of right. [He, of course, probably thinks that that vitiates the reasons for being pro-life. Which is hooey.]
He opines that pro-lifers aren’t calling for this harsh punishment because it would destroy their political support. I honestly don’t know if they do that; and it probably would hurt their political support. My own judgment is that they have a “chip-away-at-it” mentality (whether that is smart, I don’t know), and the issue of the punishment due for such acts hasn’t even entered the discussion. That is a more likely reason as to why it isn’t talked about.

The second part of this, and in my opinion the more important, is the claim he used, and which is frequently used today by liberals. They cite statistics that the number of abortions went down during liberal eras and conclude that it had something to do with their liberal policies (like during the Clinton Era). They attach to this the claim that out-lawing abortion would cause abortions to rise, and therefore, if you are *truly* against abortion, you should not out-law. . . .
There are at least two problems with this. First, the fact that the number of abortions went down at any given time does not mean the policies had anything to do with it (never mind that abortions went up immediately after being allowed by law, then went down later, rendering such correlations quite tenuous). Second, they appeal to a kind of consequentialism in their justification, which I hold to be false. Instead, as St. Thomas says: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; **and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.**”

If abortion is a species of murder it should be prohibited by law, and those who procure or administer or help people obtain them should be punished accordingly. And such punishment would have to be reached by the right use of reason.

Of course, as you said, the safety of the children is a main priority, and re-education is certainly necessary; for we are living in confused times.