Daughter of former presidential family, Chelsea Clinton, announced her first pregnancy yesterday. The news spurred absurd accusations about how "the baby" has or will affect the potential Clinton administration. Like vultures, conservatives have bombarded the internet claiming that Chelsea's baby could not only interfere with Hillary Clinton's prospective campaign, but that it also repositions the Clinton's pro-choice stance on abortion.
USA Today catalyzed a wave of questions concerning the fetus's potential, "affect" on Hillary's campaign. "Former president Bill Clinton and his wife have made no secret of their wish for a grandchild. It's unclear how Chelsea's pregnancy will affect Hillary Clinton, who is considering a race for president in 2016."
It took less than 24 hours for conservative voices to go in for the kill -
Chelsea made her announcement at an event for No Ceilings, a Clinton Foundation-run organization, dedicated to enhancing the full participation of girls and women worldwide. Both conservative and liberal voices viewed this declaration as "good timing," but what I, like other writers are now asking is, why does this matter? Perhaps the announcement at the event on women's rights was somewhat of a political ploy and maybe it was a bit of a stretch to emphasize the importance of a baby at an event focused on the uninhibited achievement of women. However, whether or not this announcement was planned accordingly, the critique of this baby from anti-abortion sympathizers is out of control. If anything, the attack is more contradictory than the inconsistency Chelsea is being accused of.
Chelsea's choice, and let me italicize choice here for the sake of emphasis, to have a child is in no way indicative of a contradictory pro-choice agenda nor is it a new found pro-life agenda.
At the conference, Chelsea noted that, "Marc and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year, and I certainly feel all the better, whether it's a girl or a boy, that she or he will grow up in a world full of so many strong female leaders."
It is in no way productive for conservatives to be using pro-choice rhetoric to slam Chelsea's CHOICE to have a child. Chelsea is an extremely accomplished woman, who, because of her beliefs, traveled down the path of her choice, which included, education and an extensive political career dedicated to education, women's rights, and many other social issues. Her and her husband have been married for almost 5 years, and now she has made the decision to have a baby.
Clearly Chelsea's path is not radical, as it remains extremely conventional and heterosexual to say the least, but this is a whole other conversation. Of course it would be cool to see the daughter of a pro-choice politician make more radical life- decisions. Nonetheless, this does not mean we should be trivializing Chelsea's path. If anything, this choice is entirely expected as it is rather reflective of her less than radical position on women's rights and therefore, deeming her choice contradictory seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Will this baby affect Hillary's potential campaign? Will this baby lead our future generations and continue the Clinton dynasty? Who knows? Who CARES? Certainly not us.
These articles claiming that they do care must realize that this conversation would not be happening if the political figure at stake was a man.
In an attempt to show how ABSURD it is to care about how this baby will affect the Clinton's political fate, we present you with an ABSURD image of Chelsea and Marc's potential baby created via "morphthing.com."
Tweet images courtesy of Vanity Fair and Twitter