Does Hillary Clinton actually listen to the words that come out of her mouth? On Sunday’s interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” (4/3/16), Hillary was asked about abortion. As usual, there was little pushback, no comprehension of what was being said, and no follow-up:
Chuck Todd: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion.
Todd: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?
Clinton: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution.
Even Todd says “unborn baby.” Neither of them describes an unborn baby as a “bunch of cells.” Hillary describes an unborn baby as an “unborn person.” It seems that every “person” in the United States has rights, even persons who are here illegally and who mostly vote for Democrats, except unborn babies, probably because they can’t vote.
Since the Constitution uses the word “persons,” and Hillary acknowledges that an unborn baby is a person, therefore, unborn babies deserve the full protection of the law like any other person.
Read related article: “This One Question Stops Pro-Abortionists In Their Tracks.”
Unborn babies are persons deserving the full protection of the law, not because of the Constitution, but because God designates them as persons. No authority resides in the Supreme Court to rule that an “unborn baby” or an “unborn person” can be killed because of a woman’s conscience, faith, family, or doctor
If these are the criteria for moral decision making, then why stop with a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby?
After Hillary’s remarks, Planned Parenthood went into immediate damage control. Hillary used language that pro-abortionists are ever permitted to use:
“Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, said Sunday that Mrs. Clinton’s comments undermined the cause for abortion rights. . . . Describing the fetus as a ‘person’ or ‘child’ has long been anathema to the pro-choice movement, which argues the terms misleadingly imply a sense of humanity.
“In addition, the specific term ‘person’ is a legal concept that includes rights and statuses that the law protects, including protection of a person’s life under the laws against homicide. Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a ‘life,’ it is not yet a ‘person.’
“Guidelines issued by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discourage pro-choice advocates from using terms such as ‘abort a child,’ instead recommending ‘more accurate/appropriate’ alternatives such as ‘end a pregnancy’ or ‘have an abortion.’
“‘Abort a child’ is medically inaccurate, as the fetus is not yet a child,’ the guide reads. ‘Terminate’ a pregnancy is commonly used, however some people prefer to avoid this as terminate may have negative connotations (e.g., ‘terminator or assassinate’) for some people.
“The guidebook also advises against the terms ‘baby,’ ‘dead fetus,’ ‘unborn baby’ or ‘unborn child’ when discussing what it is that’s being aborted. Instead, it recommends the terms ‘embryo,’ ‘fetus’ and ‘the pregnancy.’” (Source)
Planned Parenthood never wants a pregnant woman to be told that she’s aborting her baby. Hillary just gave away the secret to the trick that’s been used to fool pregnant women for decades.
Read related article: “Planned Parenthood Is the One Punishing Women.”
Hillary’s a lawyer. She should be familiar with the 1857 Dred Scott decision on the personhood of blacks as the legal designation “person” relates to the Constitution:
“Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution — in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.” (Source)
In both Supreme Court decisions, personhood was on the line. In both cases who was or wasn’t a person in terms of the Constitution affected the lives of human beings. But since the Supreme Court made the ruling, blacks could be enslaved and unborn babies can be killed.
Do we want this double-minded woman to be President of the United States? Her thinking processes are irrational, unhistorical, unconstitutional, and immoral.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com