Hillary Clinton Says Unborn Person Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights

Hillary_ClintonYep, you read the headline right. Just in case you’re wondering if all that jazz about Hillary Clinton being a “moderate” rings true, these pearls of wisdom dripped from her lips on the Sunday edition of NBC’s Meet The Press.

While discussing her position on abortion, the career corruptocrat said under our laws currently “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Partial transcript as follows:

TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion.

CLINTON: My position is in line with Row v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe  v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years.

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.

Here’s a link to the video.

Just for the sake of argument: If an “unborn person”  doesn’t have any constitutional rights, what other “person” can be denied same? And once we start down that slippery slope, where does it end? There was also that pesky Dred Scott thing awhile back. But hey, what difference does it make?

This story first appeared on BuzzPo

H/T: Breitbart

Phil Jensen


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

A multi-published author and recovering Democrat, Kristine Lowder is a native Californian recently transplanted to the People's Republic of Washington State. She still refuses to cede her life, fortune, or sacred honor to liberal Nazgul or anyone else with poor eyesight. Kristine is a graduate of Biola University. You can find her online at: Kristine Lowder, Writer or at Conservelocity.
Kristine Lowder
View all articles by Kristine Lowder
Print Friendly
  • Thisoldspouse

    I heard that Hillary enraged the pro-abortion (not ‘choice’) lobby by having the unmitigated gall to refer to the unborn as “persons.” Now, she has to back pedal, like she did when she praised Nancy Reagan.

    • DCM7

      Her use of the word “person” certainly jumps out. It’s not surprising that people in the abortion lobby would have an issue with that, since they’re among those who fight viciously against clear, basic reality.

    • Bad slip-up on her part. That’s the thing about the truth: no matter how vigilantly evil guards against it, sooner or later, it slips through.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Yep. The euphemisms that the left must employ to pass off their insanity gives them away to thinking people. Consider the “transgender” nonsense. How can it be “trans-” unless there is a change from something that is true before to something else that repudiates that truth?