Hillary Ok with Due Date Abortions

So, according to Frau Clinton, unborn children have no constitutional rights, and that includes fully-developed babies on their due date. The following is a partial transcript of her interview with ABC’s The View:

PAULA FARIS: And Secretary, I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on Meet the Press regarding abortion. You said, quote, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” My question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?

HILLARY CLINTON: Under our law, that is the case, Paula. I support Roe versus Wade because I think it is an important — an important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses: her doctor, her faith, her family. And under the law and under certainly that decision, that is the way we structure it.

Defenders of Frau Clinton may argue that she is merely acknowledging what she thinks the law is under Roe v. Wade, but that exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the decision she cites. Under Roe:

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164]   during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The states, then, may prohibit abortion after “viability.” The caveat to “preserve the…health of the mother” notwithstanding, Clinton’s insistence that the Constitution guarantees a woman the choice to murder her baby may be an expression of her personal view of the Constitution, but it does not reflect the current state of the law.

If Clinton believed otherwise, she could have easily stated that killing a fully-developed, viable baby via abortion is a moral outrage, and that the right to life of an unborn child should constitutionally extend to the same. She could also have said that the states should be free to proscribe late-term abortions, but of course she said none of that. In her mind, she clearly believes that women have the moral right to kill their babies. Those who defended slavery look like saints by comparison.

Frau Hillary Clinton is not only a pathological liar, she is a moral monster.

Wisconsin Goes Decisively for Ted Cruz
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners April 1, 2016
  • Paul Hooson

    I hate this election. I don’t like most of the candidates.

    • Commander_Chico

      Why? Trump lives like you but with more money and hotter women.

    • Constitution First


      Given most abortions are of minorities, blacks in particular, wouldn’t it seem that this is Eugenics hard at work eliminating minorities in general and blacks in particular? Is Clinton so dumb she doesn’t understand this? I don’t think so.


        “Given most abortions are of minorities, blacks in particular, wouldn’t
        it seem that this is Eugenics hard at work eliminating minorities in
        general and blacks in particular?”

        Well, they aren’t “forced” abortions.

        • jim_m

          So you are obviously completely ignorant of the eugenics agenda that drove Margaret Sanger and the formation of Planned Parenthood.

          And yes the express purpose of both Sanger and PP was to murder black babies in the womb and prevent the contamination of our society. Her ideas, not mine.

      • Paul Hooson

        I’m generally prolife myself, but I don’t agree with your reasoning here. Many poorer women might already have too large of a family or cannot afford more children where economics likely drives many abortions.

  • Commander_Chico

    Obviously wrong on the law, does not understand Roe v Wade and she is supposed to be a lawyer.


  • Vagabond661

    They are taking the Schrödinger’s cat approach to life. Why not just say life ends when there is no heartbeat, therefore life begins with a heartbeat?

  • pennywit

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey, not Roe v. Wade, is the most recent significant abortion case. Casey threw out the trimester framework in favor of viability and the “undue burden” test.

  • Wild_Willie

    When our country officially drew a line in the sand to say when someone is human and when one wasn’t began a decay in our society. Huge, huge mistake. Isn’t even centered on law. I am not positive as anyone, but I will always err on the side of life. ww

    • Scalia

      I hear what you’re saying, and I upticked your comment, but I believe our decay started much earlier than Roe v. Wade. Lincoln saw it in his day. Selfishness breeds things like abortion, and that took hold of our society long before 1973.

      • Wild_Willie

        I should have been more precise. The ‘big’ decay started with RvW but when God was thrown out of school in 64 kids forgot that the world is much bigger then themselves. ww

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          You think there should be religion in public schools?

          • Scalia

            You asked WW, but I’ll answer with an absolute yes!

    • jim_m

      Worse. Once government arrogates to itself the power to declare who is deserving of rights and who is not rights cease to exist. When government can pick and choose who it wants to have those rights it is the same as determining whether the rights exist in the first place.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Seems like an extreme point of view to me.

  • Hank_M

    “In her mind, she clearly believes that women have the moral right to kill their babies. ”

    Maybe so, but the MSM will proclaim that Hillary supports women’s rights.

  • 914

    I believe in overdue executions carried out for lying treasonous politicians like Hillary..