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.