Hillary Clinton Says This ‘Person’ Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights

Mom and Baby hands

Just in case you’re wondering if all that claptrap about Hillary Clinton being a “moderate” rings true, these pearls of wisdom dripped from the DemoLib front-runner’s 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 one more reason why friends don’t let friends vote DemoLib.

Now then. Just for the sake of argument:

  • If an “unborn person” isn’t a “person” entitled to equal protection under the law, then what is it?
  • If an “unborn person” doesn’t have any constitutional rights, what other “person” can be denied same?
  • Once we start down that slippery slope, where does it end?

There’s also that pesky Dred Scott thing awhile back. Dems were on the wrong side of that one, too.

But hey, what difference does it make?

 

H/T: Breitbart

This story by this writer first appeared on BuzzPo

Advertisements