Hillary: Unborn children have no rights?

By 65 Comments 2,352 views

hillary government


“Child” is defined as “a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.”

“Person” is defined as “a human being regarded as an individual.”

“Human being” is defined as “a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

There’s nothing here about being born.

Hillary made some waves this weekend when she asserted that unborn persons have no rights.

Todd asked Clinton “if an unborn child has constitutional rights” and Clinton replied, “Well, under our laws, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

An “unborn person”, i.e. not a “child.” Then she immediately backpedaled:

“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 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 vs. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”

Bernie Sanders agreed that there is no “constitutional protection for the unborn.”

Planned Parenthood went apesh*t:

Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, said Sunday that Mrs. Clinton’s comments undermined the cause for abortion rights.

The comment “further stigmatizes #abortion,” Ms. Arellano said in a tweet. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.”

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.

The question arises- why do any of us have to contribute to pre-natal care for pregnant women? The things in the belly have no Constitutional rights, no protections. We as a nation ought not be obligated to pay for any of it- including abortions. Moreover, a man who wanted to avoid the financial burden of a child could conceivably inject a baby due the next day with potassium chloride to stop its heart and the only charge he’d face would be battery of the mother. The child born prematurely has Constitutional rights that the child going to full term does not. Think about that for a minute.

But as always, liberals are full of shit. When Chelsea Clinton announced her pregnancy she referred to the thing in her belly as a child:

In a surprise announcement and with her mother, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, looking on, Chelsea, 34, said she and husband Marc Mezvinsky are “very excited” and “lucky” to welcome child into their family.

“I just hope that I will be as good a mom to my child and hopefully children as my mom was to me,” Chelsea said.

And so did a Clinton spokesman:

A Clinton spokesman later said the baby is due in the fall.

Not “future child.” Not “the thing that shall become a child when it’s born.”

A child.

This is so characteristic of liberals. If the thing in the belly is wanted, it’s a child. If not, it’s not a child. If the thing in the belly is in the belly of one’s daughter, it is a child.

Exit question: Chelsea Clinton is again pregnant. Does her baby, being of Clinton blood, have any Constitutional rights?

The Constitution is supposed to protect the most vulnerable among us. It is inconceivable that the Founders would exclude the unborn from those protections. James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, wrote:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

It is a slippery and dangerous slope once the definition of life and the rights accorded to life is entirely dependent on the whims of people- dependent on whether a child is wanted or not. It is not a long journey to the place where to where one’s rights dissolve once one is comatose, asleep or simply old. One can easily imagine waking to see Hillary Clinton standing over you, a hand on each end of a pillow closing in on your face. Hillary once said “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Your rights and your life could be among those things.

If a mom to be asks you to feel the baby kick and you don’t think that that child is worthy of rights and life, you are one sick bastard.


DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

65 Responses to “Hillary: Unborn children have no rights?”

  1. 51



    I wonder why no one in support of unfettered abortion will answer the question of when it is safe to kill a molecular mass as opposed to when a human life is present?

    I think we have the answer to Richie’s problems of ‘eating meat’. They should just abort the calves, cut their throat when they leave the birth canal and it won’t yet be ‘beef’. It will only be a ‘something’ other than a life. Then people can eat all that unborn cow and still not be eating meat. Wow, little did I ever think abortionists would solve a problem, but now vegan’s can eat all the ‘unborn something’ they want to without it being meat. I don’t think anyone has thought of this before.

  2. 52


    @Rich Wheeler:

    Clearly the majority of the electorate agree with you and me that Kasich is the best choice for POTUS.

    So if the ‘majority’ means anything, you are saying that of all the people that have stated in a manner that matters, a vote, that a majority of them have voted for Kasich? If they’re not voting that way, what difference does their ‘agreement’ make?

  3. 61

    Rich Wheeler

    @DrJohn: Strictly hypothetical
    5 candidates -2 debates held by Fox and CNN
    Vote for one for POTUS
    I see it Kasich 30% HRC 23% Sanders 17% Trump 16% Cruz 14%

    Anyone can play.

  4. 63


    @Rich Wheeler: Big win here in Wisconsin, I wish Trump would have been a bit classier in his concession speech.
    I do a tiny happy dance long way to go, on to the White House.
    Hillary loss here too.

  5. 65

    Rich Wheeler

    @kitt: Why would you expect anything resembling class from Trump?—He doubled down on crass and boorish. As the noose tightens, expect the worst from this narcissist who is devoid of any humility.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *