Matt Walsh:
If you didn’t watch Wednesday night’s debate, I commend you. Clearly, you value your free time and your psychological and emotional health more than I value my own. But if you’re now relying on media reports to give you an idea of what took place, you must have the impression that there were only two notable moments during the entire 90 minute event:
First, there was Trump refusing to say he’d accept the results of the election.
Second, there was Trump calling Clinton a “nasty woman.”
Much hand wringing has ensued over both of these remarks, but the hysteria over the “nasty woman” comment has been especially overblown. After all, you can’t fault the guy for making a factual observation. Virtually everyone who has ever been around her and lived to tell about it has confirmed that she is, in fact, a nasty human being. Even her personal security, who put their lives on the line to protect her, have reported that she treats them like filth. According to former secret service agents, a conversation between Clinton and her security staff could go like this:
Security: “Good morning, ma’am.”
Clinton: “F**k off.”
Nasty? I’d say so.
Speaking of nasty, there was one other exchange last night that I think warrants further discussion — although the media would much rather move on and pretend it didn’t happen. Breaking the longstanding tradition of ignoring the abortion issue completely during presidential debates, moderator Chris Wallace actually brought the subject up within the first 15 minutes. Clinton, of course, spoke glowingly about Planned Parenthood and warned that disaster would surely strike if the billion dollar abortion conglomerate ever stops receiving its monthly welfare checks from the government. When Wallace pressed her to explain “how far the right to abortion goes,” Clinton confirmed that she believes late term and partial birth abortion should be legal:
“The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.”
In Clinton’s mind, murdering a fully developed infant in the ninth month of pregnancy is a “personal decision.” It should be noted that late term abortions are neveractually needed to save the life of the mother, and in fact are much more likely to endanger the mother’s life. But notice that Clinton also stipulates that partial birth abortion should be an option in case “something has been discovered about the pregnancy.” This kind of vague qualifier is just another way of saying that there should simply be no restrictions on abortions at all, from conception all the way to birth. To defend her extremist pro-abortion position, she makes a very chilling comparison:
“I’ve been to countries where governments forced women to have abortions like they did in China or force women to bear children like they used to do in Romania.”
Clinton is drawing a moral equivalence between a government that forces a woman to kill her child and a government that doesn’t allow a woman to kill her child. That’s not just radical, it’s demented.
Later on in the debate, when the discussion turned to immigration, Clinton attempted to transition from ruthless baby killer mode to compassionate grandmother mode. Using a phrase popular among open border proponents, she chastised Republicans for wanting to “rip families apart” by enforcing our immigration laws. I couldn’t help but see the irony in the fact that Clinton is opposed to metaphorically“ripping families apart” but not in the least bit opposed to literally, physically, ripping babies apart.
Make no mistake, late term abortion — the procedure that Hillary Clinton passionately endorses – means actually tearing fully formed children apart, limb by limb. In this video (warning: very graphic), an abortionist explains exactly how the babies are ripped to shreds during second trimester abortions. Note: there arewell over 100 thousand of these kinds of abortions performed each year. During the procedure, the child is torn apart and extracted piece by piece with a pair of sharpened forceps. When all the limbs have been removed, the baby’s head is crushed. The abortionist knows that the head has been crushed when it sees the child’s brain oozing out of the mother’s birth canal. Hillary Clinton defended this on stage last night.
In the third trimester (warning: also very graphic), viable infants ranging from 24 weeks to term are stabbed in the head with a poison needle. The baby usually dies an excruciatingly painful death, and the mother is left to carry the dead baby around in her womb for a couple of days. If she goes into labor while outside of the abortion clinic, she’ll be advised to deliver her dead child into a toilet. If she doesn’t go into labor, she’ll be sent back to the abortion clinic where the child will be torn out of the womb in pieces. Hillary Clinton defended this on stage last night.
But it doesn’t end there. Hillary supports the currently illegal practice of partial birth abortion. In this procedure, a fully developed and viable infant child is delivered, alive, until only his head remains inside the birth canal. The abortionist then punctures the child’s skull and sucks his brains out through a tube. After the brains are removed, the child’s skull is shattered, and the dead and mangled baby is finally delivered. As we’ve learned from undercover videos, the child will likely be harvested for parts before being discarded in a medial waste bin. Hillary Clinton defended this on stage last night.
We need to rip the United Nations apart they are a total failuer and we need to end this club of scoundrels and tear up all those UN treaties
She said she would uphold the law and that it is not the role of government to impose rules in one of the most difficult and PERSONAL decisions a woman can make. Nice try a bombast.
The government has no constitutional authority or moral right to deprive women of sovereign authority over their own bodies and their own reproductive function.
Having that sovereign authority and personal freedom means that women will sometimes made personal decisions that others don’t agree with. Those who disagree are free to make different decisions regarding their own lives. Among other things, freedom means that you don’t always get to have everything your own way. That’s one of its costs.
I get weary of the way anti-choice propagandists frame the right of choice in lurid terms to distract from the underlying principle that Clinton is actually defending, and has always defended: that women have a constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise sovereign authority and control over their own bodies. It’s a fundamental principle that the left will never abandon. Logical and philosophical consistency require its fierce defense, even if one personally disagrees with the choices some people will make when they exercise that freedom.
@Greg:
Greg tying for the democrat party should Google kermit gosnell..
@Greg:
Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. To assure that this does not happen is one of the reasons Clinton’s election is being supported by a strong majority of women voters. They will not see the various rights that they and others have won through decades of political struggle taken away by a dysfunctional, morally bankrupt political party led by angry old white men who can’t deal with the fact that times and attitudes have changed.
@Greg:
What various rights are in danger?
@July 4th American, #6:
Is that not obvious? The right of personal choice that some people wish to eliminate; a woman’s fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority and control over her own body and her own reproductive function; the right for her most private medical business to be kept between herself and her doctor, without some posturing elected official entering in and dictating what she may or may not choose to do regarding a pregnancy.
@Greg:
You said rights, plural, the various rights that they and others have won through decades of political struggle.
What other rights are in danger?
@July 4th American, #9:
Refer to post #8. A woman’s fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority and control over her own body and her own reproductive function would be one thing threatened. The right to medical confidentiality—that is the right for her most private medical business to be kept between herself and her doctor—would be yet another. Additionally, given that some republicans have promoted a Constitutional amendment conferring personhood from the moment of conception, the right to choose oral contraceptives as a means of birth control could also be called into question.
The fact that Planned Parenthood has been under serious attack has had the effect of depriving women in some locations of ready access to family planning counseling, to birth control products, and to STD and reproductive health screening. Further, there have been state laws designed to deprive women of information regarding access to abortion services, and to provide deceptive information intended to influence decisions. Do women have some fundamental right to expect truth rather than government-promoted lies when they seek objective information?
I’ll let you do the counting, but it’s clear were talking about more than one right that is threatened. The fact that a right wasn’t specifically enumerated in a document written over 200 years ago doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be deduced by the Supreme Court that such a right is in the intended spirit of that document. The Founders understood that the world changes. Addressing new issues that weren’t specifically dealt with at the time is one of the intended functions of the Court.
Roe V Wade was based on a false premise: that Miss Roe had been raped.
She had not.
Then it relied on an imaginary ”penumbra” of the Constitution which never existed for any other decision.
Then, it limited abortions, but appeals, based on it, led to abortion on demand up to the day of birth.
If Hillary is elected WE taxpayers will foot the bill, too.
And what was achieved?
The loss of over 55 million Americans.
Many more of them blacks than their proportion of our population.
How is that a good thing?
The argument by the pro-abortion activists on the left has been and is flawed. Roe v Wade is flawed law, an example of judicial activism.
It can be said that the SC violated the spirit of the Law when it falsely legislated law over established laws of the various states. One can not believe in the Constitution and inalienable rights and simultaneously say Roe is good law.
http://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/due-process/c96b/#03
These emendations of penumbras make a mockery of a written Constitution.
We run the substantive risk of having legal contracts overturned because a later court ruling finds some newly discovered “right” to have been violated in said contract.
What businessman in his/her right mind would engage in contracts, knowing that the contracts were only valid until overturned in a future court of law?
What businessman would make a projection, in order to set up future financing, on his business prospects, knowing that he had no control over the future contract law governing his business? One cannot even make a good-faith estimate of future health costs!
Roe, and other such cases, are an inducement to anarchy,.
Interesting they defend womans right to terminate her unwanted child at any stage of development often citing rape, but lament her right to carry a gun and prevent the rape from happening, even saying it is to protect us from toddlers with guns.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/how_scalia_and_ted_cruz_saved_the_2nd_amendment.ht
@Greg: it is murder to kill a full term child. your buddy obama was one of three senators who voted for trimester abortion. He was all for leaving the child to die on a table if the abortion was Unsuccessful . Read up on it, you will find it is true.
Ironic hil- liary wants to,take guns away from toddlers yet willingly will kill late term babies. She speaks out of her ass most of the time.
The communist flag flying over the democrat convention with no American flag in sight was no mistake.
@Enchanted, #15:
Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB/GYN, says Donald Trump hasn’t got a clue what he’s ranting about: Donald Trump confuses birth with abortion and no, there are no ninth month abortions
Cecily Kellogg, a woman who had to undergo the late termination of a pregnancy in order not to die, is far more angry when she expresses her feelings about Mr. Trump’s asinine comments: F–k You, Trump. My baby was “ripped out of my womb” because I was going to die. Don’t click if her language might offend you. She herself was mightily offended, and didn’t hold anything back when she wrote about it.
Hillary Clinton is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice. That’s the case with most people who take her side in this issue. I have never talked to anyone who is actually pro-abortion.
@Greg:
mrs clintons positions on guns and abortion are, to use her own word, “horrifying.”
@Greg: #15, geeze you are dense, a life saving medical proceedure where the doctor does his best to save the wanted child, is not an abortion, an abortion where the child is not wanted, you link to a triggered woman who if she lost her baby everyone has sympathy for, even a Catholic hospital would allow.
Partial birth abortion has been illegal since 2003, and should remain illegal.
PP doesnt even want the law where the doctor must have admitting privileges, it is rare but not unheard of that life threatening complications occur, but if this argument is about womens health….