Image 01 Image 03

Hillary: Unborn Person Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights

Hillary: Unborn Person Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights


Sitting here in my third trimester, chugging ice water and enjoying the blessing of air conditioning, our little one wiggles and jiggles in my womb. The bigger she gets, the more she makes my belly dance. It’s an incredible experience. So I have a particularly difficult time with Hillary’s argument; an argument mirrored by the pro-infanticide crowd.

Should she arrive early, Baby Love would be “viable” (since that seems to be an important distinction for pro-abort types), meaning she can survive outside of the womb. The instances of clinical abortion specifically for the health the mother are so few, it’s not even a meritorious discussion. Most are for the lifestyle of the mother, with no regard to the potential of the life in the womb. How women who have nurtured an unborn child through birth can honestly support such flimsy non arguments is not something I’ll ever understand.

Hillary Clinton:
“My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother.”

Hillary went to visit the ladies on ABC’s ‘The View’ Monday, where she was asked when an unborn child has Constitutional rights.

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 v. Wade because I think it is an important (Applause) — 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.”

Her remarks aren’t new, and neither is the argument, but consider that at thirty-one weeks, all five senses are formed. Our baby girls can hear us, she knows the voices she hears the most (and goes wild every time she hears her Daddy), she can feel pain, she doesn’t like being poked by nurses, but responds with wiggles when I rub my belly. But in Hillary’s America, she has zero rights and zero protections, and an abortionist can shove a needle filled with poison into the baby’s heart, causing cardiac arrest and ultimately death. If the poison isn’t enough, then they’ll just pull the baby apart, piece by piece.

Abortions of any kind are gruesome, particularly in the third trimester. Induction abortions are most common in the third trimester:

Day 1: To help ensure the baby will be delivered dead and not alive, the abortionist uses a large needle to inject digoxin or potassium chloride through the woman’s abdomen or vagina, targeting the baby’s heart, torso, or head. When the digoxin takes effect, the lethal dose causes a fatal cardiac arrest, and the baby’s life will end. (Even if the needle misses the baby, digoxin can still kill the baby when released into the amniotic sack, but will usually take longer to kill the child.)

During the same visit, the abortionist inserts multiple laminaria sticks, or sterilized seaweed, to open up the woman’s cervix.

Day 2: The abortionist replaces the laminaria and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure that the baby is dead. If the child is still alive, the abortionist administers a second lethal dose of digoxin or potassium chloride. During this visit, the abortionist may administer labor-inducing drugs.

The woman goes back to where she is staying while her cervix continues to dilate. The woman will usually wait a period of two to four days for her cervix to dilate enough for her to deliver the dead baby.

Day 3 or 4: The woman returns to the clinic to deliver her dead baby. If she goes into labor before she can make it to the abortion clinic in time, she will deliver her baby at home or in a hotel room. During this time, a woman may be advised to sit on a bathroom toilet until the abortionist arrives. If she can make it to the clinic, she will do so during her most heavy and severe contractions and deliver the dead baby.

If the child does not come out whole, the procedure becomes a D&E, or a dilation and evacuation. The abortionist uses clamps and forceps to dismember and remove the baby piece by piece.

Hillary is careful to keep her supposed thoughts on baby rights a legal issue as opposed to a moral one. It might be smart politically, but it doesn’t change the reality of the abortion procedure or the fact that life full of promise has been ended prematurely.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Every time in our history we’ve legally denied a class of human beings Constitutional rights, it’s been a very bad idea.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | August 1, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    The entire “health of the mother” exception is a red herring. As Kaye noted, the circumstances of real medical problems that could not be addressed without killing the baby are so rare as to be moot. But press an abortion advocate, and they will reveal their non-negotiable insistence that “mental health” be included.

    IOW, if the doctor who will be paid to abort the child will sign a statement saying the woman is upset, it’s okay. It’s not a loophole – loopholes have some outer limits.

    And every time we’ve done it, only violence has resolved the problem. 1861.

Trannys have rights, why not babies?

You know what they do with the babies after they have been aborted? Well, I won’t elaborate but will just say this: On resurrection morning there will be more folks rising from the landfill than the cemetery.

The law doesn’t matter because a higher law apples. Abortion is malum in se. It is monstrous for a woman to kill her child. It is depraved when a society permits it. And it is worse when a society pays for it.

so she supports over riding the dual charges when someone injures a mother causing her to lose the baby?
nah….she wants her cake and to eat it too…

DieJustAsHappy | August 1, 2016 at 7:11 pm

“The unborn person …” Person. She said “person.” I would like to hear her definition of personhood, because what she is advocating is murder by her own words. I do believe her-scuzziness makes another case why as much distance as possible ought to be put between her and the Oval Office.

    Mike H. in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 1, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    My thoughts exactly.


    n 1: a human being; “there was too much for one person to do” [syn: person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, soul]
    2: a human body (usually including the clothing); “a weapon was hidden on his person”

      rabidfox in reply to Mike H.. | August 3, 2016 at 12:41 pm

      And, if one set of ‘persons’ can be exempt from the law’s protection, why not another set? Mental defectives or the insane? The handicapped or the elderly? Those that don’t accept the political zeitgeist? That’s a pretty big nose she’s trying to insert under the tent.

It’s curious–apparently, illegal aliens have more rights that unborn Americans.

I don’t know how you hold these conflicting notions in one brain.

    MattMusson in reply to kaf. | August 2, 2016 at 8:57 am

    It takes a small brain to hold that notion – “Four legs good. Two legs bad.”

Fetuses don’t vote and can’t donate millions to the Clintons.

She’s a nauseating human being, isn’t she?
This is just the cherry on top of a rotten cake called ‘Hillary Clinton.

An right there you have another reason why Hillary Clinton should not be President.

    Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | August 1, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    I totally agree. But it would not mark any change from having had the MOST pro-abortion POTUS in history. If anything, Barracula is even more extreme in his views and his voting history.

Enough with the excuses . One after another on why the “choice” should be yours . In reality All it really is is the excuse to play God and Live in convienience. This world has taught us , me me me me !! By judgement day it will be too late for this world .

Hillary is careful to keep her supposed thoughts on baby rights a legal issue as opposed to a moral one.

But elections are political.

You don’t resolve policy choices based on moral issues with a vote. The time-honored way to resolve them is with a war—cf. 1861.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 1, 2016 at 8:11 pm

    This is one of the silliest canards going.

    Virtually EVERY law (including environmental law) is based in morality.

    The old saw about “Not legislating morality” is surpassingly stupid. You can’t legislate VIRTUE (which is conduct). You damn sure DO legislate morality (which is a societal norm).

First, they excised Posterity from the Constitution.

Second, they [literally] disarmed the babies.

Then they cannibalized her remains for lucre and exotic cars.

Twilighters have a sincere faith in the fantasy of spontaneous conception. They receive their religious instruction from gods in the twilight zone and preached by liberal judges.

It’s a cult.

Hillary has stated that our rights all depend on needed regulations.

Thus, she has said that we lesser souls have the right to exist depending on following her regulations; eg, that the unborn baby is like the rest of us, if that is the wish of our rulers.

IMHO: Were Hillary to be elected POTUS, our nation will dissolve into fragments or become a tyranny.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Doug Wright. | August 1, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    “Trump and the Politics of Moral Outrage” by Victor D. Hanson

    I found this to be an interesting read. It concludes with the following:

    “Like it or not, this election is about degree, relative political agendas, and comparative hazard, not about marrying ideological purity and consistency with sobriety and character — a sad fact that did not enter our politics with Donald J. Trump.”

      Ragspierre in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 1, 2016 at 8:46 pm

      I read that several days back.

      I found it uncharacteristically full of moral relativism for VDH. He does not like T-rump one bit, but his message was really quite equivocal. A lot of ambiguity and temporizing. Not like VDH at all.

I am not a woman, and therefore cannot say that I know what it’s like to have a little person growing inside. But I have two kids that I love more than anything, and I was there in the hospital room when my wife had to give birth to a dead baby girl. Not our choice, of course.
My point is, I have been involved.

There is something that you pointed out, and it’s about the development of the senses in the fetus. Babies start hearing sound around week 18. By week 25-26 they can already respond to auditory stimuli.
You’ve probably heard people advising you to play music for your baby. Please do. It works! And it also works to talk to her, and Daddy should do the same too. It works! I know because I’ve done it.
Babies can not hear the same way we do, for sound travels differently in air and liquids. But your baby will learn to identify your voice, and she will be able to identify sound patterns, and right there you will be helping develop his/her brain. And one day, months down the road, you will notice that he or she will recognize those sound patterns as a toddler. Just wait and see.

I did all those “crazy” things for my babies.
People would laugh, call us crazy. “He cannot understand you,” they would say. “You’re wasting your time.”
Guess what?
Both my kids turned out to be extremely smart, freakish smart. Now the same people that used to call me crazy, well, they now call me “lucky”. “It’s genetic,” they say now.
They can say whatever they want, but I know I am right. And I proved it. It’s not luck.

Hillary Clinton can say her own stupid idiocies too, but we know for a fact that those tiny little human beings are probably smarter than her. And if they don’t have Constitutional rights, they should. They deserve those rights more than Hillary Clinton. And if she thinks it’s OK to murder one of those innocent human beings so that somebody can go on “living la vida loca,” she is not the right person for the job. She’s not even a good human being.

    quiksilverz24 in reply to Exiliado. | August 2, 2016 at 12:33 am

    100% agree. When our first daughter was born, she didn’t cry AT ALL. Doctor delivered her, put her on my wife’s chest, then the eye movements. As we talked to her, she moved her eyes back and forth between the two of us. She knew who she heard, then she SAW who she could hear for those past few months.

    It takes a special kind of sick person to “terminate” a pregnancy.

    Oh yeah, and the first picture I sent not to the family was to the Professor. He sent his congratulations.

What a difference 8 years makes. At Rick Warren’s Saddleback form, Obama
said “It’s above my pay grade.” Remember his born alive bill in Illinois? Didn’nt
talk about it.

Now Hillary as the nominee says babies up
until they are born have no constitutional rights?
Roe v. Wade is her bible. Abortion is a sacrament.
Now they aren’t even faking it. Obama was a “blank screen.”
Hillary is a blank scream.

And yet these people have tears innumerable to shed for Cecil the Lion, Smarty Jones, that recent zoo ape, etc.

Best of luck with your baby! Get ready for a few weeks of little sleep and plenty of stresses, but it gets a lot better pretty quickly. Remind yourself there will be full nights of sleep again.

Tell me “Baby Love” is not an excuse to use a Supremes song as a lullaby.

When are we going to get serious about ending abortion using ALL legal tools available?

It is clear that the USSC is going to do everything it can to keep it legal and prevent even the most common sense restrictions of the facilities and the abortion providers.

There is one way to achieve what the vast majority of people want with abortion, and to hold the Left to their oft repeated lie that they too want the procedure to be “rare”.

Isn’t it time to tax abortions?

…and I don’t mean a tax on labor like a car mechanic is taxed when they work on a car. I mean a Tax-The-Ever-Loving-Snot out of it tax on the procedure itself!

It starts at a flat $5,000 tax (or $7500, or $10000…or whatever it takes) for abortions performed in the first trimester. Then it is taxed at an additional $1000 per WEEK for every week after the first trimester (as determined by an independent board).

Exemptions would be made available:

Health of the Mother: Upon certification by an independent board – not the mother and her doc – that the abortion is MEDICALLY necessary to prevent a risk to the life of the mother, 100% of the tax would be waived.

Indigence: If the mother claims indigence, half of the tax would be assigned to the father. If the father is not identifiable, DNA would be recovered from the remains and once a father was identified, the remainder of the tax would be assessed to him. Any taxes assessed against anyone claiming indigence can be recovered from any future state or federal tax refunds in lieu of requiring direct payment of the tax.

A Claim of Rape or Incest: The mother must actively assist-with the investigation to identify a suspect and agree to the prosecution of any identified suspect. If she does, the tax would be waived for her, but assessed against the father once he is identified. If it is determined that the mother is not actively assisting-with the investigation (e.g., she refuses to aid LE, participate in the prosecution, or it is determined that she was not truthful) 100% of the tax would be re-assessed against her.

Payment of taxes by a third-party: Should any third-party (e.g., not the mother or father) desire to pay the taxes on behalf of the mother, the payments would be taxed at the same rate as wages earned by the mother, not as a gift. This way, all those that rant and rave about it can donate to pay the taxes and the payment is treated as regular wages….which they would be if the mother or father earned the money to pay the tax themselves.

If a nexus were necessary to justify the tax, the nexus is that the abortion removes a future tax payer from the future tax rolls. By taxing the abortion itself, the State recovers some of the taxes that the aborted person would have paid.

The advantage to this method of controlling abortions is that those that support abortions-on-demand must attack the inviolate taxing authority of the legislature…you know, the inviolate authority that was recently used to tax us into buying a product from a private entity. (Sound familiar?). Should they be successful, they will have opened the door and provided the path to legally attack every Socialist-Progressive tax-and-spend program ever created or dreamed of. What a dilemma for them, no?

    Another Ed in reply to MJN1957. | August 2, 2016 at 12:38 am

    What does the Law Center to Prevent Uterine Violence have to say about this proposal?

    You put a lot of thought into this. The details could be negotiable but I like your thought.

    The left love taxes. They’ll tax anything they can. Why should this area be an exception? Handled properly, this could put them in a bad situation.

      MJN1957 in reply to secondwind. | August 2, 2016 at 10:06 am

      That is the point…use ‘their’ favorite tools against them for ‘our’ purposes.

      Let them fight it in court in a lose/lose scenario for them. Either they lose the case outright on the authority of a legislature to levy taxes, or they lose if they ‘win’ this case by setting a precedent for how any other taxing authority can be attacked and rolled-back.

      The primary advantage is that it achieves the goal of making abortion rarer than it is without getting into the areas of “settled law” where abortion opponents lose too often.

    Milhouse in reply to MJN1957. | August 3, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    This could only work if the “tax” is in fact a tax and not a penalty. Calling it a tax can’t change that. That was the whole point of the 0bamacare decision, which for all the ranting on this and other right-wing blogs, was in fact solidly based on the long-established precedent that courts don’t give a damn what Congress calls something, they look only at what the thing is. Congress routinely lies, and the courts are not bound to pretend to believe those lies. That is what the Supreme Court said in the 1930s, when it struck down just such a “tax” as an illegal penalty, and that’s what it affirmed when it upheld the 0bamacare tax despite Congress falsely calling it a penalty.

    For one thing the level of taxation must be set to a level that people can be reasonably expected to actually pay rather than choose not to abort. If it’s set so high that no revenue is expected, because people are expected to choose not to abort rather than pay it, then it’s really a penalty for something that isn’t illegal, and the courts will strike it down.

    Indigence: If the mother claims indigence, half of the tax would be assigned to the father. If the father is not identifiable, DNA would be recovered from the remains and once a father was identified, the remainder of the tax would be assessed to him

    1. How can you justify this? 2. What is the purpose? The father has no say in whether the child is aborted, so why should he pay the tax for it just because she can’t? And how does making him pay it make the abortion less likely (which of course is your real goal, even if you manage to hide it from judicial cognisance)?

If it has no rights, how can killing it be murder? That’s exactly what you’ll be charged with if you were, for example, to punch a pregnant woman in the belly and the baby dies.

If only we named the unborn – lets start with Dred Scott.

Hillary Clinton has set herself up as GOD…! GOD’S laws are higher than man’s/woman’s laws and Hillary will be denied her eternal rights in the same way she has denied these little human being their rights….!! Eternity is a long time, Hillary…!! Think about it…!!

This from a party who says, “we have to do it for the children” all the time.

It doesn’t appear that anyone has pointed this out yet, but from a legal perspective, she has completely misrepresented the holding in Roe. It specifically sets up a balancing test in which the rights of the fetus ARE weighed.