Clinton says straightforwardly, the unborn child has no constitutional rights

By Dave Andrusko

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chuck Todd

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chuck Todd

While you just never know when/where egregiously inane pro-abortion statements will pop up, if Hillary Clinton is being questioned, there’s a pretty good chance of hearing something as garbled as it is morally incoherent.

So on Sunday Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd used the tremendous controversy stirred by Donald Trump’s serial explanations of where he was on abortion to ask Mrs. Clinton

I want to ask you, what is yours? Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion.

Well, that’s like asking a pretzel maker to straighten out the dough. Clinton already has her half-baked “position” on abortion and unless you are much more persistent than you’d expect a former Democratic operative like Todd to be, you will get the usual zigzag response.

And Clinton was as evasive as ever. The reason the “FactCheckers” insist she does not believe in abortion on demand until birth is because she wraps her abortion now, abortion forever, abortion uber alles position in some clauses that sound conditional. For example, what does this mean?

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 that pregnancy.

If you get out your Clinton decoder ring, what this means is that no matter how far along the baby may be, the “life, the health of the mother” trumps any and every other consideration.

But to be fair, in a question that resembled what Rick Warren asked then-candidate Barack Obama back in 2008, Todd asked

When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

Hmmm. You could see the gears in Clinton’s head shift into high.

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights

The former Secretary of State then added some filler, stalling for time. But Todd then asked

You had said you think there is room for some restrictions. So is it fair to say that women don’t always have a full right to choose?

Clinton responded

Well, under Roe v. Wade that is the law.

Really? There is room for “some restrictions,” Mrs. Clinton? What are they?

And as I said, I support the reasoning and the outcome in Roe v. Wade. So in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother.

Pardon? The “restrictions”–even in the third trimester–must be understood by “looking at the life and the health of the mother.” Which, to be clear, is the exception that swallows the rule as thoroughly as a python wolfs down his supper.

Todd chose not to ask for specifics. He didn’t because he knew fully well Clinton didn’t mean a single syllable.

Given the last word, Clinton retreated to safer ground. She turns the most reasonable, even minimal, abortion limitations into the equivalent of forced abortion in China. Both are “what happens when governments make these decisions.”

NRL News Today takes another look at the controversy engendered by Mr. Trump’s multiple revisions of his position on abortion by examining a column written over the weekend by Art Caplan, the bioethicist who has never found a topic about which he doesn’t have an ill-informed opinion.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha.