So, let’s get this straight.  Hillary Clinton admits that unborn children are, in fact, people.  She just draws the line at allowing them rights.

But illegal immigrants?  Sure, they can have rights, no problem.  Any special interest group in society?  Yes, of course, make sure they all have rights.  She would tell you she wants “equal” rights for all.

Except those pesky unborn babies who rely on others to be their voice, because they have no ability to speak up for themselves.  Clinton believes they are undeserving of constitutional rights, I guess because we all missed the part in the Constitution where our founding fathers slipped in there that we are not guaranteed these rights until we exit the womb even though we are all people.

TRANSCRIPT

Chuck Todd: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

Hillary Clinton: Well under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists.  The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now that doesn’t meant 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 v Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.

This is absolute nonsense.  First, as indicated above, she admits the unborn is a person, which would make them worthy of protection.

Second, what does “doing everything we can to help a mother who wants to make sure that the child will be healthy” have to do with the statement she made about unborn people not having constitutional rights?  It’s an empty talking point designed to distract by appealing to emotions.

Third, just for good contradictory measure, she mentions doing “everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations.”  Wait, what?

So, the implication she gives here is that a woman’s obligation is her unborn child.  So far she’s admitted that fetuses are people, and that the unborn child is a woman’s responsibility.  Any logical conclusion here would be that we shouldn’t be throwing them away on a whim.

But then suddenly she invokes Roe v Wade and claims that “fulfilling your obligation” does not include “sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.”  Well, then what exactly would she be referring to when she mentions doing “everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations?”

Politicians are going to dance around talking points to make themselves sound better, I understand this.  But to do it at the expense of innocent unborn children and know that it’s dishonest is just despicable.