Clinton: No Really, A Baby On Its Way Out of the Birth Canal Has No Rights (VIDEO)

On Sunday, Hillary Clinton made some disgusting remarks on Meet the Press regarding the rights- or lack thereof- of unborn babies.

If you thought Hillary Clinton couldn’t get more obscene with her crusade against innocent lives, you thought wrong.  Clinton was on The View Tuesday morning and disgustingly invoked Roe vs Wade when proclaiming a baby has no rights even hours before they are delivered.  As in, they could be making their exit, and she still thinks a woman should “have that authority.”  A fully grown baby coming out of its mother.

Watch if you can stomach it:


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 you saying that a child on its due date, just hours before delivery, has no constitutional rights?

Hillary Clinton: Under our law that is the case, Paula.  I support Roe v Wade.


Clinton: Um, because I think that it’s 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 structured it.  I would just make two points.  Because I’ve traveled to so many countries, it’s hard to understand the impact that a government can have when it tries to substitute its judgment for the individual woman.  So in China for many years, you had forced abortion, you had forced sterilization, which I abhor.  But also in some countries- Romania being the best example- women were ordered to bear five children.  And were actually followed by police-secret police- to make sure that they did.  And many children ended up in orphanages, which I visited as First Lady.  So my view is that under the law, under Roe v Wade, the appropriate way to handle this is to give that authority to women.



What is more disturbing- that a Presidential candidate is practically foaming at the mouth to terminate lives, or the fact that the most awful people in the country were in the audience cheering her on?  Literally cheering her on for saying mothers have the authority to do whatever they want with fully grown babies about to exit the womb. 

And the emphasis she put on “the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision?”  No.  That is not an argument in 2016 in the United States of America when we have the medical technology to show us that these are babies.  How is that a “most difficult decision” at 9 months pregnant?

The rabid pro-choice crowd adores using the term “women’s rights,” but when you really get down to it, they literally support the right to kill a baby until the baby has entirely exited the mother. How much more horrible could a person possibly get? The argument they have for this is honestly disgusting.  As further proof, here is Barbara Boxer literally attempting to argue the same point while Rick Santorum picks her apart:


Santorum: Once the baby is born, is completely separated from the mother, you will support that that baby has, in fact, the right to life and cannot be killed? You accept that; right?

Boxer: I don’t believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.

Santorum: So you would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed?

Boxer: I support the right — and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to another senator –

Santorum: All the person has to do is give me a straight answer, and then it will be very clear to everybody.

Boxer: And what defines “separation”? Define “separation.” You answer that question. You define it.

Santorum: Well, let’s define that. Okay, let’s say the baby is completely separated. In other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother.

Boxer: You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother’s arms? That baby is a human being.

Santorum: Well, I don’t know if it’s necessarily in its mother’s arms. Let’s say in the obstetrician’s hands.

Boxer: It takes a second, it takes a minute – I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth —

Santorum: We’ve had six.

Boxer: Well, you didn’t have any.

Santorum: My wife and I had babies together. That’s the way we do things in our family.

Boxer: Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when the baby was born.

Santorum: Good! All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the mother’s birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree that you cannot abort, kill the baby?

Boxer: I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born, and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country. And I don’t know why this would even be a question, to be honest with you.

Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?

Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question.

Santorum: I am asking for you to define for me what that is.

Boxer: I don’t think anybody but the senator from Pennsylvania has a question with it. I have never been troubled by this question. You give birth to a baby. The baby is there, and it is born. That is my answer to the question.

Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born —

Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.

Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!

Santorum: I am asking.

Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.

Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?

Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.

Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth –

Boxer: I hope not.

Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

Boxer: Absolutely not.

Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.


These are fully-formed, fully developed human beings.  It is completely abhorrent and total intellectual dishonesty to boast about Roe v Wade when discussing a baby about to exit the birth canal.  That is not when you give someone else the option of ending a human life.  We have a law against that in America, and it’s called murder.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos