Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 9.35.46 AMIt’s ironic how a puppy or some other small newborn animal has more ‘rights’ with Liberals, than a ‘new-human’ does.

In an interview with Meet The Press, Hillary Clinton revealed her belief that unborn babies are not privy to the same Constitutional protections afforded all other living human beings.

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Clinton explained. “Under our laws currently, that is not something that exists.”

Transcript via

Trending: Racism: Singer Tells White Audience to ‘Move to the Back’, Gets Unexpected Reaction

NBC’S CHUCK TODD: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

CLINTON: “Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean 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 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.”

First off, is there anything more cold and callous than the phrase “unborn person?” Clinton is a small step away from simply referring to the baby as a ‘clump of cells.’

Predictably, anti-life Planned Parenthood advocates complained that Clinton would even dare to use the word ‘child’ in her comments, because it ‘misleadingly implies a sense of humanity.’


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.