Posted by: adventlife | April 5, 2016

Hillary: ‘The unborn person does not have constitutional rights’


“She began by noting that, “under our laws currently, that is not something that exists.“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” she replied. …

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said, “Hillary’s position is eerily reminiscent of what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney said in his infamous 1857 Dred Scott ruling on slavery. He declared that blacks had ‘no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'” …

”The pro-life amici briefs in Roe v. Wade argued that the unborn child is protected by a host of constitutional rights, including the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that the government not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Roe decision agreed that, if the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the unborn, the case for abortion “of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” …”

My Comments: I noticed that when Donald Trump blundered with his comments about abortion, this was all over in the news; but when Hillary misspoke, no one bothered to criticize her awkwardness in defending abortion yet referring to the unborn as a “person,” which would call for the protection of the unborn under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.



  1. It might be partly because she is technically mistaken on the law. The unborn do have some limited rights, but not equal to those who have survived birth. The demarcation is viability. There’s really no point in granting full rights to a being incapable of surviving outside a womb, especially above the rights of a pregnant woman.

    • Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that a woman has the right to either dismember or poison her own unborn child?

      For her an unwanted pregnancy is nine months of inconvenience; for the unborn id total and irreversible loss of life. She can survive the inconvenience—pregnacy is not a disease—The unborn has no such privilege!

      Nic Samojluk

      • We have the Supreme Court as one of our coequal branches of government, and one of their main duties is to interpret the thousands of topics NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (in case you missed Civics class).

        They ruled in Roe that abortion is legal, reversing previous precedent based on something else not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but previously ruled on, the individual right of privacy (applied to medical decisions).

        They have also ruled in many cases since that states may pass restrictions, but the restrictions can not violate the Roe decision, or other Constitutional decisions in current standing. All the cases where states have successfully restricted abortion have been based on viability, because without the ability to survive, the law has never recognized the fetus as being equal in rights to a born human.

        I’m not saying legislators and the court can’t change law over time. But that’s the way it is right now, even if it’s not the way you think it should be.

        BTW, pregnancy does involve physical risks. More women die from complications during birth and C-sections than from abortion procedures. I’ve been on surgical teams during difficult pregnancies when women died.

        (I’m a medical asst/imaging tech.)

      • Abortion v. Childbirth Mortality Rates

        “Patrick Carr of Family & Life of Ireland noted that countries where abortion is illegal, such as Ireland, routinely have the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, while areas with liberal abortion laws such as South Africa top the maternal mortality charts. …”


        “Government statistics indicate that the chances of death by abortion are even less. But while deaths from childbirth are accurately reported, many deaths by legal abortion are not. This completely skews the statistics. Furthermore, “abortion actually increases the chance of maternal death in later pregnancies.” …”


      • According to the U.S. Constitution the duty to create new laws belongs to Congress. The right to kill human beings with impunity and without due process is contrary the Fourteenth Amendment. What happened in 1973 with Roe v Wade represents a dereliction of duty by Congress. The Supreme Court had no right to usurp the right of the Legislature to create a new laws.

  2. There is a just God ,who gives them constitutional rights in eternity.Hilary approved of her husbands infidelity .

    • Without realizing what she was saying, Hillary granted the “unborn person” [her own words] the protection of the U.S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment that states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” Since the unborn is a person, according to Hillary, said unborn “person” is protected by law.

      Nic Samojluk

      • What about Abortion ,she is not pro life.

      • Exactly! Which means that she inadvertently contradicted her own philosophical position.

      • Thanks God.

  3. Euthanasia is next on her agenda.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Advent Life Videos

A Prolife religion & ethics site

Advent Life Books

The best books should be free--like air and water!




My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Confessions of a Teenage Runaway

My Voice... My Story...

Advent Life

Focusing on Life

%d bloggers like this: