Originally posted at American Thinker.
It’s hard to believe but ‘for the first time in her adult life,’ when Hillary Clinton referred to a preborn human being as an “unborn person” or “child,” the woman who’s made prevarication a lifestyle choice actually spoke the truth. The problem for Sir Edmund Hillary’s purported namesake is that truth telling is something she usually dodges like sniper bullets in Bosnia because of the potential that facts have to get her in trouble.
And trouble is exactly what followed when Hillary attempted to counter Donald Trump by trying to portray herself as the champion of abortion rights.
While being interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary responded to Chuck Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn by saying that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” The problem with the former first lady’s answer was that while trying to deny unborn personhood she inadvertently assigned personhood to an entity the pro-choice movement views as a nonviable clump of cells.
And so, it seems that while straddling the abortion fence, Mrs. Clinton got her designer pants leg stuck on a big old rusty nail. Of all people, Hillary should know by now that in pro-choice circles admitting preborn humanity portrays the slaughter of 3,000 babies a day in a distasteful light.
Then, Mrs. Clinton, who, when not getting $600 haircuts spends time rustling up votes by rubbing her pregnant daughter Chelsea’s belly like it was Aladdin’s lamp, went on to talk about the constitutional rights of “unborn persons” whose mothers opt not to abort:
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.
So, after saying that an “unborn person” has no right to life or protection under the Constitution, Hillary awkwardly attempted to reassure women who choose to allow offspring to breathe outside the womb that the “unborn person” she just said had no protection will be protected under the law.
Talk about a quagmire.
Nonetheless, Hillary wants America to know that if she ends up in charge, and if a mother chooses not to exercise the right to legally murder her offspring, the law that Hillary claims doesn’t protect an “unborn person’s” life, will be enforced to protect the “unborn person’s” life.
Then, with Chelsea’s swollen third-trimester belly as her muse, Hillary burrowed herself in deeper when she said, “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” in the third trimester of pregnancy.
What? The woman who heartily supports partial birth abortion blurted out, clearly without thinking, that, on occasion, it might be better to not insert scissors into the base of the skull of a living baby who is halfway out of the womb?
Huma really should have reminded Secretary Clinton beforehand that in baby extermination circles, even implying the word “restriction,” undermines the cause for abortion rights. That’s why, Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, quickly responded to Mrs. Clinton’s comments.
Diana probably didn’t like it either when the Planned Parenthood baby body part chop shop was called a baby body part chop shop, because Hillary labeling “unborn persons” as “unborn persons” really got under the manager of community engagement’s skin.
Arellano tweeted this about Hillary Clinton: “she calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions,” which, according to the Illinois Baby Chop Shop representative, “further stigmatizes #abortion.”
According to Arellano, butchering and then selling preborn infant liver doesn’t stigmatize abortion. In Diana’s opinion, what stigmatizes abortion is Hillary losing lip control and calling a child a child and then suggesting that murdering viable human beings should be restricted.
Now either unborn babies are non-persons and thus have no constitutional rights, or pre-birth existence does not negate personhood. If the latter is true, that means Hillary Clinton and the whole pro-choice movement have put all our lives in danger by eroding a constitutional right that was established to protect all life.
In the meantime, Mrs. Clinton has really got to figure out how to talk her way out of the abortion chaos she’s gotten herself into. Maybe Mrs. Clinton should follow Donald Trump’s example and just make it up as she goes along.
Hillary can start by clarifying what choice is all about and explain that what she really meant to say was that women who decide to terminate a pregnancy have the right to choose whether the “unborn persons” they’re planning to destroy are “persons” or not.
In fact, this may be a real opportunity for Hillary to turn a faux pas into an excuse to break new ground on behalf of the right to choose crowd. Mrs. Clinton can explain that if a woman chooses an abortion, only then is an “unborn person” considered a non-person. But, if a woman chooses to carry to term and give birth, an otherwise non-person is then mysteriously granted “unborn person” status and is, hence, constitutionally protected.
Either way, this is the kind of misunderstanding that results when Hillary Clinton loses her bearings and the truth manages to slip out. That’s why if the presidential hopeful wants to retain her faithful constituency, it might be best for her to continue to do what she does best, which is to keep lying.
