Hillary Clinton: “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
Meet the Press – April 3, 2016
Transcript excerpt ( emphasis added ):
When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?
Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.
Clinton: Unborn Children Have No Constitutional Rights
Video – 1:03
Views – 21,467
Re: SC Personhood Amendment ( S.719 ) on Senate Judiciary Committee April 5 Agenda:
What about all 22 SC Senators ( 13 R, 9 D ) on the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to take up S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment in April 5 Meeting ? Will they all acknowledge the unborn child is a ‘Person’ as even pro-‘abortion’ extremist Hillary Clinton did April 3 ? So far only seven out of 22 SC Judiciary Committee Senators have done so !
Of these 22 SC Senators, only seven are co-sponsors and/or have signed pledges to support S.719. See the list* posted here of the 22 SC Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and these Members’ Positions on the S.719 SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment.
[ *Update to List: Judicial supremacist, SC Personhood Constitutional Amendment opponent, selectively pro-‘abortion’ for certain ‘exceptions’, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Larry Martin ( R – Pickens ) has three opponents in the June 14, 2016 Republican Primary for SC Senate District #2. ]
Of the 22 Judiciary Committee Senators, 14 ( 6 R, 8 D ) are lawyers, yet only two ( 2 R ) of these 14 are S.719 co-sponsors. And yet, Black’s Law Dictionary (2009), used by attorneys, defines “Person” as “A Human Being”. So, Person = Human Being. Why is not every attorney in the SC Senate a co-sponsor of S.719 ?
Hillary Clinton: ‘The Unborn Person Doesn’t Have Constitutional Rights’
April 3, 2016
[ emphasis added ]
(CNSNews.com) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press today that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
Clinton made the statement in response to a question from “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd. Clinton also said that an unborn child’s constitutional rights are “not something that exists.”
Todd asked: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”
“Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists,” said Clinton. “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 not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions,” Clinton continued. “And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”
Selected Legal Experts Supporting Constitutionality of State-Level Personhood Legislation:
LEGAL EXPERTS SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE-LEVEL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION IN SC (2001), MISS (2009), ALA (2011), and OK (2012):
– Herb Titus is an attorney, constitutional scholar, author, the founding Dean of College of Law/Gov’t at Regent University
– Mathew Staver is present Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University; and Liberty Counsel founder and chair
– Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is President Emeritus of Foundation for Moral Law
May 26, 2015
“PERSONHOOD” is the key to ENDING child-murder-by-‘abortion’. A plain reading of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and analogous due process and equal protection language in the State Constitutions [ for example, Article I., Section 3. of the South Carolina Constitution ], indicates that legal status and therefore protection of constitutional rights, is granted to ’PERSONS’ in these provisions. The issue of personhood for the ‘fetus’ as being the preeminently critical issue was specifically addressed by a US Supreme Court Justice during the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument.
[ Go to these internet links to both a transcript and the actual audio of the October 11, 1972 Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument. ]
THE KEY, CRITICAL, FIRST, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN ROE V. WADE (1973) WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE ‘FETUS’ ( PRE-BIRTH HUMAN BEING ), WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW AS A LEGAL ‘PERSON’:
[ Note: American Constitutional Law even recognizes Corporations as legal ‘Persons’, but not preborn Human Beings !!! ]
Excerpt from transcript (edited) of Reargument ( October 11, 1972 ) of Roe v. Wade before the US Supreme Court:
US Supreme Court Justice:
“And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?” [ p. 827 ]
Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas):
“Yes, sir, and entitled to the constitutional protection.” [ p. 827 ]
US Supreme Court Justice: “And that’s critical to this case, is it not?” [ p. 828 ]
Mr. Robert Flowers (Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas): “Yes, sir, it is. … (continued).” [ p. 828 ]