On Sunday morning, Hillary Clinton once more stuck up for abortion as she discussed the issue with Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press.

On the April 3 episode, Todd asked Clinton her “straightforward position on the issue of abortion.” Her response referred to Roe v. Wade and privacy, as well as typical pro-abortion talking points. She also made this point:

And I want to maintain that constitutional protection under Roe v. Wade. As you know, there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions. After a certain point in time, I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in that pregnancy.

While Clinton claims “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions,” she often speaks out against legislation which would regulate or restrict abortion.

It is worth asking Clinton then what constitutes “reasonable kinds of restrictions?” It’s also worth asking Planned Parenthood the same thing, which has endorsed her.

Clinton has spoken about “the health of the mother” before. So she has made her view “clear,” that abortion should be allowed late in term if an abortionist can claim a reason for “health.” Under Doe v. Bolton, Roe v. Wade’s companion case, “health” was defined to mean just about any reason a woman would have an abortion in the first place. 

Todd moved on to ask her “when, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

As Clinton answered, that child has no rights under our law, and she shows no sign of changing that.

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

How ironic that she would acknowledge that the preborn child is in fact a “person,” and yet one without any constitutional rights. She tries to defend her views in a way then:

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.

If Clinton really wanted to put her words into action, perhaps she could support places which really do provide other options for women, like crisis pregnancy centers. Instead, she has a close relationship with the nation’s largest abortion provider, who provides over 300,000 abortions, while services which could constitute real forms of health care decrease.

And then Clinton goes right back to her pro-abortion talking points:

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. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.

Clinton and other abortion advocates talk as if having children always has to involve “sacrificing.” On the Constitutional view, the words “abortion” and “privacy” do not actually appear in the Constitution.

Todd did go back to Clinton’s point about restrictions, though he phrased his question in an odd way:

You had said you think there is room for some restrictions. So is it fair to say that women don’t always have a full right to choose?

Clinton stuck by her support of Roe v. Wade and moved on to painting Republicans as those whose views are “pretty extreme.” Part of her response included:

Where the distinction comes in is the health of the mother. And when you have candidates running for president who say that there should be no exceptions, not for rape, not for incest, not for health, then I think you’ve gotten pretty extreme. And my view has always been this is a choice. It is not a mandate.

Regarding these health exceptions, it’s whatever the abortionist gets to decide. Late-term abortionists rubber stamped these cases, and even signed off on a late-term abortion so the mother could attend a rock concert. Now that’s “pretty extreme.”

Speaking of “choice” versus “mandate” is refreshing to hear from Clinton. Her response does also speak out against forced abortions in China, However, Congressman Chris Smith once asked her if she ever spoke to President Obama about confronting China directly about that policy, and he never heard back.

It’s possible for Clinton to ensure that abortion is ” a choice” and not “a mandate” here in the United States. She could encourage Planned Parenthood to support rather than come out against such laws against coerced abortions. She could also do away with the Health & Human Services contraceptive mandate requiring those with religious and moral objections to covering birth control and abortion inducing drugs to pay for them for their employees. Unfortunately, her track record has not been so promising.

On Sunday morning, Hillary Clinton once more stuck up for abortion as she discussed the issue with Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press.

On the April 3 episode, Todd asked Clinton her “straightforward position on the issue of abortion.” Her response referred to Roe v. Wade and privacy, as well as typical pro-abortion talking points. She also made this point:

And I want to maintain that constitutional protection under Roe v. Wade. As you know, there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions. After a certain point in time, I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in that pregnancy.

While Clinton claims “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions,” she often speaks out against legislation which would regulate or restrict abortion.

It is worth asking Clinton then what constitutes “reasonable kinds of restrictions?” It’s also worth asking Planned Parenthood the same thing, which has endorsed her.

Clinton has spoken about “the health of the mother” before. So she has made her view “clear,” that abortion should be allowed late in term if an abortionist can claim a reason for “health.” Under Doe v. Bolton, Roe v. Wade’s companion case, “health” was defined to mean just about any reason a woman would have an abortion in the first place. 

Todd moved on to ask her “when, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

As Clinton answered, that child has no rights under our law, and she shows no sign of changing that.

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

How ironic that she would acknowledge that the preborn child is in fact a “person,” and yet one without any constitutional rights. She tries to defend her views in a way then:

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.

If Clinton really wanted to put her words into action, perhaps she could support places which really do provide other options for women, like crisis pregnancy centers. Instead, she has a close relationship with the nation’s largest abortion provider, who provides over 300,000 abortions, while services which could constitute real forms of health care decrease.

And then Clinton goes right back to her pro-abortion talking points:

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. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.

Clinton and other abortion advocates talk as if having children always has to involve “sacrificing.” On the Constitutional view, the words “abortion” and “privacy” do not actually appear in the Constitution.

Todd did go back to Clinton’s point about restrictions, though he phrased his question in an odd way:

You had said you think there is room for some restrictions. So is it fair to say that women don’t always have a full right to choose?

Clinton stuck by her support of Roe v. Wade and moved on to painting Republicans as those whose views are “pretty extreme.” Part of her response included:

Where the distinction comes in is the health of the mother. And when you have candidates running for president who say that there should be no exceptions, not for rape, not for incest, not for health, then I think you’ve gotten pretty extreme. And my view has always been this is a choice. It is not a mandate.

Regarding these health exceptions, it’s whatever the abortionist gets to decide. Late-term abortionists rubber stamped these cases, and even signed off on a late-term abortion so the mother could attend a rock concert. Now that’s “pretty extreme.”

Speaking of “choice” versus “mandate” is refreshing to hear from Clinton. Her response does also speak out against forced abortions in China, However, Congressman Chris Smith once asked her if she ever spoke to President Obama about confronting China directly about that policy, and he never heard back.

It’s possible for Clinton to ensure that abortion is ” a choice” and not “a mandate” here in the United States. She could encourage Planned Parenthood to support rather than come out against such laws against coerced abortions. She could also do away with the Health & Human Services contraceptive mandate requiring those with religious and moral objections to covering birth control and abortion inducing drugs to pay for them for their employees. Unfortunately, her track record has not been so promising.