In support of her position for lawful access to abortion up until the last moments of pregnancy, Hillary Clinton claimed that unborn children do not have constitutional protections to life and security of person. Asked by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd to explain her position on abortion during an interview with “Meet The Press,” Clinton claimed that a “constitutional right” exists for women to have abortions as codified by the Roe v. Wade decision.
Acknowledging “reasonable” restrictions on the “constitutional right” of lawful access to abortion articulated in the Roe v. Wade decision, Clinton still called for exceptions to these restrictions to be granted on the nebulous grounds of protecting “the health of the mother.”
Knowing how broad “health” is in a legal sense, Clinton essentially called for open-ended access to abortion at any time and for any reason.
In a question connected to inquiry of when personhood begins, Clinton claimed that unborn children do not have constitutional rights.
“When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?” asked Todd.
Leaning on her interpretation of the law rather than staking out a personal and moral position on the question, Clinton denied the personhood of unborn children while seemingly conflating transient legality and timeless morality.
“Under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” said Clinton, seemingly or inadvertently acknowledging that unborn children are persons.
Clinton proceeded to explain that the personhood of unborn children is subservient to a woman’s “constitutional right” to have an abortion if she so chooses.
“It does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions,” said Clinton, after claiming that assisting pregnant women with obstetric care is important.
Broadly asked about lawful restrictions on access to abortion based on tenure of pregnancy, Clinton again referred to the vague notion of threats posed to a woman’s health via pregnancy as moral justification for abortion.
“Under Roe. v. Wade, that is the law. So in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother,” said Clinton, without articulating any limitations on the notion of threats to a hypothetical woman’s health supposedly flowing from her pregnancy.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.