WATCH: Hillary: Unborn Children Don’t ‘Have Constitutional Rights’

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Pro-abortion Democrat Hillary Clinton told Meet The Press’ anchor Chuck Todd today that unborn children do not have constitutional rights.

Clinton also called for permission to abort unborn children based on the open-ended concern for “the health of the mother.”

Partial transcript as follows:

TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion.

CLINTON: My position is in line with Row v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. 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 pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years.

TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. 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 know, 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 refined under our Constitution.




  1. She is of course correct; the 14th Amendment grants rights of life, liberty, and property to persons who have been born.

  2. She is forced to say this as she looks over her shoulder not to be seen as to the right of Bernie. Once she stood by her husband as he signed the defense-of-marriage act. Now she has to be seen as progressive.

  3. Charlie Hall you are so lucky that your parents didn’t say that before they had you!!!!
    And that’s the precise reason that you should not be endorsing her

  4. I find personal attacks against a yid who’s simply pointing out the most common interpretation of the law to be quite disturbing. Whatever your opinion of Hillary Clinton or political orientation, this was simply a point-of-law observation.

  5. Anon- I find you inability to speak agaist Nazi sympathizers quite disturbing. I don’t care about politics… I care about Hashem’s law and the nazism and murder of babies must end.

    • If you believe what you’ve written then you’re insane. Wrapping yourself in the cloak of piously observing “Hashem’s law” while calling another frum Jew a “Nazi sympathizer” and a “rasha” for explaining a point of law is beyond deranged.
      Nobody here has defended abortion, either. So, first you’ve lied about what was said, then you call a frum Jew a “Nazi sympathizer” and a “rasha” based on that lie, then when your lie is pointed out you repeat the lie and name calling. That’s defending “Hashem’s law”? Ugh.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here