Posted on 10/20/2016 2:47:16 PM PDT by NYer
As you would expect from a first-rate journalist, Fox News’ Chris Wallace held the candidates’ feet to the fire in last night’s third and final presidential debate.
From the pro-life perspective, it was particularly useful that Wallace said he would “drill down” on the question of the Supreme Court “because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely or possibly two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century.”
And so he did. The results were classic Hillary Clinton–a defense not only of Roe but of the grotesque partial-birth abortions and abortions performed right up until just before birth.
Donald Trump strongly criticized Clinton for supporting abortions “one or two or three or four days prior to birth.”
As Wallace bore in, the responses from pro-abortion Clinton and pro-life Trump moved from the very general to the very specific. Answering “where do you want to see the [Supreme] Court take the country?” and “what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted?” Clinton responded “we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights” and “not reverse Roe v. Wade.”
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
Trump countered, “The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. …They will interpret the constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted and I believe that’s very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It is all about the constitution, and it is so important. The constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.”
Wallace then “drilled down” on Trump: “Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact, states a woman’s right to abortion?”
Trump said, “Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that would go back to the individual states.” Wallace asked again, and Trump reaffirmed his answer: “If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion. Because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states.”
Clinton’s answer was, “Well, I strongly support Roe v. Wade which guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make the most intimate, most difficult in many cases, decisions about her health care that one can imagine.”
She went on to strongly defend Planned Parenthood, conveniently omitting that it is the largest abortion provider in the world (or that she was endorsed by its political arm).
Wallace drilled down another thousand feet on Clinton as well:
I wanted to ask you Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you think the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term partial birth abortions. Why?
Clinton gave her usual answer–that Roe allows for some “regulation,” provided there is an exception for “the health of the mother.” Of course, for 43 years the health exception has swallowed the rule as thoroughly as a python gulps down its supper.
To his great credit, Trump called her out:
Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.
Clinton responded that this is just “scare rhetoric,” as if what she supports doesn’t frighten mainstream America. “And I will stand up for that right,” she added.
Trump’s answer?
And honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said. Doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that [right].
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.
Huh? But, but, but———————she’s always talkin’ about human rights and she’s all about the children. Guess irritating tissue masses in some womb somewhere, not so much.
She all but said kill it!
Trump has a way of exposing everyone of who they are and she is a pro-partial birth abortionist. If that isn’t murder, what is?
Pray America wakes
I like how these scumbags think being pregnant is a health problem.
“In the ninth month. On the final day.”
We already know it’s worse than that. Hillary and Obama and the rest of them actually favor leaving babies that survive abortions to die in utility closets. The only difference between them and serial killers like Kermit Gosnell is that Hillary and Obama don’t have the balls to kill those living babies themselves; they get others to do the dirty work.
In her heart, you know she supports post-partum abortions, too. At least for a certain deplorable segment of society.
She did. That was revolting. She did not even suggest that someone could maybe convince the mother to give birth and put the child up for adoption. She made it out like, this was such a problem for the mother.
I can see hillary doing it and getting sexually aroused by it
THIS should be the talking point of the day - year - Lifetime! I missed an opportunity to bring this up today and I am sorry. This will be my first topic in why am I voting for Trump conversations from now on.
Did you see her diabolical smile when she talked in favor of killing babies? It was pure evil on her face..there was something wrong with that forced smile throughout her script that was very wired and unsettling.
Did you see her diabolical smile when she talked in favor of killing babies? It was pure evil on her face..there was something wrong with that forced smile throughout her script that was very wired and unsettling.
She only used the old canard, "life and health of the mother."
I suspect her advisors told her to strike the word "rape" from her vocabulary, lest its mention conjure up thoughts of her husband's deeds.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
(excerpt)Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/3
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session
Clinton (D-NY), Nayhttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051
Remember when the "kind-hearted and compassionate" Clintons (Bill
was then-President) assured us that abortion would be "safe, legal and rare?"
============================================
The kindly compassionate Clintons "forgot" to mention that they
themselves opened the gates so that Planned Parenthood could traffic
(and profit) in baby body parts.
(EXCERPT--WND.COM). Then-Pres Clinton is credited w/ opening up the market in fetal body parts. Since Clinton signed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, “fetal-tissue research” has expanded into a federally subsidized multi-million dollar industry of selling human spare parts salvaged from abortions.
For example, the NIH budgeted $21 million in fiscal year 1999 for grants and awards for fetal tissue research. At the University of Washington, the NIH subsidizes the central laboratory for human embryology.
According to a lab notice obtained by WorldNetDaily, it “can supply tissue from normal or abnormal embryos and fetuses of desired gestational ages between 40 days to term. Specimens are obtained within minutes of passage, and tissues are aseptically identified, staged, and immediately processed according to the requirements of individual investigators.” The notice is signed by Alan G. Fantel of the department of pediatrics.
At the time, two organizations that profited from this growth industry were (the now defunct) Opening Lines, a business formerly located in West Frankfort, Illinois...... and Anatomic Gift Foundation, headquartered in Laurel, Maryland.
Opening Lines gives credit to President Clinton for opening up the lucrative business in fetal tissue trade.
According to Opening Lines, on January 22, 1993, Clinton lifted the moratorium on federal funding. “This action created a great demand for fetal tissue and has made possible the development of treatments for individuals afflicted with serious diseases and disorders,” says the sales brochure.
Both companies served as wholesalers for the marketing of baby body parts to researchers, drug companies, hospitals and universities. These groups harvest the baby parts from abortion clinics and ship them to their customers.
Opening Lines provides fetal tissue researchers with a “fee for service schedule,” which gives prices for each body part. For example, Opening Lines charged:
<><> $150 for a spinal column;
<><> $400 for an intact embryonic cadaver;
<><>$75 for 8-week-old baby's eyeballs (40% discount for a single eye);
<><>$150 for two arms or legs; and,
<><> $100 for the skin of a 12-week-old baby.
Actually, pregnancy is the normal state of the uterus. There is no billing code for pregnancy as a disease or condition, pro abortion as the AMA is there’s no getting around this
And the Dana PeRino wing of the GOP is just fine with it.
I would have had a hard time not responding:
So Hillary, regarding partial birth abortion, you think it is perfectly fine for the “doctor” to go into the birth canal with a pair of scissors and stab the baby in the head and then vacuum its brains out to kill the baby before “delivering” it?
And for the uninformed pro abortion group out there, that is EXACTLY what partial birth abortion is!
Debate Proves Hillary Clinton Really Does Support Abortion All the Way Up to Birth
Her past shows she supports abortion after birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
