Mrs. Bill Clinton - On Persons And Children

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Evolving Abortion Stance

Mr. Bill Clinton was expounding on the constitutionality of unborn “persons” the other day.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/

She said unborn persons have no rights – but called them persons? I am confused. What are they then in ClintonWorld?

Tumors, let’s call them tumors – tumors caused by – something. A disease maybe. Maybe the unborn tumors are really a disease – like alcoholism.

Two people get together and one catches a virus from another and you have a disease. You are cured from the disease when the person is born and becomes a – child?

Let’s move on. Progressives make my head spin when they speak English.

Next, after stating that unborn “persons” have no constitutional rights she says:

“Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support,” she said.”

Translation: Unborn personchildren have a right to healthcare.

Here is the difference between a “an unborn person” with no rights and a woman “carrying a child”.

One is a bow towards the alter of abortion on demand donation$ – where all true progressives worship.

And the other is a hat tip to the welfare state that buys the votes of the 47%.

If Hillary’s stance on persons, children, and abortion seem confusing and self-serving just follow the money and the votes.

That is what all Clintons do.