Hillary on Abortion: Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde

I admire [white supremacist and Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…. I am really in awe of her.” – Hillary Clinton on receiving that organization’s highest honor in 2009

The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” – Hillary Clinton on NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 3, 2016

While science continues to roll back the timetable for life’s inception, that reality has been counterbalanced by the autonomy of a woman’s body—and her decision-making right regarding it. Between these two evolving points in time, what remains troublesome is the on-demand aspect: the misuse of abortion as de facto birth control (especially related to the termination of late or third trimester pregnancies). As a contextual example, the black community accounts for 36 percent of all abortions (despite being approximately 13 percent of the total U.S. population). Further, since 1973, there have been more than 15 million black children aborted. Given such statistics, is the adage ‘the most dangerous place for a child is the womb,’ any mystery?

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

The human procreative power innately compels a basic level of personal responsibility. After all, this is an age when biology is well-understood. Prophylactics, like (often free) men’s condoms, are widely available. Similarly, women have multiple low-cost contraceptive choices, including the morning-after pill. In short, with minimal planning (under the lion’s share of circumstances), there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy. That is, unless the female in question has made poor personal decisions. If she has, why should society be complicit in paying for her irresponsibility, her choice to end the overwhelmingly likely development of a viable offspring?

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

As a main purpose of government is to protect its citizens (via funding the police and the military), it’s natural for its philosophical orientation to be life-affirming. Thus, the Hyde Amendment, which restricts some federal funds to certain welfare recipients (except in cases of rape or incest) makes perfect sense. (Interestingly, an updated version was signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 22, 1993.) Therefore, the only reason the law has come under fire recently is because progressives want abortion available at any time, and under all circumstances. Therefore, they spin the absurdist tale that the 40-year-old law is about ‘telling a woman how to lead her life’ (read: unfairly saddling poor women with the financial drain of unwanted children). So, under the illusion of being “women’s rights advocates,” Democrats actually push a different agenda entirely: big government dependence (that they vitally control). Therefore, in this matter, the suggestive science—and individual responsibility—is completely ignored by them.

Hillary Clinton made a Freudian slip when she used the phrase “unborn person” rather than “fetus.” She casts abortion narrowly as a sacrosanct women’s right, then muddles her basic claim by inadvertently acknowledging the fetus’s personhood. The unborn may technically have no constitutional rights. Yet, what of that other foundational American document, the Declaration of Independence’s Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? (Apparently, Hillary applies this principle to gun control, but not abortion.) Moreover, as the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton approves the historic repeal of the Hyde Amendment, while simultaneously enjoying the reputation as a “child advocate”? One gets whiplash decoding her hypocritical double standards, how she plays every side of this issue.

Feminists and conservatives agree: a woman’s body is hers, not the state’s. Therefore, she must logically own the consequences of its use—same as a man. Indeed, to compel our life-preserving government directly into the any time life termination business is a Soylent Green style schizophrenic expectation. What is truly “cruel” here is not the restrictive Hyde Amendment. It’s irresponsible women who shift the blame for their own life-ending inhumanity. Equally culpable are outspoken Jekyll and Hyde politicians like Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly finance racist Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood under the guise of providing preventative women’s health services.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous A Private Corporation takes Control of the Internet: Does that Mean Constitutional Protections for the Internet are Gone?
Next Hillary Clinton, A Communist?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.