NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

On abortion, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, six of one, half-dozen of the other

by | Apr 5, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Yesterday was so busy, what with the need to analyze Hillary Clinton’s ultra-extreme comments on abortion on Meet the Press and report on the vote of NRLC’s board of directors to support Sen. Ted Cruz in the upcoming Republican presidential primaries, that I never had time to talk about what Mrs. Clinton’s fellow pro-abortionist, Sen. Bernie Sanders, said about abortion in the interview broadcast Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Just a reminder of what the former Secretary of State told Chuck Todd. #1 “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights”; #2 after we wade through the verbiage, that the “constitutional protections” enjoyed by the mother obliterate any possibility for protecting the unborn child even in the third trimester.

Indeed if you read the transcript, what she actually says is the exact opposite of the impression the careless listener might come away with. For instance

And as I said, I support the reasoning and the outcome in Roe v. Wade. So in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother.

Get that? Clinton is not saying that late in pregnancy there is room for looking at the very advanced, very mature unborn child, but at the “life and health of the mother,” the all-purpose escape clause.

Back to Sanders. Stephanopoulos all but baited the Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont to match what Clinton had said earlier in the day.

You know, Secretary Clinton also said this morning that she doesn’t believe that there are any constitutional rights for the unborn.

Is that your position, as well?

After a quick side trip to his favorite location–criticizing Republicans– Sanders says

And I do agree with the Secretary. I don’t believe there’s any constitutional protection for the unborn.

Sanders doubles down when Stephanopoulos asks

Are you for any restrictions on abortion?

His response is

I think that decision ultimately has got to be made by the woman.

After which for good measure Sanders attacks Wisconsin’s pro-life Gov. Scott Walker and then says, yes, indeed, abortion would be a “litmus test” for any nominee Sanders would make to the Supreme Court. He ends with

But obviously, as somebody who has fought his whole political right — life to protect a woman’s right to choose, that issue is of enormous concern to me. And people can be assured, I will not be nominating a justice who will not support that position.

BTW, there was a minor kerfuffle when a Planned Parenthood employee trashed Clinton for her remarks on Meet the Press. It was all bogus but it got some attention and furthered Clinton’s studiously formulated (and wholly inaccurate) position as a “moderate” on abortion.

In the first part of her answer to Todd’s question, “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?,” Clinton said.

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.

What exactly were Clinton’s sins of commission? She used the verboten words (in anti-life circles) of “person” and “child.” The “person” reference was almost forced on her by Todd’s formulation “unborn child.” (Also, even to the tin-eared pro-abortionist, calling a wanted baby a “fetus” is a clanker.

Likewise, what was Clinton saying implicitly in the third sentence? When the mother wants the baby, presto change she/he is a “child.”

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Categories: Politics