Scumbag Hillary: Unborn Children Don't Have Constitutional Rights!!!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

I dunno man. If they had rights the wouldn't be as apt to be killed as a deer in deer season.

You could say that about a 4 years old child.... but you won't!

In LAWYERS and POLITICIANS brains, ones who GET PAID to pander, ABORTION is the only EXCEPTION to that 2004 Victim's law. Of course that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but here again, we are talking about MONEY and POWER, and it we were talking ETHICS, MORALS and PRINCIPLES, we wouldn't have such convoluted law!

It makes perfect sense.

As a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you’re confusing civil law with criminal law – the exemption exists in acknowledgement of the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, pursuant to substantive due process, in the realm of civil law.

In the realm of criminal law and procedural due process, a criminal act committed against a pregnant women resulting in the termination of her pregnancy is a crime perpetrated against the woman, not an embryo/fetus, as an embryo/fetus is not ‘entitled’ to Constitutional protections.

Only a woman has the right to decide whether to have a child or not – the state cannot compel her to give birth against her will, and a criminal actor may not take from a pregnant woman her pregnancy against her will; in either civil or criminal law, a woman’s rights and protected liberties are paramount, immune from attack by the state or an act of violence by a private individual.

 

[HappyJoy]

Abortion restrictions have been enacted since the development of the 4D ultrasound where people can really see that it's a baby in there. It's hard to lie when people can actually see a child.

but it's not hard to pretend as if 'pro-choice' ever claimed there wasn't "a baby in there".

thank you captain obvious. ^



first trimester privacy is a set cornerstone legal precedent...

self-righteous control freaks (mostly sanctimonious white men) continue to petition their government to further intrude upon reproductive medicine, based upon no compelling cause but their emotional delusions.

creeps petition their states to force government mandated, clinically uncalled for, vaginal ultrasounds so they can force women to look at pictures, rubbing their nose in the 'evil' of their choice, as if women had no idea there was "a baby in there".

the vast majority of rational Americans understand that is a sick agenda, folks. ^

Why do you support the indiscriminate killing of defenseless babies?

They are potential babies . If u separate them from mom they can't survive , so are they really even a person?


Plus most of you abortion freaks are also pro death penalty . So u lose all moral authority .

So humans can be called potential babies but by damn if we discover a unicellulared organism on pluto, its called life. See how stupid your argument is.

Yeeeeee, we found babies on Pluto everybody! Babies on Pluto!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

I dunno man. If they had rights the wouldn't be as apt to be killed as a deer in deer season.

You could say that about a 4 years old child.... but you won't!

In LAWYERS and POLITICIANS brains, ones who GET PAID to pander, ABORTION is the only EXCEPTION to that 2004 Victim's law. Of course that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but here again, we are talking about MONEY and POWER, and it we were talking ETHICS, MORALS and PRINCIPLES, we wouldn't have such convoluted law!

4 year old children what????

You lost me at Y

The PRO DEATH people are looking to PUSH the time when one can MURDER your own child, I used 4 years old as an exaggeration, although 3 DAYS have been mentioned as a VIABLE time frame to KILL with no penalty!

1. MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as...
   404 - NaturalNews.combirth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html
   Jul 29, 2013 ... Tags: post-birth abortion, infanticide, Melissa Harris-Perry .... even if those innocent lives include two-day-old black babies who have just .... Can kill a baby up to three years old, this isn't planned parenthood, It's Murder INC 2. ... They want to sweep up and hide their mistakes - shove it out of the public eye.

Another ridiculous lie, another ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

 

[tyroneweaver]

So a person that stands up for the weak is now stupid, and ignorant.

 

[Lilah]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

I dunno man. If they had rights the wouldn't be as apt to be killed as a deer in deer season.

You could say that about a 4 years old child.... but you won't!

In LAWYERS and POLITICIANS brains, ones who GET PAID to pander, ABORTION is the only EXCEPTION to that 2004 Victim's law. Of course that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but here again, we are talking about MONEY and POWER, and it we were talking ETHICS, MORALS and PRINCIPLES, we wouldn't have such convoluted law!

It makes perfect sense.

As a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you’re confusing civil law with criminal law – the exemption exists in acknowledgement of the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, pursuant to substantive due process, in the realm of civil law.

In the realm of criminal law and procedural due process, a criminal act committed against a pregnant women resulting in the termination of her pregnancy is a crime perpetrated against the woman, not an embryo/fetus, as an embryo/fetus is not ‘entitled’ to Constitutional protections.

Only a woman has the right to decide whether to have a child or not – the state cannot compel her to give birth against her will, and a criminal actor may not take from a pregnant woman her pregnancy against her will; in either civil or criminal law, a woman’s rights and protected liberties are paramount, immune from attack by the state or an act of violence by a private individual.

 

[Vigilante]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

I dunno man. If they had rights the wouldn't be as apt to be killed as a deer in deer season.

You could say that about a 4 years old child.... but you won't!

In LAWYERS and POLITICIANS brains, ones who GET PAID to pander, ABORTION is the only EXCEPTION to that 2004 Victim's law. Of course that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but here again, we are talking about MONEY and POWER, and it we were talking ETHICS, MORALS and PRINCIPLES, we wouldn't have such convoluted law!

It makes perfect sense.

As a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you’re confusing civil law with criminal law – the exemption exists in acknowledgement of the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, pursuant to substantive due process, in the realm of civil law.

In the realm of criminal law and procedural due process, a criminal act committed against a pregnant women resulting in the termination of her pregnancy is a crime perpetrated against the woman, not an embryo/fetus, as an embryo/fetus is not ‘entitled’ to Constitutional protections.

Only a woman has the right to decide whether to have a child or not – the state cannot compel her to give birth against her will, and a criminal actor may not take from a pregnant woman her pregnancy against her will; in either civil or criminal law, a woman’s rights and protected liberties are paramount, immune from attack by the state or an act of violence by a private individual.

No problem here Black shyster, the SCOTUS is wrong, just like it was after the Civil War with Negroes... you do remember what a fucking Negro is, don't you?

 

[Vigilante]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

I dunno man. If they had rights the wouldn't be as apt to be killed as a deer in deer season.

You could say that about a 4 years old child.... but you won't!

In LAWYERS and POLITICIANS brains, ones who GET PAID to pander, ABORTION is the only EXCEPTION to that 2004 Victim's law. Of course that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but here again, we are talking about MONEY and POWER, and it we were talking ETHICS, MORALS and PRINCIPLES, we wouldn't have such convoluted law!

4 year old children what????

You lost me at Y

The PRO DEATH people are looking to PUSH the time when one can MURDER your own child, I used 4 years old as an exaggeration, although 3 DAYS have been mentioned as a VIABLE time frame to KILL with no penalty!

1. MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as...
   404 - NaturalNews.combirth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html
   Jul 29, 2013 ... Tags: post-birth abortion, infanticide, Melissa Harris-Perry .... even if those innocent lives include two-day-old black babies who have just .... Can kill a baby up to three years old, this isn't planned parenthood, It's Murder INC 2. ... They want to sweep up and hide their mistakes - shove it out of the public eye.

Another ridiculous lie, another ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

More bullshit from a guy who fix's parking tickets for his clients!!!

 

[Vigilante]

Some things ALWAYS get s into interfering with the PRO DEATH crowd, when they try to SPIN!

Scott Peterson Trial Fast Facts - CNN.com
Scott Peterson Trial Fast Facts - CNN.com
Oct 15, 2013 ... He was convicted in November 2004 of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, in 2002.

 

[mamooth]

Needless to say, Sanger said no such thing.

That is, Vig here is just flat out faking quotes now.

And he's proud of doing that. His cult says lying for the cult is good, therefore Vig lies for his cult.

 

[Vigilante]

Needless to say, Sanger said no such thing.

That is, Vig here is just flat out faking quotes now.

And he's proud of doing that. His cult says lying for the cult is good, therefore Vig lies for his cult.

Bullshit, even Snopes can't verify if she did or didn't! Sorry little c*unt, you lose...again!

 

[Rustic]

Showing just how much this lying, corrupt, criminal, murderer does know about OUR LAWS!!!!

weekly standard ^ | 4/3/16 | SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights. "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion. Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

Great, the most innocent of us have no rights whatsoever... How Orwellian

 

[mamooth]

Vig, now that you mention it, Snopes does have a page talking about the history of the variations of your faked quote.

Banned Parenthood

Of course, even though you now know the quote is faked, you'll still keep using it. Like I said, you'll tell any lie on behalf of your cult.

 

[Vigilante]

• Clinton ‘unborn person’ comments anger both pro-choice, pro-life sides
  The Washington Times ^ | April 3, 2016 | Bradford Richardson
  Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.” “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “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.” Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for...

Hillary Clinton just overturned Roe vs. Wade
TomHoefling.com ^ | 4/3/2016 | Tom Hoefling

For decades we've heard Republicans and Democrats tell us that we have to somehow "overturn Roe vs. Wade" in order to stop the abortion holocaust.

In the first place, there's nothing to "overturn." Roe was not a law. It was an arbitrary, unconstitutional, lawless court opinion delivered by a handful of oath-breaking, unprincipled, usurping judges -- men who have all already gone on to meet the Supreme Judge of the Universe to explain exactly why they did what they did. Their mere opinion, in one particular case, which opened the door to one of the largest mass murders in human history, is, and always has been, completely null and void, by every natural law, constitutional principle upon which this republic was founded.

However, even by the corrupt standards of the decision itself, the decision has already been overturned.

By whom?

By the current leader of the pro-abortion forces in this country, Hillary Clinton.

From the written opinion itself:

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

That's right. Roe turned completely on whether or not the unborn child is a person.

And yesterday, Hillary Clinton finally faced up to the truth of the matter and established that indeed, the unborn child is a person.

"The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," she said. (VIDEO)

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

-- The Constitution of the United States

In fact, if they are a person, as she now admits to be the case, they do have God-given, unalienable, constitutional rights. End of the story. Even the infamous Blackmun court admitted as much.

 

[Vigilante]

Vig, now that you mention it, Snopes does have a page talking about the history of the variations of your faked quote.

Banned Parenthood

Of course, even though you now know the quote is faked, you'll still keep using it. Like I said, you'll tell any lie on behalf of your cult.

It's UNDETERMINED you jackass, because they put it in RED that it's false and then say they can't find a source, means what asshole?

 

[mamooth]

No, it said "FALSE" in big red letters. Because it's false.

See Vig, in the real world, if nobody can find the quote anywhere, that means the quote is faked.

But hey, let's play your game.

"I've been neutered, so I no longer have any genitals."
-- Vigilante

Any normal person would say that quote is false, since I can't give a source. But by your standards, since nobody can find the original quote, that means the quote is true.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

No, it said "FALSE" in big red letters. Because it's false.

See Vig, in the real world, if nobody can find the quote anywhere, that means the quote is faked.

But hey, let's play your game.

"I've been neutered, so I no longer have any genitals."
-- Vigilante

Any normal person would say that quote is false, since I can't give a source. But by your standards, since nobody can find the original quote, that means the quote is true.

Prove it's false! I'm here all night asswipe! Snopes can't, and neither can you!

sanger was a racist - - Yahoo Search Results

 

[mamooth]

It's no secret that pro-lifers all over always lie about Sanger, so why are you so proud of having a search engine reveal that?

 

[Vigilante]

It's no secret that pro-lifers all over always lie about Sanger, so why are you so proud of having a search engine reveal that?

I enjoy OUTING YOU MURDERING SCUM for exactly what and who you are, the very BOTTOM of humanity, you scum keep proving it with every post!