‘I Strongly Support Roe v. Wade,’ Clinton Reiterates at Final Presidential Debate

clinton-ss-compressedLAS VEGAS, Nev. — During the third and final presidential debate before the 2016 election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton reiterated her commitment to keeping abortion legal and appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court that would do so.

“First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country?” moderator Chris Wallace asked in presenting his first question to the candidates.

“I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community,” Clinton replied in part. “… I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade…”

Later in the debate, Wallace asked Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump if he would like to see the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe. Trump replied that he believes the judges he would appoint will likely send the matter back to the states.

Clinton, however, continued to assert that the government should not take away the option for women to end their child’s life.

“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 said.

“And in this case, it’s not only about Roe v. Wade. It is about what’s happening right now in America,” Clinton stated. “So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice to the extent that they are defunding Planned Parenthood, which, of course, provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Wallace then asked Clinton how far her beliefs go about abortion.

“I want to explore how far you believe 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?” he inquired.

“Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account,” Clinton replied. “And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.”

She asserted that there are cases where a woman’s health might be at risk if they carry the child to term.

“The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make,” Clinton said. “I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy.”

“I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account,” she added.

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said, “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.”

“If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section,” he explained. “His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • the greedy boat

    i will not be voting for mrs. clinton, but she is absolutely correct on this issue.

    • myintx

      no, it’s not OK to kill human beings that have done nothing wrong.

      • the greedy boat

        But it is okay to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

        • myintx

          Only by giving birth…..

          • the greedy boat

            …or having an abortion.

          • myintx

            No…. Killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is WRONG…. And yes, simple common sense and logic tell us an unborn child is a human being.

          • the greedy boat

            women are not obligated to carry their pregnancies to term.

          • myintx

            No one should be allowed to kill human being that has done nothing wrong..

          • the greedy boat

            and the state should never coerce a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

          • myintx

            Killing a child – born or unborn – is way worse than telling someone they have to ensure the safety of their child – born or unborn – until they can be SAFELY handed off to someone else.

          • the greedy boat

            if the state can coerce you to carry a pregnancy to term…do not give the state that kind of power.

          • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The “state” didn’t coerce the pregnancy in the first place. Actions, though, have consequences.

          • the greedy boat

            No it did not and it will not coerce her to carry said pregnancy to term.

          • Amos Moses

            they are not obligated to raise them once they are born …. so we can make abortion retro-active …. right ………..

          • the greedy boat

            if you think you can get away with murder, go for it.

          • Amos Moses

            why should it be murder in that case ………. what does the age of the child have to do with it …….

          • the greedy boat

            there is this little thing called a live birth.

          • Amos Moses

            there is a little thing about being ALIVE in the womb …. and has a heartbeat after 16 days of conception ….. it is ALIVE …………….

          • the greedy boat

            i am not comfortable with using the power of the state to coerce a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

          • Amos Moses

            what does your “comfort” have to do with it …… murder is murder and the age, location, size, nor level of dependence of the victim is a factor ………. it is still murder ……..

          • the greedy boat

            It is not murder. Do you want mandatory organ donations?

          • Amos Moses

            What does one have to do with the other …… the taking of innocent life is murder ….. it size, location, level of dependence nor the environment it is in is a factor ………..

          • the greedy boat

            Well if you want the state to force women to carry pregnancies to term you should have no problem with mandatory organ donation.

          • Amos Moses

            the state did not force them to have sex that results in pregnancy ……… so that is a false argument …….. Red Herring ….

          • the greedy boat

            You have no problem with the state forcing a woman to use her organs to gestate an unwanted pregnancy, mandatory organ donations would also save lives. Why the change of heart?

          • Amos Moses

            “You have no problem with the state forcing a woman to use her organs to gestate an unwanted pregnancy”

            if she did not want to have an unwanted pregnancy ….. then she did not have to have the act that brought it about ….. but if the child is one year old and she decides she does not want it …. then the state should not force her to raise it ….. and it can be retro-actively ended ….. why the change of heart ………….

          • the greedy boat

            If she does not want to raise a one year old she can give the child to the state. If she does not wish to carry her pregnancy to term she can have an abortion.
            You seem to have a perverse desire to murder the born. Have a talk with your jesus about that.

          • myintx

            So a woman should be able to do whatever she wants? She can rob a bank, kill her dog, kill a child or kill her unborn child…

            How about a woman and her partner GIVE A DAMN about the tiny human being they created? States should be able to tell people they must ensure the safety of their children (born or unborn) -at least until they can be handed off SAFELY to someone else.

          • the greedy boat

            She can do all those things in the first paragraph, but she will run into problems with the law if she does them. She can have an abortion if she so desires without any problem, that is the way it is.

          • myintx

            We’ve seen many times in the past that just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it should remain legal.

          • the greedy boat

            I’ll pick my lawyers, you pick yours and I’ll see you in court.

          • myintx

            Like this guy? Alan Dershowitz: Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes… Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)… [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.” From Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.

          • the greedy boat

            I’m not worried about your morality, I’m worried about women losing rights. It is better to win in court than to be hung up on some antiquated notions about “morality”. Yoor lawyers have had a bad year so far. You should do a better job, I’d prefer you didn’t.

          • myintx

            Rights given in error can and should be taken away… People used to have the right to own slaves… should that right have been taken away?ABSOLUTELY.

          • the greedy boat

            slavery in the antebellum south is not germane to this conversation, but i’ll humour you. the reason that the right to own slaves was lost was because the south overplayed their hand. had the confederate states not seceded and started a war, who knows how long slavery would have lasted. you are aware that there were several slave states that did not have their slaves freed by the emancipation, and that what ultimately freed the slaves were amendments to the constitution. so maybe you should draft an amendment that strips women of their agency and makes them subservient to the fetus. good luck(not really) in getting that ratified. if you are comfortable with the state having the power to force women to carry their pregnancies to term then you are fan of totalitarianism.

          • myintx

            Oh, so the reason that the right to own slaves was lost didn’t have anything to do with human rights… yea, right…

            A parent with an unwanted newborn isn’t subservient to his newborn if the law tells him he has to care for the newborn as LONG AS IT TAKES for the newborn to be handed off SAFELY to someone else… That is saying that all innocent human beings have a right to life and that parents have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their offspring at least until they can be safely handed off to someone else. That is what a parent of an unwanted unborn child should do – ensure their unborn child’s safety until birth and until the baby can be handed off safely to someone else.

            It’s not totalitarianism to tell a parent they have to ensure the safety of their children – born or unborn (as long as it takes for them to be safely handed off to someone else). It’s called PROTECTING vulnerable human beings.

          • the greedy boat

            You are correct,the slaves were not freed because of human rights concerns.
            Nothing is owed to the unborn. If the woman does not wish to allow gestation she is well within her rights to haunt it.
            It is absolutely totalitarianism to use the power of the state to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

          • myintx

            Basic human rights are owed to innocent human beings so YES unborn children should have a right to life.

            Laws saying someone has to ensure the safety of their child – born or unborn – are laws that PROTECT vulnerable human beings… The killing of innocent human beings sounds like something that someone with a totalitarian mindset would do.

          • Amos Moses

            why should she not have the right to kill it … she did the year before ………

          • the greedy boat

            Because that is the way it is.

          • Amos Moses

            sure ….. but if you had any intellectual honesty it should make no difference …………

          • the greedy boat

            Your problems with the world are yours alone.

          • Amos Moses

            No ….. your problem with child bearing is …………..

          • the greedy boat

            I cannot bear children, so problem solved.

          • Amos Moses

            that is a blessing … for children ……….

          • the greedy boat

            You feel better cupcake?

          • Amos Moses

            its mr. cupcake to you ………..

          • the greedy boat

            heh. heh.

          • uninvitedguest

            amos is a troll and its easier to just block it

  • Sue

    Baby killer, what else can we expect?

  • Amos Moses

    High Priestess of Molech ………..

    • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      A promise of sacrificing our children to the Fires of Molech in return for a false prosperity…

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “The Democrats promise to take care of all of us from the cradle to the grave…the only problem of course, is making it to the cradle.” – Unknown

  • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Her words bring to mind the words of the Prophet Isaiah (5:20-23)

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
    Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
    Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    And clever in their own sight!

    Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
    And valiant men in mixing strong drink,

    Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
    And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!

  • Bacchus

    Clintons have left a long trail of dead bodies on the landscape. Of course she’s OK with abortion. Human life means nothing to these people.

  • Amos Moses

    “A woman should not be penalized for having an abortion …. her baby should ….”
    ~ Anonymous heard in passing

  • Amos Moses

    Greetings, Christians of America.

    I am running for President of the United States and I am writing today to ask for your vote.

    I know I do not have the best track record with religious voters. I understand that your rights as Christians are of utmost importance to you, as you feel them being suffocated in the current American landscape. You are concerned about the cultural tide rising against your values. You are worried about the force of the government coming against the practice of your deeply held beliefs. There is tension in the air that everyone can feel.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way, my Christian friends.

    I want to make it clear to you that a vote for me is a vote for a quick, clean death for your religious liberty.

    The aforementioned death is already coming, to be sure. The dominoes are falling. There is no need to be upset or bitter about it. Nothing you can do will cause so much as a stumble in the ferocious march of the New Tolerance.

    There is no need to drag this out any longer than we have to. You fought hard, and you fought nobly—but your time in this country is done. Enough with the death throes. What I am offering is a merciful end to your arduous struggle.

    Aren’t you tired of fighting for a protected voice in the public square? Wouldn’t you like to put to bed the anxieties about what religious rights your children and grandchildren will have? Wouldn’t it be great to not have to worry about the extent to which the government will force you to violate your faith and conscience by mandate?

    My vow to you is closure and rest. No more struggling. No more worry. As president, I will grant your religious liberty a quick, clean death.

    That is my solemn promise to you.