It’s Time for Hillary Clinton to Tell the Truth About Her Abortion Views


Written by Mary Powers

It looks like the Republican candidates were right all along.

During a February debate in New Hampshire, U. S. Senator Marco Rubio called out the mainstream media for not asking the Democratic candidates about their positions on abortion. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, too, has consistently talked about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s extreme stances on the issue. Two months later, while vying for New York’s vote, Clinton decided it was time to bring out her favorite issue—abortion—and call out the media for not asking her about it in debates (town halls don’t count apparently).

Frankly, I agree with her . . . and the Republicans.

The question is: will the mainstream media really question Clinton on abortion? Or will they ask a question in a debate, allow her to give a vague answer, and not ask detailed follow up questions on her policy positions. Even The Washington Post pointed out that during Clinton’s New York debate temper tantrum she didn’t say anything specific on her abortion positions. Would that change with follow up questions?

The truth is that Clinton continually deceives the public on her real extremism on abortion. A large majority of Americans—even American women—don’t agree with her position. And yet she continues to dance around the issue, pander to voters, and twist facts to get ahead and seem moderate. There’s a reason why people find her untrustworthy.

Within the last few weeks, she and her supporters have done the following:

1.) In an interview on “Meet the Press” on April 3rd, Clinton went on the record as saying, “The unborn person has no constitutional rights.” No follow up question on the meaning of the word person—2/3rds of a person or not.

Then she went on to say:

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.

Yet, the abortion lobby—Clinton’s closest allies—vilely oppose all clinic regulations. So much so that they are bringing them before the Supreme Court. These laws are written to protect women from dirty clinics, untrained medical personnel, and emergencies that put their life in jeopardy.

2.) Bret Baier asked Clinton whether she would be in favor of some sort of restriction on late-term abortion at a town hall in March. Not only was she not transparent about the position she’d actually take on policy, but she also misled the American people on the 5-month Pain-Capable bill that passed both houses of Congress and that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

I have been on the record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for life and health of the mother. I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, but they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situations . . . and so I think it is under Roe v. Wade, it is appropriate to say in these circumstances so long as there’s an exception for the life and health of the mother.

Poor Hillary Clinton. Her staff must not have briefed her that the 5-month Pain Capable bill that passed the U.S. House and U.S. Senate has exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. She should really find some new advisors. They should also brief her on the fact that 60 percent of Americans—and 60 percent of American women—support this legislation.

3.) In an interview on “The View,” Candace Bure asked Clinton whether pro-life women could be feminists and whether pro-life women and feminism were mutually exclusive. Her response:

I have no problem with people making the case, look here’s the best choice or here’s a better choice, but when the government get’s involved . . . or when you say it’s illegal and women and doctors are criminals, that’s way too far for us . . . Yes, I do [believe you can be pro-life and a feminist], absolutely . . . Look I’ve been a—I’m sure Woopi and Joy have been—we’ve been in these conversations now for 40 plus years—right—and I respect the opinions and beliefs of every woman. The reason why being pro-choice is the right way to go is because it is a choice and hopefully a choice rooted in the thoughtfulness and care that women bring to this decision. So of course you can be a feminist and be pro-life.

Well, that sounds lovely. And I wish that was her real position—have an open mind! Yet, last year while speaking at a women’s conference, Clinton went on the record as saying she would work to change people’s religious beliefs to promote abortion. While talking about abortion access, Clinton noted:

Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will . . . and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

This also didn’t stop Clinton and her allies from attacking Carly Fiorina and other pro-life feminists as well. You can read more about one of their attacks here.

In addition, the night before the New York primary, Cecile Richards made a very disgusting remark at one of Clinton’s rallies about pro-life women voting for Senator Cruz:

A woman voting for Ted Cruz is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Cool. So pro-life lawmakers, working to protect women from the violence of abortion are now frying women up and eating them in red, white, and blue plastic bins. Yeah, pro-life women are great by the Clintonian standards.

These are just a few of many ways Clinton hides and has hid from revealing her true position on abortion. She’s right: the American people deserve to know where she actually stands on abortion so that they will not be deceived.

This article was originally posted at