Never hesitant to parade her termagant personality and double-standards, the international meddler, tax-taker, and trust-breaking Hillary Clinton just resumed her grandiloquent grandstanding in public, this time, erupting over the implementation of Texas’ new pro-life statute that prohibits the willful taking of human life six weeks after conception.
On September 1, the former Senator, former Secretary of Invasion-Occupation-Usurpation-And-Warmongering – sorry, that should read, “Secretary of State” – and former First “Lady” took to Twitter to spout off about Texas’ new statute:
Under the cover of darkness, by choosing to do nothing, the Supreme Court allowed an unconstitutional abortion ban in Texas to go into effect last night. Their decision doesn’t change the fact that reproductive rights are human rights. We'll fight for them.
Which is almost amusing for its bold and shameless hypocrisy.
This is, of course, the same woman who in 1993 held secret, behind-closed-doors meetings with leftist ideologues and pampered corporate execs in the White House to formulate a brazenly unconstitutional “HillaryCare” statute that she and her husband, Bill, wanted to impose on every man, woman, and child in the US.
This is the same woman who used a private server to handle her government-related emails as Secretary of State, then refused to produce all of said government-related emails when ordered to do so.
Such a history makes it a bit difficult to read her words about “under cover of darkness” without having to suppress some rapidly rising bile.
Then there’s her “soapboxing” about an “unconstitutional abortion ban.”
She IS an attorney, and she did, on numerous occasions, take that wondrous oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic… So how is it that she is so completely ignorant of, or uncaring about, the actual WORDING of that rule book called the Constitution?
Not only did the US Supreme Court just rule that the Texas statute IS Constitutional, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause requires all states to uniformly enforce laws established to “protect” citizens therein.
As a result, if a state has a law that prohibits the taking of a human life, then the state cannot arbitrarily choose which lives are to be protected by that statute.
Which brings us to Hillary’s next major fumble, her statement that “reproductive rights are human rights.”
In this, she mimics the also insufferable screeching of Massachusetts Senator, and lawyer, Elizabeth Warren (D), who last month offered the same kind of sophistic nonsense in an interview with TeenVogue (because nothing says “appropriate for kids” better than pushing abortion-on-demand in your magazine). In writing on that tawdry affair, I noted the hypocrisy of a person who supports the existence of government to fund police and courts to prosecute those who might harm others, while she denies this so-called protection to the unborn. For her, and now, for Hillary, I offered this simple logic:
First. Is the fetus a human being?
Yes. Upon conception a human fetus has its own DNA, distinct from both parents, and that DNA is alive, on the great continuum from origin to demise. There is no break, there is no pause, there is no moment when the individual is not its own living entity – period. It is human, and it is “being.”
Second. Does Liz Warren (and, now we can include Hillary) support statutes that punish people for harming or taking the life of another human being?
She does.
Third. Has Senator Warren (etiam Hillary) not only taken an oath to abide by the US Constitution, but also accepted a position as a Senator that has been created by the specific words of the US Constitution?
Yes.
Fourth. Does the US Constitution leave it to states to define capital murder crimes and how they will be punished?
Yes.
Fifth. Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution require that all states that punish people for the taking of a human life protect all human beings equally and not exclude certain kinds of people or certain individuals from that presumed protection?
Yes.
Sixth. Is the non-defensive taking of another human life at all an act of “personal autonomy?”
No. It is, by definition, an aggressive act against another human being.
Seventh. Should, therefore, any state with statues that punish people for the aggressive, intentional taking of human lives apply their statutes to protect all human beings, including fetuses?
Yes.
Eighth. Is the only area where the US government has an appropriate function in this realm the area of making sure the Fourteenth Amendment is respected by the states?
Yes.
Ninth. Is Elizabeth Warren (and, is Mrs. Clinton) disregarding her oath to the Constitution?
Yes.
Would it be nice if Mrs. Clinton took a break from posing as a paladin of “human rights” and recognize that “reproductive rights” pertain only to the choice of engaging in the act of conceiving? Indeed.
Mrs. Clinton might want to take a moment to consider the fact that, once conception has occurred, reproduction has, by definition, occurred, therefore, ending that new life is not about one’s own rights, but about infringing on the rights of the other human being.
It’s pretty simple, and the Texas statute banning most abortions at six weeks and beyond conforms to the original concept that government is created to protect lives from aggression by others.
Unless Hillary is willing to toss aside her adherence to the belief that government should exist, unless she wants to eschew the notion that the state itself is supposed to protect her from others, she openly adopts the idea that such a government function is supposed to “protect” every human being.
As a result, her Tweeted protestations over the Texas Heartbeat Act of 2021 are a false narrative, a fable, reminiscent of the classic lines uttered by Shakespeare’s Macbeth:
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.