[guest post by Dana]
Yesterday on Meet the Press, both Chuck Todd and Hillary Clinton made startling admissions when Todd asked the candidate when or if an “unborn child” has constitutional rights and Clinton answered:
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
Of course Big Media is silent about this gaffe (or Freudian slip…). Abortion contradictions are only red meat for the MSM if there is an R after the politician’s name. After doing a quick search this morning of the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the AP, I could not find any mention of Clinton’s obvious contradiction.
Anyway, Planned Parenthood officials rebuked Clinton for giving away the beans while undermining the abortion cause:
The comment “further stigmatizes #abortion,” Ms. Arellano said in a tweet. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.”
Describing the fetus as a “person” or “child” has long been anathema to the pro-choice movement, which argues the terms misleadingly imply a sense of humanity.
In addition, the specific term “person” is a legal concept that includes rights and statuses that the law protects, including protection of a person’s life under the laws against homicide. Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a “life,” it is not yet a “person.”
Guidelines issued by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discourage pro-choice advocates from using terms such as “abort a child,” instead recommending “more accurate/appropriate” alternatives such as “end a pregnancy” or “have an abortion.”
“‘Abort a child’ is medically inaccurate, as the fetus is not yet a child,” the guide reads. …