As you would expect from a first-rate journalist, Fox News’ Chris Wallace held the candidates’ feet to the fire in last night’s third and final presidential debate.
From the pro-life perspective, it was particularly useful that Wallace said he would “drill down” on the question of the Supreme Court “because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely or possibly two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century.”
And so he did. The results were classic Hillary Clinton–a defense not only of Roe but of the grotesque partial-birth abortions and abortions performed right up until just before birth.
Donald Trump strongly criticized Clinton for supporting abortions “one or two or three or four days prior to birth.”
As Wallace bore in, the responses from pro-abortion Clinton and pro-life Trump moved from the very general to the very specific. Answering “where do you want to see the [Supreme] Court take the country?” and “what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted?” Clinton responded “we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights” and “not reverse Roe v. Wade.”
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
Trump countered, “The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. …They will interpret the constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted and I believe that’s very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It is all about the constitution, and it is so important. The constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.”
Wallace then “drilled down” on Trump: “Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact, states a woman’s right to abortion?”
Trump said, “Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that would go back to the individual states.” Wallace asked again, and Trump reaffirmed his answer: “If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion. Because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states.”
Clinton’s answer was, “Well, 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 went on to strongly defend Planned Parenthood, conveniently omitting that it is the largest abortion provider in the world (or that she was endorsed by its political arm).
Wallace drilled down another thousand feet on Clinton as well:
I wanted to ask you Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you think 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?
Clinton gave her usual answer–that Roe allows for some “regulation,” provided there is an exception for “the health of the mother.” Of course, for 43 years the health exception has swallowed the rule as thoroughly as a python gulps down its supper.
To his great credit, Trump called her out:
Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.
Clinton responded that this is just “scare rhetoric,” as if what she supports doesn’t frighten mainstream America. “And I will stand up for that right,” she added.
And honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said. Doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that [right].
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.