Hillary Clinton Defends Killing Babies in Partial-Birth Abortions: “Government Shouldn’t Step In”

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Oct 19, 2016   |   10:22PM   |   Washington, DC

Tonight, during the presidential debate, pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended partial birth abortions on babies late in pregnancy. She said that she didn’t think the government should be stepping in to protect unborn children that late in pregnancy.

Despite factual information showing that partial birth abortions happen in most cases on healthy babies and healthy mothers, Clinton claimed that killing unborn children in partial birth abortions was necessary because of supposed special cases where abortion was necessary to save the life or health of the mother — even though considerable research has documented the fact that abortions often hurt and kill women.

“I’m going to give you a chance respond but I want to ask you Secretary Clinton 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? ” moderator Chris Wallace asked Clinton.

“I do not think the United States government should be stepping in,” Clinton said in defense of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

“Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, 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,” she continued.

SIGN THE PLEDGE! We Oppose Hillary Clinton!

“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 health of the mother taken into account,” Clinton added.

Marjorie Danenfelser, the head of the pro-life women’s group Susan B. Anthony List, said Clinton’s response was unbelievable.

“Clinton defended her vote to protect this procedure confirming her view that unborn children have no rights up until birth. It is confirmed:  Clinton supports unlimited abortion on-demand,” she said. “Clinton’s position on abortion is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans who support a compassionate limit on abortion after five months and who do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortion on-demand. In pressing Clinton to state her opinion about the reality of the abortion procedure, Donald Trump did a service to all Americans. On this issue the contrast between the two candidate could not be more clear.”

Meanwhile, Clinton’s claims are false.

A number of reputable doctors’ groups say there is no medical reason for a pregnant woman to have a partial-birth abortion. In fact, such abortions, which are at the center of a national legal debate, can be dangerous to women who have them.

These physicians say there is no truth to the claims made by the abortion industry that the second- and third-trimester abortion method is necessary for a woman’s health.

Groups including the Christian Medical and Dental Society, the Catholic Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for the Truth have all stated that partial-birth abortion is a dangerous practice for both mother and child.

The groups supported the federal ban passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.

Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Society asks, “How can abortion proponents defend the indefensible? A side benefit of this effort is that it shows the medical people how radical the abortion movement is.”

Meanwhile, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes that there has been “zero peer-reviewed safety data” on partial-birth abortion, which the group describes as “a procedure involving overtly dangerous obstetrical techniques on a mid-trimester uterus over a period of two-to-three days.”

Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote a letter to a Congressional subcommittee, noting that partial-birth abortion “has no medical indications.” Orient went on to say that the doctors in her organization “conceive of no circumstance in which it (partial-birth abortion) would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother.”

Orient noted that, if a pregnant woman was suffering from a complication such as toxemia, her doctor could either perform a Caesarian section or induce labor. “The only purpose of the partial-birth abortion,” Orient wrote, “is to assure that the end of the pregnancy is accompanied by the end of the life of a child about to be born.

Contrary to claims made by the pro-abortion lobbying group NARAL, Orient points out that partial-birth abortion is not a safe practice, since it “carries the risk of maternal injury or death, as by uterine rupture or laceration and hemorrhage.”

Orient’s group was among the organizations that filed an amicus brief in Stenberg v. Carhart, a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban. The High Court ruled that ban unconstitutional, claiming the law’s language was vague and that it did not contain a health exception. The most recent partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress includes a Congressional finding noting that partial-birth abortion is not needed to safeguard a woman’s health.

Likewise, the Physicians Ad Hoc Committee for the Truth has said, “Because of the dangers posed to women, the distortions regarding the so-called ‘medical necessity’ of partial-birth abortion must not be allowed to stand…Given the many potential risks the procedure entails for the mother, far from being medically indicated, partial-birth abortion is actually contraindicated.”

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has also spoken strongly against the abortion method. “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

Ironically, even one of the nation’s leading abortion practitioners has said that partial-birth abortion is not safe. Speaking to the American Medical News in 1995, third-term abortionist Warren Hern said, “You really can’t defend it…I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use…Turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous. You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do that.”