6

Please note that this question contains some graphic language that some people will find distressing. Ben Shapiro makes two statements about Hillary Clinton's views on allowing abortion of a fetus. There are two parts of the video that I have transcribed, and given links to. I realise there technically are two different claims, but I think this can form one question (I really don't want to make multiple questions of this one video).

We're going to play a game called "When should you be able to kill this baby?" Because I've been told by people like Hillary Clinton that you're able to kill this baby all the way up to the very end, right, 32 to 30 weeks.
Link to video

and

It is evil to suggest, as Hillary Clinton does, that the minute before a baby is born you should be able to drag it by the feet, out of the mother, except for the head, stick a scissors in there, ram it into the baby's skull, rip the skull open, suck the brains out, crushing it, and then pull it out. Hillary believes that that's something you should be able to do.
Link to video

So the important claims to note here are:

  1. The claim that Ms Clinton supports abortion when the fetus is at 30 to 32 weeks of gestation.

  2. (Ignoring the luridly detailed description of one specific method of abortion), that Ms Clinton has "suggested" that "you should be able" to perform an abortion "the minute before the baby is born".

My own research has turned up a Snopes article that fact-checks the proposition:

  • Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both seek an abortion "cutoff date" of 36 weeks, and both claim that late-stage fetuses feel no pain and have no rights.
    Snopes link

This was concluded as being false. Specifically the "cutoff date 36 weeks" sounds very close to Ben's statement of "the minute the baby is born", and so if I take Snopes conclusion to be correct, then I can deduce that Shapiro's second quote is false. Though please advise me if Snopes has this wrong.

Shapiro's first quotation however doesn't refer to 36 weeks gestation, but to "30 to 32" weeks. As he is referring to the earlier "30 to 32" week period, could it be said that Shapiro is correct in saying this about Ms Clinton?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Zebrafish
  • 3,773
  • 5
  • 18
  • 27
  • 2
    I think the Snopes article gives you the answer. Clinton has supported the right to abortion in general terms, but has not made any specific statements about precise rules for late-term abortions. – Paul Johnson Jan 26 '19 at 09:41
  • I see, so so far there's no evidence that supports either true or false? I found this page, where Trump makes a similar charge against her: "f you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. " I really don't know what this is, is there are a reason Trump and Shapiro have characterised her views in such a way? Maybe Hillary has equivocated on the issue to allow such an interpretation? http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm – Zebrafish Jan 26 '19 at 11:11
  • 7
    The reason Shapiro and Trump characterise her views that way is because they're *blatantly dishonest*. But graphic descriptions of murder play very nicely to their base, which is predisposed to think that absolute worst of Hillary Clinton, up to and including a habit of ritual child murder in the basement of a pizza joint. – Shadur Jan 26 '19 at 20:08
  • 1
    @Shadur I share your concern, but in neither Trump's remark nor in Shapiro's remark have they said that either procedure is carried out with a live fetus. The fetus's life is ended in the uterus before "ripping it out" or doing the "intact dilation and extraction" process that Shapiro refers to. If you want to say that Trump or Shapiro, through their tone or language impliedly led people to believe it's a live baby at that stage, I'm with you, that's a fair argument to make. – Zebrafish Jan 27 '19 at 06:19
  • 2
    One should take almost anything Shapiro says with a very large amount of salt. As someone that claims pretty often he is just using "facts" to defend his views, he most often than not quote statistics incorrectly or quote things out of context to make his argument while wielding the most convincing poker face possible. – T. Sar Jan 28 '19 at 09:48

2 Answers2

13

On the Issues has an overview over Clinton's position on abortion.

She described her position on late-term abortions during the 2016 presidential debate:

Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. 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 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 just been discovered about the pregnancy. 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 the health of the mother taken into account.

In 2000, she clarified that she is not opposed to a ban on so called partial-birth abortions, as long as the health and life of the mother are protected:

I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.

Clinton repeated in 2016 that she is still in favour of regulations on late-term abortions if they contain exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

So Clinton is not opposed to late-term abortion when the life or health of the mother is in question, but she is in favour of regulating them if it is not.

The description of late-term abortions by Shapiro is also questionable.

tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • I've read that Forbes article, and the Wikipedia article on "intact dilation and extraction", and as far as I can tell it DOES happen and is described in the article exactly as Shapiro describes it. Legislation varies from state to state. What is not necessarily true is Shapiro's second quote where he mentions this procedure and says that Hillary is in favour of it. However I'm not sure about the first quote as Hillary has essentially been vague, saying basically something like it's a difficult decision for a woman and the government shouldn't be making the decision for her. – Zebrafish Jan 27 '19 at 06:05
  • 1
    @Zebrafish The upshot is that Shapiro's characterization of Hillary's opinion is fundamentally dishonest; healthy pregnant women with healthy babies *are not* routinely getting late-term abortions; therefore banning the procedure does *not* save healthy babies, it forces people already in an impossibly tragic situation (a baby with a fatal defect) to face an *even more* horrific option (a difficult delivery with no possible positive outcome). See [this Guardian article for several stories](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump). – BradC Jan 29 '19 at 17:23
  • @BradC "healthy pregnant women with healthy babies are not routinely getting late-term abortions" - Shapiro never said that, specifically that late-term abortions are routinely performed. He just said that if it ever comes to deciding to abort a 32 week old fetus then Hillary believes you should be able to do it. The evidence we have from Hillary, I repeat is 1) She said "there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions", and 2) When challenged on a late-term scenario, she just said it's a very difficult decision for a woman to make, and the government shouldn't make it for her. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 17:32
  • 3
    @Zebrafish Still largely a false argument; there are no doctors in the US that will perform an abortion on a healthy 32-week fetus, period, so asking if it should be allowed by law is a straw man, unless you take the real scenarios into account (the ones I discuss above). There is a *single* doctor in *one US state* who consults with mothers in those sad medical situations in which it is necessary. Clearly explaining these caveats is important, lest the Shapiro's of the world declare **SEE SHE LOVES KILLING BABIES**. – BradC Jan 29 '19 at 17:44
  • @BradC You've missed the point completely, I'm sorry to say. The point isn't how often late-term abortions occur or how many doctors perform it. The question is whether Hillary believes a mother should be allowed to terminate a fetus at 32+ weeks. It's totally irrelevant how many doctors perform it or how often it happens. And I was just reading your article, I'm saddened by it, but it's an article that explains the anguish of making the choice of aborting a late-term fetus, and doesn't address the question. I'll probably flag your comments, only because they're irrelevant and distracting. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 18:08
  • 4
    @Zebrafish This is an [X vs Y problem](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3916/), and, per that meta question, I'm addressing the *unstated implications of your question*. So, **yes**, Clinton (and the vast majority of Democrats) oppose bills banning late-term abortions unless they have the proper exceptions for the types of cases we discuss above, but **no**, this doesn't mean she supports terminating a healthy near-term pregnancy arbitrarily (because that doesn't really happen). Maybe I'll write my own answer addressing this point. – BradC Jan 29 '19 at 19:16
  • @BradC So in regard to your X-Y topic, you believe that X is that Hillary believes in a woman's choice to have a late-term abortion, and that Y is the implication that she holds this belief without any conditions or restrictions attached. Provided Hillary does have restrictions, and Shapiro doesn't mention them (it's not like she detailed them anyway), then Shapiro is making a potentially misleading statement, though still true. Therefore, the answer would be: Yes, Hillary does believe that (but with exceptions and restrictions). – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 20:11
  • I think you brought way too much emotion to this. There's no need to remark "SEE SHE LOVES KILLING BABIES". You only needed to say Shapiro's claim is technically correct but left out the part that Hillary "likely" only approves of such a thing with certain conditions are met ie., fetal abnormalities, risk of death to the mother etc. And the link to the Guardian article, which I read, and was ultra-depressing, isn't inappropriate as a source for addressing Shapiro's statement. I know this is a hard and emotional thing. I really didn't need to read that. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 20:12
  • 1
    @Zebrafish So you don't see the relevance to *a discussion about nuanced policy positions about late-term abortions* of an article explaining the *actual situations that people need late-term abortions*? It's precisely on point, and an important counter to this common accusation (that was around long before Clinton and Shapiro). I was once strongly anti-abortion, so I am deeply familiar with the arguments surrounding it; so I can't help but read between the lines to the underlying arguments, or seeing the ways in which this argument is frequently used to attack pro-choice politicians. – BradC Jan 29 '19 at 21:01
  • @BradC That article has no bearing on the question of whether Shapiro's statement about Hillary is correct, nor on what Hillary's views on late-term abortion are. So no, it's no relevant in the least. The only way a fanciful mind could see it as relevant for answering this question is that the article focuses on late-term abortion, that's it. Had it been an article on something Hillary said about abortion, then it would be relevant. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 21:08
  • @Zebrafish This isn't a simple "did Clinton say what Shapiro says" (X) question, it is more of a "is Shapiro's characterization of Clinton's position accurate" (Y) question. The full quotes from the debate try to answer (Y), not just (X). Yes, I went a layer deeper and linked an article that *further* supports and explains the reasoning Clinton used; I guess that's answering a version of "is the (common) anti-abortion objection to late-term abortion as brutal and unnecessary accurate" (Z) question. No, X<>Y<>Z, but clearly they are all intertwined. – BradC Jan 29 '19 at 21:33
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88984/discussion-between-zebrafish-and-bradc). – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 21:37
  • @tim I may accept your answer, but the Forbes article you've given makes a completely false representation. It says: "as Jen Gunter ... pointed out on Twitter, “There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion.” This claim is repeated in other sources also. This is clearly false. Abortions do take place at that late a stage, though are rare. It may happen when there are fetal abnormalities or risk of death or harm to the mother. I feel the article is trying to convey the point that late-term abortions are rare, which is true, but in doing so makes a completely false representation. – Zebrafish Jan 30 '19 at 13:18
  • @Zebrafish Do *you* have any evidence to refute the article's claim, that 9th month abortions actually do take place, albeit rarely? (And no, LifeNews should not be considered a reliable source.) – BradC Jan 30 '19 at 17:46
  • @BradC Yes, a CNN article about Trump's statements. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-abortion-fact-check/index.html "but abortions as late in a pregnancy as Trump suggests are almost unheard of. We therefore rate Trump's claim as true, but misleading." This is coming from a source that daily rails against Trump. I can admit Shapiro's statement is technically true but misleading. Honesty requires you to admit that the statement "There is no such thing as ninth month abortions" is flatly wrong. – Zebrafish Jan 30 '19 at 17:53
  • @Zebrafish What? That CNN article is a debate fact check with **no supporting information at all**; the words "almost unheard of" are not linked to any other source. I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't add anything to our conversation here (which is about *rare* vs *almost unheard of* vs *never happens*). Find me a documented story of a 9th-month abortion in the last decade, and I'll concede. – BradC Jan 30 '19 at 18:03
  • @BradC That is so dishonest you. I've given you an article from a news source that is very anti-Trump that described his statement as correct but misleading, and saying that they are "almost unheard of". In the article you linked an abortion took place at 35 weeks. While it may be just shy of nine months, it's awfully presumptive of you to take the absolute statement "there is no such thing as a ninth month abortion" as true. How could you possibly know that given that abortions can be private and unreported? Not everything is reported. – Zebrafish Jan 30 '19 at 18:17
  • 1
    @Zebrafish You are the one disputing the claims of the Forbes article; I find the CNN article an insufficient rebuttal. You're entitled to place your vote and/or green checkmark where you will. – BradC Jan 30 '19 at 18:29
  • @BradC You're so ideologically fixed in your position that you won't even reason. You completely dismiss ANY possibility of a ninth month abortion taking place and believe that there are no such things, when you know that late-term abortions occur, such as the 35 week one mentioned in Guardian article. Now before you admit that a ninth month abortion could ever be possible you want to see a documented story of such a case. This is the height of dishonesty and self-serving political extremism. Have fun in your tunnel-visioned life. – Zebrafish Jan 30 '19 at 18:38
5

Transcript from 19 October 2016 debate:

WALLACE: I'm going to give you a chance to 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?

CLINTON: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the 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 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. 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 the health of the mother taken into account.

WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your reaction? And particularly on this issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions.

TRUMP: Well, I think it's 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's OK and Hillary can say that that's OK. But it's not OK with me, because based on what she's 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: Well, that is not what happens in these cases. And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate. You should meet with some of the women that I have met with, women I have known over the course of my life. This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. And I do not believe the government should be making it.

On 21 October 2003 Clinton was one of 34 senators who voted against a law which:

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Community
  • 1
DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • It seems there's nothing here but transcript, which I already linked in my comment. Does this mean Trump and Shapiro are basically correct? Washington Times reported her saying “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights" and "Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy." She does seem to rather vague on this issue. I just don't understand if Trump and Shapiro are right. – Zebrafish Jan 26 '19 at 15:50
  • 2
    @Zebrafish the holding that the fetus doesn't have Constitutional Rights is a key aspect of Roe v. Wade which says "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ So “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights" applies to all the supporters of Roe v Wade. – DavePhD Jan 26 '19 at 16:50
  • 6
    @Zebrafish No, it means that Shapiro and Trump grossly misinterpreted what Clinton said, either through ignorance or malice. Clinton points out that pretty much *nobody* carries a child through 8.5 months and then decides on the final week to instead murder a perfectly viable child for funsies, that the only time an abortion happens that late in the pregnancy is because the kid is already dead and the mother is likely to die as well if what remains is carried to term. It's not her fault that Shapiro and Trump both try to turn it into some kind of graphic Herod gore porn strawman. – Shadur Jan 26 '19 at 20:03
  • 2
    Core phrase and the point Clinton was trying to get across: "This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. **And I do not believe the government should be making it**. " – Shadur Jan 26 '19 at 20:04
  • @Shadur Right, but the only things Hillary said is "there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions" and, paraphrasing, this is a very difficult decision for a woman to make and the government shouldn't be making it for her. So if one claims that Hillary believes that a woman should have the right to choose, whether at 32 weeks or 36 weeks, whether because of fetal abnormality or risk to the mother, I don't particularly see Trump's or Shapiro's first claim to be false. In regard to Shapiro's second claim, where he graphically describes "intact dilation and extraction" (which is a thing)... – Zebrafish Jan 27 '19 at 05:57
  • ... I think we can say that's at least misleading, as it's a particular type of abortion that Hillary hasn't particularly defended. I didn't want to bring up the abortion method, but I saw you making the point of "gore porn". In fact the way Shapiro describes it is exactly how it's described on Wikipedia. And as for Trump's comment about ripping the baby out, sure, it's loaded language, but they literally do pull the fetus out in that abortion method. Just trying to keep it real here. – Zebrafish Jan 27 '19 at 05:59
  • 2
    FWIW the second part of this answer seems to be the most telling. As a politician, and importantly a politician in an active campaign for President of the United States, both in 2000 (in tim's answer) and 2016 (in this answer), I would be reticent to trust anything she said in either of those cases as anything but "pandering to the crowd/public opinion at the time". Her voting record is (imo) much more telling as to her true beliefs. – Ertai87 Jan 28 '19 at 19:56
  • 2
    @Zebrafish The issue is that Shapiro's argument is somewhat like "Hillary Clinton supports stabbing people with knives" because she voted against a bill that says "no one can use a knife to break the skin of another person" and in explaining her decision she said "Sometimes, using knives called scalpels on people is necessary to save their lives, this is called surgery and people don't do it for fun but rather when there is a medical necessity" and then Shapiro says "See! Hillary is in favor of stabbing people!" - if you skip the explanation you ignore the actual position. – Bryan Krause Jan 28 '19 at 22:50
  • @BryanKrause I assume in your analogy medical surgery refers to aborting a late-term fetus with an abnormality, and stabbing people refers to terminating a late-term healthy fetus. Shapiro says Hillary believes a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 32+ weeks. From the evidence I've seen that's probably true, but probably with conditions attached. Shapiro's claim would still be true, even if he omitted the conditions. If true, then Hillary does support late-term abortions, even at 32-36 weeks (in certain conditions, ie., fetal abnormality, risk of death to mother etc). – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 20:22
  • @Zebrafish My point is that omitting the conditions makes the claim mostly false because the conditions limit the support to a very narrow, very rare set of events. Your focus on a black and white truth here is, I think, doing you a disservice. Shapiro's claim is clearly intended to mislead. – Bryan Krause Jan 29 '19 at 20:31
  • @BryanKrause Yes, I am focusing on black and white truth, but of the statement in particular, though I'm sensitive to the nuances of the facts, that is, that information has been left out, making the statement what some would call a half-truth. I would think it a fair answer (if all suppositions are right) to say "Yes, she believes in a woman's choice to terminate a 32+ week old fetus, but only under certain conditions (let's assume fetal abnormality). It should also be right to say "Yes, Shapiro's statement is technically correct, but here's what he left out," no matter how much you hate him. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 20:53
  • @Zebrafish The point is that "*I've been told by people like Hillary Clinton that it's sometimes medically necessary to remove a fetus from the womb all the way up to the very end, right, 32 to 30 weeks, when the fetus has already died or the mother is going to die*" is an accurate statement but not the one that Shapiro made. English is not a literal language, most statements have a lot of implied context. Ignoring the implied context is foolish. – Bryan Krause Jan 29 '19 at 21:05
  • @Zebrafish Similarly, if I said "There are more cell phone users world wide and more people suffer from cancer than ever before!" that statement is correct in that both parts before and after "and" are true, but the fact that I've put them together in a sentence implies that I've made some causal link: in our language you would not group things together like that if you meant them to be separate. – Bryan Krause Jan 29 '19 at 21:07
  • @BryanKrause Yes, I totally agree with you. In fact I don't think we disagree at all. I'm just willing to say "Technically Ben Shapiro (as much as you or I hate him) made a correct statement about Hillary, but Hillary's support for late-term abortions isn't unconditional, it must be under exceptional circumstances." And I get the feeling that, for reasons either that people distrust Shapiro, or they lean a certain way, or the graphic nature of his tirade, or for whatever reason, won't allow those words to come out of their mouth. They can only say Shapiro is lying or misleading people. – Zebrafish Jan 29 '19 at 21:21
  • @Ertai87 But how could you classify Ben Shapiro's or Donald Trump's response any differently? They are also politicians, why should also be "pandering to the crowd/public opinion at the time"; which seems pretty apparently true when you look at how they also are putting their own rhetoric on her actions. Her voting record does seem to align well with her repeated insistence that the government shouldn't have control over it. I would say the way that Trump and Shapiro characterize and misrepresent it is also telling. It seems like two sides of the same coin to me. – JMac Jan 30 '19 at 11:54
  • @JMac I never said I didn't qualify Trump's statements the same way (for the same time period, not for all time periods). I do wonder what precisely you are referring to when you say Ben Shapiro is a politician though. I'm not super well-versed on US politicians (I'm not American), but I don't recall hearing that Ben Shapiro was one... – Ertai87 Jan 30 '19 at 15:34