Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs Have to Be Changed’ to Accommodate Abortion


The truth about Hillary Clinton and her agenda when it comes to abortion, equal pay for women, the Clinton Foundation, and corruption.

According to Joel Gehrke, a political reporter for National Review,  ‘Hillary Clinton said she believes that “religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to expand access to abortion.”

 “Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe unborn children should have any Constitutional rights — so it should come as no surprise to pro-life voters that she laughed, stood by and said nothing as someone introducing her at a campaign rally removed “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.  During an interview on The View recently Hillary Clinton said an unborn child just hours before delivery has no Constitutional rights.  Her comments came just days after Clinton said in a speech given on April 3, “Unborn children simply do not have any Constitutional rights, which would include the right to life”.  While Mrs. Clinton may be stating the law correctly,  she also strongly supports the law as it is, instead of including those not yet born, even past the point of viability or up to the date of natural delivery.  This is the ongoing battle between pro-life and pro-choice.  Pro-life believes the law SHOULD give Constitutional rights to the unborn child from the moment of conception.

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Clinton said, adding that “the woman’s right to make decisions” is the be all and end all when it comes to abortion.

Shosanna Weissman of the Weekly Standard was surprised that Clinton used the term “person” since most abortion advocates never refer to unborn children with any reference to their humanity.   Oftentimes, when talking about a woman’s right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a “fetus”, or even worse “just a clump of cells”.

In May 2015, the U.S. House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn babies 20 weeks and older from excruciating late abortions. In addition to a statement slamming House lawmakers for advancing the bill, Clinton and her staff insisted that doctors were wrong and there is no scientific evidence that babies can feel pain.  There is more than adequate scientific proof that unborn babies do in fact feel pain. (ONE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT MRS. CLINTON ONLY CONFERS WITH ABORTIONIST DOCTORS AND/OR WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD.)

Clinton has said more taxpayer money needs to go to the Planned Parenthood abortion business and Clinton demonstrated her unyielding commitment to abortion and the Planned Parenthood abortion business, accepting their endorsement during a pro-abortion rally — saying she would be the abortion business’ president.” (ISN’T A PRESIDENT SUPPOSE TO BE THE LEADER OF “ALL” PEOPLE, NOT JUST WHO THEY PICK AND CHOOSE  OR WHAT THEY INDIVIDUALLY BELIEVE?  SHE IS SOUNDING MORE LIKE MARGARET SANGER EVERY DAY.)

“The first order of business for Clinton and her friends at the abortion company is to force Americans to pay for abortions with their tax dollars by attempting to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which has protected Americans from funding most all abortions since the late 1970s. Upheld by the Supreme Court, the Hyde Amendment is now a target of abortion advocates who have moved from pro-choice to pro-abortion — forcing Americans not only to accept unlimited abortions before birth but to pay for them.”


While Senator of New York, from 2002 to 2008, the median annual salary for Mrs. Clinton’s staff for females staffers was $15,708.38 less than what was paid to men. Women earned a slightly higher median salary than men in 2005, coming in at $1.04. But in 2006, they earned 65 cents for each dollar men earned, and in 2008, they earned only 63 cents on the dollar.  A staffer’s salary is wholly determined by the member of Congress for whom he or she works, although the staffer salary is capped. As a result, staffer pay can vary widely.

While Secretary of State (2009 – 2013), men were paid  $16,000 more on average in annual salary than women, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  Although the Federal government has the final say on White House staff, the total spending on salaries is determined by Congress, which has to approve the annual White House budget. Mrs. Clinton may not have had much input into men vs. women’s pay when it came to staffers such as herself, or if it was equal during the time she was Secretary of State, but is obvious that the status quo of men being paid more than women still remained the same, but having said that, the Clinton Foundation pays male executives thirty eight percent (38%) more than women (HAS CLINTON REALLY BEEN FIGHTING FOR EQUAL PAY, AND HAS IT BEEN THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AS SHE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE?  IF SO, HOW CAN HER DECISION TO PAY HER FEMALE STAFF LESS WHILE BEING IN THE SENATE, AND IN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BE JUSTIFIED WITH HER RHETORIC?)



Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents  (2008 through 2012). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits, and a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” If you define “actual charities not controlled by the Clintons” as “programmatic grants,” then it appears the number is 15%, with 85% staying with the foundation itself:. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses, and that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State. The organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim of “charity”. because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. In the chart below, you can see where only ten percent (10%) went to charity in 2013, down by five percent (5%) in previous years.

Through 2014 the foundation had raised almost $2 billion from U.S. corporations especially Wall Street; foreign governments and corporations; political donors; and various other money interests.  (FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS THAT ABUSE, TORTURE AND STONE WOMEN TO DEATH – SO MUCH FOR HER CARING ABOUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.)

In her 30+ years in politics, where was her outcry (except in words in order to get votes), where was her work to create change, and why should ANYONE believe anything she feels she has to say now in order to win the upcoming election?


9 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs Have to Be Changed’ to Accommodate Abortion

  1. There are a couple of serious “red herrings” in here that I have to react to. Secretaries of State have never been able to have input on wages one way or the other. It’s completely outside their duties. If you are going to put up this kind of chart, it needs to be for the years she was a Senator, as the text part of your position was, or it’s irrelevant and misleading.

    You’re also being misleading, and in some ways falsely stating her position on rights of the unborn. Under Constitutional law, they do not have the same rights as a born person. You can argue they ought to, or that the Constitutional “right to life” SHOULD include those not yet born, but as the law stands, they don’t. It’s not a political position. It’s fact. When on The View, Mrs. Clinton never once said they should not have Constitutional rights, only that they don’t, and the mother’s rights (under the law) are legally held to be over and above those of the unborn. She also states that she agrees the mother’s rights should outweigh the preferences of government, and gives comparative examples of the laws in other countries. Here’s the actual relevant segment of that interview, from The View’s YouTube channel:


      1. No prob. Accuracy is hard! I have to fact-check almost everything I read these days. Journalists don’t seem to care about it as much as when I was young. Your veracity is notable.


  2. When you are right, you are right and I appreciate your calling attention to a couple mishaps in my article, which I will change accordingly. The last thing I ever want to do is misquote something or mislead people.


  3. I really do appreciate your calling this to my attention because I rather have someone give me a chance to correct something than to mislead anyone, or their assuming my work is just bad news or misguided opinion. Part of my belief in trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. There is enough of misinformation out there already and I sure don’t want to add to it. I know some of my articles are controversial so that makes it even more important that I get the facts correct.


    1. She has a right to her opinion, but I have a problem with the hypocrisy when she goes on about protecting children and women, equality for pay for females when she doesn’t even pay her own staff equally, and her suggesting that people have to change their minds to fit her agenda and beliefs.


      1. Agree! I don’t align myself with her view of human life at all, only acknowledging that she is dreadfully consistent in her disrespect for God’s creation. — Tony

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s