On everything from gay marriage (she was against it until she was for it) to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (reverse ditto), Hillary Clinton has become the consummate shape-shifter. But there is another arena where both she and the Democratic party have “evolved”—and that in a most disturbing direction.

Ever a supporter of a woman’s so-called “right to choose” (one should wonder about the baby’s choice), both have jettisoned the “safe, legal and rare” distinction championed, albeit somewhat hollowly, during the Clinton 1.0 era. Now the party encourages women to be proud of their abortions, something NARAL’s president, Ilyse Hogue, modeled during her speech at the convention.

In 2008, as the most pro-abortion candidate to ever run for the presidency was being introduced to the world, the Dems jettisoned the word “rare” from their party platform.  Abortion activists had been claiming that the word stigmatized something that was a benefit to society as well as a constitutional right.

But Hillary is helping put the spurs to this swing to the left, following in the footsteps of her acknowledged hero, Margaret Sanger.

Both Hillary and the Democratic party have announced a full-court press to repeal the Hyde amendment, the 1977 legislative provision—and upheld by the Supreme Court—barring the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions.

That’s right, she wants your taxes to help pay for the murder of pre-born children.

Even with all the scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood, she remains this treacherous organization’s strongest advocate.

But perhaps most illustrative of all are the two comments she has made in the last year-and-a-half: one recently when she appeared on The View, the other when she spoke at the Women in the World Summit in April of 2015.

First, note the gaped-mouth duplicity:

The View: The woman’s choice—and presumably that would include everyone else’s—to make a decision on this issue based on her “faith.”

The Summit: “…and deep seated…religious beliefs…have to be changed.”

As for her bald-faced support of the “structure” of Roe v. Wade that permits, with certain restrictions[1], abortions up until the point the baby enters the world through the birth canal:

Roe v. Wade prohibits third-trimester abortions except to protect the  “life and health of the mother.”

Now the life of the mother is a complete red herring. It’s not uncommon for a woman to experience serious health risks during the third trimester. Every day in America doctors use C-sections to save both mother and child, from full-term to thirty-nine weeks gestation and even younger. There’s never a need to overtly set out to kill the baby in order to save the mother’s life. (The baby can, and sometimes does, die in the process. But that is never the intent.)

The real snake in the grass here is “health”.

Here’s the “structure” of the law that Hillary wants to prop up:

Roe: “States … cannot prohibit abortions “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The ruling cites examples of what may be considered harmful to a woman’s health. These include the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” the work of caring for a child, and the “distress” “associated with the unwanted child.”

Doe: “The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Any abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their “best clinical judgment.”

Obviously, this opens a hole one can drive a Mack truck through. Down Syndrome? At least 67% of them are now being aborted. Lost job and suddenly can’t afford the baby? Forget the vast throngs of couples who can’t have children and would give anything to adopt the child. “How could I give up my baby?” the mother choosing abortion will say. (I’ve heard this more times than I can count outside of abortion mills.) So snip, snip, stab, stab. Problem solved. “Health” protected.

Obama and other party spokespersons are claiming that there has never been a person “more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president.” (Take that George Washington.) This assertion is highly debatable.

But one’s that not is there has never been a more pro-abortion candidate.

Sadly much of America, and that includes her staunch Catholic, personally pro-life running mate, just don’t seem to care.

[1] It is extraordinary to me that Hillary didn’t note this critical caveat, without which the supporter of abortions on viable children comes off like a Mengele wannabe. A senior moment? Sloppiness? Or has she become so brazen, so in the pocket of the “kill them and harvest their body parts” industry that she just doesn’t care?