Hillary Clinton has been called the “most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate ever,” her ideology and policy reaching further and further than even most Democrats. In fact, 21 million pro-life Democrats feel like they are being marginalized by their party’s new radical platform on abortion.

However, at the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party voted to align itself with the views of its party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton, which includes her support for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

That’s where things got dicey for Democrats in the pro-life movement.  

The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, disallowed Medicaid to fund abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. Throughout the 40 years of its existence, the Hyde Amendment has saved the lives of millions of Americans and has been lauded by those in the pro-life movement as one of the greatest pro-life laws ever passed by the U.S. legislature. Its repeal would result in the direct appropriation of taxpayer money to fund abortions, a possibility which has sent millions of Americans reeling. Some have called Clinton’s assault on the Hyde Amendment a new chapter in abortion politics.

Clinton, who is the main cause of the DNC’s new position on the Hyde Amendment, has doubled down on abortion, and not in a good way. Her “new” stance on abortion has gone much farther than the policies held by her husband, Bill Clinton, or those of President Barrack Obama. During this election cycle, Clinton has made it her policy to further take the “Rare” out of “Safe, Legal, and Rare.” This achieves a duel purpose: to further de-stigmatize the procedure and to pave the way for Clinton and abortion activists to push for fewer restrictions on abortion.

Recently, Clinton told America on Meet the Press, “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” even up to the hour he/she is born. Furthermore, Clinton continued to imply that she supports abortion on demand, for whatever reason a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy.

If Clinton’s policies are adopted, a woman could choose to abort her child for being the “wrong” gender, race, or any other reason under the sun.

Her choice of words, “unborn person,“ has also caught a lot of bad press, infuriating both left and right activists and for obvious reasons. However, to fully understand the implications of her language we must look back to the year 1973.   

When Clinton calls an unborn child a “person” she is probably not making an unintentional gaff, but a creedal statement for the new epoch of the abortion debate, christened by her attack on the Hyde Amendment, and emphasized by her party’s radical new stance on abortion.

By using the word “person,“ Clinton makes it quite clear that the debate is no longer about whether the “products of conception” are alive, or even human: the morality of abortion is no longer an issue. If the unborn child is a person, it would mean he/ she is due personal rights and freedoms of his/her own. However, Clinton says in the same breathe that the “unborn person has no constitutional rights,” a contradiction that only makes sense if one affirms the absence of any moral consideration.

So, the only thing that remains is the protection and advancement of a public policy based on popular opinion and secular rationalism, any way possible.

Simply put, if you don’t like it, who cares? If you don’t think its moral, it doesn’t matter, because morality isn’t part of the conversation. The only thing that does matter is unhindered, free access to abortion on demand.

Hillary’s comments are in a real sense revolutionary and reminiscent of a time earlier in America’s history. Many of the drafters of our U.S. constitution were seriously concerned with personal liberty. However, in their effort to reconcile the pursuit of human freedom with the harsh reality of slavery, they attempted to take the focus off this glaring contradiction with how they spoke about the issue. Instead of using the word “slave” they referred to people of color as “persons” or “other persons.” Later, the situation would only worsen as the country became more and more divided over the issue of slavery. Eventually, a slave could barely be called a person at all, and became property or three-fifths of a person.

Stephen A. Douglas was a staunch believer that religion and morality “had no place in a constitutional debate,” especially in regards to slavery. His stance on slavery was very similar to those of modern day Democrats like Hillary Clinton on abortion. He too would scoff when someone tried to include religion and morality into the debate over slavery.  

Words and ideas matter. As Christians, our very own religious liberty and freedom of conscience are under attack. It is our duty as Christians and citizens to uphold these freedoms and stand up against political injustice. When we remember that both the born and the unborn are created in the Imago Dei, we realize that we all carry intrinsic value according to our Creator. Wrongs like abortion are born out of devaluing human life.

We should all start to worry when our leaders tell us that personhood no longer matters, because soon it will be not just the unborn under attack, but many more of us“¦ usually the most vulnerable.