A month before Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president, Amy Chozick of the New York Times wrote an article questioning whether Clinton is really the women’s rights champion she claims to be.

Chozick wrote on March 8, 2015:

[A]s Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.

During her presidential campaign, Clinton and her allies – including the abortion industry – have spoken about her compassion and advocacy for women and children. From early on, Clinton played what came to be known as the “gender card,” campaigning on the notion that she would shatter that final glass “ceiling” for women by becoming the first female president of the United States.

Her campaign highlighted her 1995 speech in Beijing when, as first lady, Clinton asserted, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.”

Years later, as secretary of state, Clinton even appointed the first U.S. ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues.

Nevertheless, as Chozick explained, as Clinton’s 2016 campaign unfolded, she ultimately showed herself to be “vulnerable” on the subject of human rights due to the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising practices of accepting contributions from countries that condoned the abuse of women and children.

Chozick wrote:

[T]he Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.

“Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures,” Chozick added. “At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.”

Where children are concerned, Clinton has also disappointed the progressives she claims to represent.

On the campaign trail, the Democrat nominee continually brings up her work heading the board of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). In reality, however, Clinton has failed to protect children from sex trafficking and from exploitation as child soldiers.

In May of 2014, Josh Rogin, writing at the Daily Beast, asserted:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

Rogin wrote that Clinton, “who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department,” publicly advocated for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

“What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja,” he continued. “The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.”

In November of 2010, while Clinton was secretary of state, Human Rights Watch published a letter from various organizations to President Obama, expressing their “deep disappointment” with the decision to “grant blanket national interest waivers and allow all forms of US military assistance” to countries that continued to use child soldiers and were clearly in violation of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008. Among the countries was Sudan, the primary military ally of Qatar, which made contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The letter reads:

As you know, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act was adopted in 2008 with strong bipartisan support from Congress because of deep concerns over the continuing recruitment and use of child soldiers around the world. By prohibiting foreign military financing, military training and several other categories of US military assistance to governments using child soldiers, the law allows the US administration to exert powerful leverage on states with abusive child recruitment policies and practices. The United States was one of the first countries in the world to enact such groundbreaking legislation.

As the Washington Post reported in February of 2015, Qatar “spent more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists while Clinton was secretary of state, according to the Sunlight Foundation.”

The report continued:

The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.

Despite her actions to the contrary, Hillary Clinton continues to try to win the presidency by falsely claiming to be a champion for the rights of women and children. Where unborn children are concerned, however, Clinton is crystal clear that they have no rights at all – even to live.