HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel discussed hagel's ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:36 PM

Rachel discussed hagel's past position against abortion even in the case of rape, and gay rights

I am not sure what Obama's thinking was in choosing him, but his past positions on these two issues are part of the secretary of the defense job



40 replies, 1893 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel discussed hagel's past position against abortion even in the case of rape, and gay rights (Original post)
still_one Jan 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #1
still_one Jan 2013 #3
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #5
still_one Jan 2013 #8
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #13
still_one Jan 2013 #16
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #20
MADem Jan 2013 #15
still_one Jan 2013 #17
MADem Jan 2013 #19
still_one Jan 2013 #21
MADem Jan 2013 #22
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #27
godai Jan 2013 #29
frazzled Jan 2013 #2
still_one Jan 2013 #4
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #9
frazzled Jan 2013 #12
MADem Jan 2013 #14
Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #30
defacto7 Jan 2013 #6
still_one Jan 2013 #10
Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #24
bemildred Jan 2013 #28
MADem Jan 2013 #7
still_one Jan 2013 #11
bullwinkle428 Jan 2013 #31
BainsBane Jan 2013 #18
CTyankee Jan 2013 #23
Heidi Jan 2013 #25
MADem Jan 2013 #34
bullwinkle428 Jan 2013 #32
MADem Jan 2013 #35
Inuca Jan 2013 #36
SummerSnow Jan 2013 #26
CTyankee Jan 2013 #33
MADem Jan 2013 #37
CTyankee Jan 2013 #38
MADem Jan 2013 #39
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #40

Response to still_one (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:37 PM

1. What's Gates' position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:47 PM

3. Don't know but he seemed to follow the Presidents lead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:53 PM

5. Gates wasn't a legislator, so no one really knows. The point is, it doesn't matter.

The policies that concern things like abortion come from the President and Congress. I believe it was Jeanne Shaheen who got a recent military abortion bill passed--no matter who the SecDef will be, that can't be changed without another act of Congress. Hagel would have to follow the law on that, or he would be out of a job. I imagine at the hearings, they would have to make sure that's acceptable to him as a Catholic. (I imagine Leon Panetta is probably Catholic, too, BTW.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:00 AM

8. Actually what Rachel brought up was the Army has their own set of rules as evidenced by the tail

Gate scandals. As far as gates, he may not of Been a legislator, but he expressed that he agreed with the presidents positions on gays in the military. Sure, it might have been because that is his job to agree, however, if he had a real problem with it he would have resigned

Remember SOS Cyrus Vance, he resigned after jimmy carter tried to rescue the hostages because his position was that such thing should be negotiated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:06 AM

13. In the case of something that affects all military personnel, stuff like that

(abortion, birth control access, DADT repeal) come from Congress. Otherwise, if it was left up to the SecDef, the servicemembers would be left at the mercy of whoever had the position, which would change every time a new Secretary came in. I was a military wife for 20 years, my access to birth control, for example, never changed between the many SecDef's I lived through, from Poppy Bush's through Obama's administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:27 AM

16. example rachal used was that preventing military hospitals from performing abortions. Is that up to

Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:48 AM

20. I would think so. I can't imagine a decision like that coming from

somewhere inside the DoD all by itself. You'd have all sorts of wingnut nuttiness going on then, because the DoD is chock full of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:13 AM

15. Tailhook was NAVY. ABERDEEN was Army. It all percolated up to DOD. There are a number of DOD

directives that deal with these issues, and Service directives line up with DOD guidance.

Services can't go their own way and contravene DOD guidance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:28 AM

17. Who controls what medical procedures, like abortions, military hospitals perform?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:47 AM

19. CONGRESS.

Congress writes the laws allowing it, and funds the appropriations to pay for it.

It's not up to DOD. If Congress wants it to happen, it will happen. If Congress does not want it to happen, it will not be funded.

DOD will put their budget in, and Congress rips it to shreds, says yes to this, no to that, and all the Service Chiefs go to the Hill with their little bag carriers and testify before the HASC and SASC (after the bag carriers have met with the legislators to go over subject matter/Q and A and to figure out who's hostile and who isn't) and then SECDEF goes up there and gets a good grilling. That's all part of the appropriations process, but nothing happens without Congress giving it the up-check.

They control the purse strings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:56 AM

21. ok, thanks for the information

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:01 AM

22. If there's money involved, or law, it's all down to Congress.

Nothing happens--not even military promotions--without them.

I had a promotion held up because Newt Gingrich decided to take everyone on vacation in a fit of pique against Clinton. There were quite a few of us who were a bit pissed off about that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:59 AM

27. Bingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:30 AM

29. Great point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:41 PM

2. Dennis Kucinich used to have those same positions

Until he ran for president, he had an extremely conservative position on abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:49 PM

4. I am not sure if Kucinich even opposed it in case of rape, and I don't think he ever had issues with

rights


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:01 AM

9. He used to be very anti-abortion

Late trimester abortions, outlawing transporting minors to receive abortions, believed that life began at conception. The whole enchilada. But we're talking positions that he held two decades ago.

He's evolved over the years. Even though he personally opposes abortion, he's strongly pro-choice and has received a 100% rating from NARAL for the past several years.

If Dennis gets the benefit of the doubt, I'm willing to give it to Hagel.

In any case, there's a huge difference between being a legislator and a cabinet officer. As SecDef, Hagel implements the policies given to him by his boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:05 AM

12. I should have made my point more explicit

I was just trying to point out that we probably shouldn't judge anyone by their positions on a single issue, and also to suggest that people evolve on issues over time. And also that politicians (especially Republicans) often have to vote with their party. Once they're out of their party, we may be surprised to find they're not so doctrinaire as their voting records might seem.

Most important, however, is that I don't think much of this is all that relevant. Whether Chuck Hagel is personally opposed to abortion or not, he will not be making policy all by himself on this issue for the military. Believe me, the positions will be the president's positions, and Hagel will execute them. And open service for gays and lesbians is now the law of the land. Hagel has already said he now supports this, and even if he didn't, he would have to respect it.

There are specific things that Hagel is apparently good at. One of them will be cutting the military's budget; another will be advocating for a policy of war as a last resort. Those are important things. I think we've totally lost perspective on the idea, which used to be very prevalent, that a president should be allowed to have his choice of cabinet members unless the person is unqualified to do the job (ask Russ Feingold, who voted for John Ashcroft on this basis; and even though it made me mad at the time, I understand his stand on this better now. It's sort of like the debt-ceiling issue: Congress approves spending, then wants to not pay the bills for the stuff they already approved. We elected a president and then don't want to let him have his choice of advisors.)

Like it or not, we elected Obama as our president. He seems to have a great amount of trust in both Hagel and Brennan, and is close to them. Now both right and left are saying he shouldn't be allowed to have the people he trusts execute his policies, because they don't like this or that about them. This already scotched Susan Rice. I don't like this kind of pre-emptive judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:08 AM

14. Kucinich used to be a RABID pro-lifer, until it didn't play well nationally.

Like I said, people do change.
Now:
Journey in 2002 from pro-life to pro-choice

I've had a journey on the issue . A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003


Then:

Life begins at conception

I believe life begins at conception and that our priority should be to make abortions obsolete, by preventing unwanted pregnancy, promoting abstinence, and promote life affirming programs after birth
Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1996

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research.

Vote to prohibit human cloning for either medical research or reproductive purposes. The bill would make it illegal to perform, attempt or participate in human cloning. It also would ban shipping or importing cloned embryos or products made from them.
Bill HR 2505 ; vote number 2001-304 on Jul 31, 2001
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16,
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" . The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

More at this link: http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/dennis_kucinich_abortion.htm

He was a pretty adamant, Very Catholic, pro-lifer....all that changed when he started harboring Presidential ambitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:36 AM

30. I know when someone mentions Chuck Hagel

I immediately think of Dennis Kucinich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:55 PM

6. O.... K.....

this subject has finally gotten my attention. I need to educate myself on this issue now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:01 AM

10. Rachel's point was that it would be interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:53 AM

24. Rachel's just trying to stir the pot

There's no there there.

The Sec. of Defense has no impact when it comes to abortion policy or gay rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:00 AM

28. And she is right.

Not only that, she laid the issues out pretty well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:00 AM

7. Let's get him in front of a Senate Committee and let him answer. People do change. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:04 AM

11. I am not arguing for or against, but it does make it worth paying attention to see exactly what the

Positions are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:57 AM

31. And that was exactly Rachel's point - she said she can't wait for the confirmation hearings!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:29 AM

18. how does abortion relate to his Secretary of Defense job?

And Don't ask don't tell has already been repealed. What do you think Hagel is going to do that will hurt gay rights or abortion rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:50 AM

23. this worries me, too. Who knows if he's evolved on abortion rights even tho he

now "says" he has?

I don't like the idea of someone with such reptilian views in any kind of power in our government...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:38 AM

25. Please read this statement from the executive director of the Service Women's Action Network.

Via HuffPo:
The Service Women's Action Network, an organization dedicated to stopping sexual assault in the military and advancing servicewomen's rights, expressed hope that Hagel would protect women's interests in his new role.

"While Mr. Hagel has proven his ignorance in the past on women's health care and the equality of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, he now faces a historic moment in which he can help determine whether or not our military fully embodies the best of American values and operates at the highest levels the American people expect," said Anu Bhagwati, executive director of SWAN and a former Marine Corps Captain. "He must make sure that there are no setbacks going forward in the full implementation of equal opportunity for military women, including the repeal of the Combat Exclusion Policy, and the guarantee of exceptional health care, including reproductive health care. He must also work to provide equal benefits for LGBT service members and their loved ones. And he must continue to move the military forward in the elimination of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the ranks."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/chuck-hagel-abortion_n_2427148.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heidi (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:20 AM

34. Hagel can't shift Congress if they don't want to be shifted, and that's just the truth.

The SECDEF does not make these decisions--Congress does.

FWIW, I've never seen a SECDEF break with their Commander in Chief on these sorts of issues. The stock answer when they are testifying is "I agree with the boss."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:02 AM

32. Rachel discussed exactly how this relates. She brought up a brand-new policy implemented

under the Obama administration, in which abortions for servicewomen are now covered. She mentioned that the last time Hagel campaigned for Senate (1996), he expressed the very same views regarding pregnancy resulting from rape as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. His specific point was that because pregnancy from rape was such a rare thing, it wasn't really even worth worrying about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:31 AM

35. They still aren't covered in most instances...and that's Congress's fault, not Obama's.

And it won't be Hagel's, either.

Rape and incest are rare occurrences, and that's all Congress would give. It is a start, though, and we owe that start to Jeanne Shaheen and others. There's still no "abortion on demand" to use an old term. Women who want an elective procedure still have to pay for it.

Congress makes the decisions about these things, though, not the SECDEF. Law and how money may be spent are always down to them--not an appointed official. He's not going to advocate any policy that contravenes the wishes of the Commander in Chief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:15 PM

36. Actually that was not the flast time but

the first time. I don't know what his views are now, but I do know that in other respects he has changes a lot since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:54 AM

26. I agree with you.If this was before reelection he wouldn't have picked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SummerSnow (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:05 AM

33. Let's just hope that President Obama "had a word" with Hagel on this issue

regarding women in the military. And let's just hope Hagel agreed not to try to pull a fast one. If he did, plenty of women in this country would start yelling loudly and the Dem Party cannot afford to lose one of its major base population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:50 PM

37. Hagel isn't the decider on this matter. Congress is.

Trust me, the ONLY reason that there isn't "abortion on demand" (not the rape/incest exception) in military hospitals is because of Congress. The SECDEF has no clout in that debate.

I worked the damn issue for four fruitless years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:13 AM

38. I know that it is. My concern was that Hagel could have some latitude

within the admnistrative role on the abortion issue at Defense. I know the ultimate authority is Congress. However, it is reassuring to hear that there is nothing he can do as SecDef about it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:47 AM

39. I've never known a SECDEF (and I have known a few of them down the years) who

ever broke with the Commander in Chief on an issue such as this.

When they go up to the Hill to testify, they're singing the boss's song and carrying the boss's water.

The enemies at the gate in this instance are the Congress, who have been obstreperous and recalcitrant on this issue, as they sometimes are on a number of social issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:57 AM

40. I think you nailed it, brother

Hagel's views will be questioned in the hearings. But in the end the SecDef serves the President and is charged with executing the Administrations's policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread