HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary Clinton takes a P...

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:53 PM

Hillary Clinton takes a PRE-Roe v Wade position on abortion

Hillary Clinton in a September 2015 interview with Chuck Todd:

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action."

For those too young to remember, "therapeutic" hospital abortion for the sake of the mother's life and health was legally permitted before Roe v Wade. Sounds like Hillary wants to take us back there. Is Planned Parenthood, which has endorsed her, aware of this backward stance?

118 replies, 5112 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 118 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton takes a PRE-Roe v Wade position on abortion (Original post)
Merryland Feb 2016 OP
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #1
Merryland Feb 2016 #2
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #5
Merryland Feb 2016 #7
lsewpershad Feb 2016 #26
hifiguy Feb 2016 #36
hifiguy Feb 2016 #30
AzDar Feb 2016 #3
MisterP Feb 2016 #60
Fawke Em Feb 2016 #111
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #4
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #6
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #9
Merryland Feb 2016 #10
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #16
randys1 Feb 2016 #81
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #13
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #8
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #11
Kelvin Mace Feb 2016 #14
Arazi Feb 2016 #19
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #23
Arazi Feb 2016 #25
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #27
Arazi Feb 2016 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #45
Arazi Feb 2016 #47
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #55
kiva Feb 2016 #66
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #69
kiva Feb 2016 #71
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #74
ablamj Feb 2016 #77
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #79
ablamj Feb 2016 #80
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #82
ablamj Feb 2016 #85
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #87
ablamj Feb 2016 #88
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #89
ablamj Feb 2016 #90
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #92
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #92
ablamj Feb 2016 #94
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #95
ablamj Feb 2016 #96
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #97
jeff47 Feb 2016 #102
HassleCat Feb 2016 #110
hifiguy Feb 2016 #41
Kelvin Mace Feb 2016 #12
Merryland Feb 2016 #15
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #20
angrychair Feb 2016 #33
Arazi Feb 2016 #35
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #39
Arazi Feb 2016 #46
A Simple Game Feb 2016 #49
haele Feb 2016 #98
Kelvin Mace Feb 2016 #118
Eleanors38 Feb 2016 #28
iwannaknow Feb 2016 #75
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #17
morningfog Feb 2016 #103
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #106
morningfog Feb 2016 #107
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #109
morningfog Feb 2016 #112
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #113
morningfog Feb 2016 #114
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #115
morningfog Feb 2016 #117
boston bean Feb 2016 #18
Merryland Feb 2016 #21
boston bean Feb 2016 #22
roguevalley Feb 2016 #44
CharlotteVale Feb 2016 #24
BainsBane Feb 2016 #29
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #32
tk2kewl Feb 2016 #38
Arazi Feb 2016 #42
tk2kewl Feb 2016 #56
BainsBane Feb 2016 #63
tk2kewl Feb 2016 #67
Merryland Feb 2016 #48
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #53
DirkGently Feb 2016 #65
nashville_brook Feb 2016 #70
tk2kewl Feb 2016 #84
kristopher Feb 2016 #99
morningfog Feb 2016 #104
luxpara4 Feb 2016 #34
Elmer S. E. Dump Feb 2016 #37
Contrary1 Feb 2016 #52
PeaceNikki Feb 2016 #40
jeff47 Feb 2016 #105
Oilwellian Feb 2016 #43
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #50
hifiguy Feb 2016 #57
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #61
MuseRider Feb 2016 #51
Merryland Feb 2016 #59
MisterP Feb 2016 #62
Merryland Feb 2016 #64
MuseRider Feb 2016 #78
hifiguy Feb 2016 #72
DonCoquixote Feb 2016 #54
Feeling the Bern Feb 2016 #58
PatrynXX Feb 2016 #68
dembotoz Feb 2016 #73
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #76
lastone Feb 2016 #83
Bill USA Feb 2016 #86
leftcoastmountains Feb 2016 #91
amborin Feb 2016 #100
floriduck Feb 2016 #101
Nonhlanhla Feb 2016 #108
John Poet Feb 2016 #116

Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:04 PM

1. we saw this repeatedly in Bill's administration...moving to the right, to find "common ground"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:08 PM

2. Yep.

But I have to admit I was stunned to read this on DU yesterday. I think if this were more widely known, it would shock many women, whether Bernie supporters or not, since she makes such a Yuuuuuuge deal out of her alleged support for womens' rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:17 PM

5. and it's so recent -- 2015. this isn't a common ground, erm Clinton-gains issue.

we're not falling for this shit again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:20 PM

7. right - that it's so recent is pretty surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:45 PM

26. Trust

How can anyone trust her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lsewpershad (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:54 PM

36. Beats me. The last candidate

 

In my lifetime anywhere near this slippery and unprincipled was Richard Nixon and its a close-run race there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:51 PM

30. It doesn't matter to the Fan Club.

 

None of her "policies" (and I use that term VERY loosely) do. It's HRH so it's perfect by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:10 PM

3. And yet PP has endorsed her...

 

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:24 PM

60. cliches are designed so that anyone challenging them is deemed the bad guy

she's "the women's candidate" and "the abortion champion" by definition, so if you complain about PP you're "attacking PP" and the record is secondary at best, "mansplaining" at worst

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #60)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:41 PM

111. I was accused of being "some guy on the Internet" who is stupid

because I'm no longer giving to PP based upon their unnecessary actions. And on this very board.

Thing is: I'm a woman. I fully get PP's mission and used their services as a poor college student. I used to regularly give to them. They put themselves in this mess by endorsing before they should have. They slapped half of their supporters in the face with the decision to endorse in the primary instead of just waiting on the nominee.

Then, to find out the candidate they endorsed isn't all that much of an abortion rights candidate, makes me wonder if their board feels any shame at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:13 PM

4. Another day, another calumny against Hillary Clinton

It was in the context of late term abortion:


HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

http://tinyurl.com/gtan7ma


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:19 PM

6. in 2005, Hillary Clinton referred to abortion as a “sad, tragic choice to many, many women."

doesn't sound like much of a women's rights supporter to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:22 PM

9. I trust NARAL and Planned Parenthood did due diligence before endorsing her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:24 PM

10. I don't care who endorsed her. It's her own words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:28 PM

16. You clipped her comments. She was referring to late term abortions.

Here is the link to Roe V Wade:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113


Please point to where in the text it indicates there is an absolute right to abortion in the third trimester of gestation.


Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:11 PM

81. Thank goodness, I was worried for a minute. As to late term abortions, BTW,

I dont understand why Women arent allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:25 PM

13. trust away -- and with that will go your rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:22 PM

8. here's Bill Clinton on abortion, in his own words -->

after vetoing that bill: “I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion.”

that's some self-serving BS right there. truth is, the Clintons think they can slice and dice women's rights from the rest of the electorate. they think they can demonize our right to choose what's right for our bodies no matter what day of the month it is (it's none of their business if a woman is 6 months down the line or 6 minutes down the line -- they're just making political hay and they know it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:25 PM

11. The Supreme Court never intended abortion to be available in the third trimester...

The Supreme Court never intended abortion to be available in the third trimester, save for the life of the mother and the unviability of the fetus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:26 PM

14. That would be the Supreme Court

 

made up only of men, determining whether a woman has the right to her own body?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:31 PM

19. The fucking Supreme Court does NOT have the right to make medical decisions. Period

those decisions are between a woman and her doctor

Same with end of life decisions - those are private medical decisions.

Fuck SCOTUS on this

HRC is insinuating there's something a tad bit shameful with women getting an abortion ("safe, legal and rare" hello?! big hug to the evangelicals from Hillary).

Having any position other than its a private medical procedure between the patient and her doctor is regressive. Period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:36 PM

23. I will defer to the wisdom of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:41 PM

25. They shouldn't be in the middle of that decision either

Its a private medical decision. Your voyeurism is showing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:47 PM

27. Ad hominem attacks

Arazi
25. They shouldn't be in the middle of that decision either
View profile
Its a private medical decision. Your voyeurism is showing






I will be the bigger person, take the high road, and not respond to your ad hominem attack in kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:51 PM

31. You're saying someone should be in the middle of that medical decision

You've now suggested SCOTUS, NARAL or Planned Parenthood

I'm sorry but that's fucked up.

Nobody should be in the middle of that decision but the patient and her doctor (ok maybe her family) and saying someone should be, is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:02 PM

45. My thoughts are in Post 39.

Those are also the thoughts of any sentient human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:04 PM

47. You've got to be a man, or religious, or maybe both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #47)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:11 PM

55. Favoring the right to choose

Favoring the right to choose and opposing an abortion in the ninth month of gestation for any reason is not mutually exclusive. I was born on July 29th. If my mother would have aborted me on July 28th, without any reason, she would have committed infanticide.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:30 PM

66. No, the Supreme Court allowed states to decide whether or not

to restrict access to third trimester abortions, but there is no indication that they "never intended abortion to be available in the third trimester".

However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life" outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #66)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:33 PM

69. You clipped my quote

The Supreme Court never intended abortion to be available in the third trimester, save for the life of the mother and the unviability of the fetus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:46 PM

71. Please read the information I included in my post.

The Supreme Court did not forbid/discourage/make illegal/or comment on the morality of a third trimester abortion; instead they allowed individual states to regulate it with the caveat that states had to allow abortions to save the life of a mother...period.

Your posts on this thread indicate that you do not support abortion rights. I won't convince you otherwise and I won't waste my time trying, but it's bad form to post incorrect information about Roe v Wade in order to bolster your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:53 PM

74. I support abortion rights.

I am pro-choice. Please show me the respect of not mischaracterizing my position to put me in a bad light.


I don't support a right to third trimester abortions for any reason.

I was born on 7/29. I have been informed in this thread my mother would have been within her rights to abort me , on 7/28, for any reason.

Please point to the liberal democracy that allows abortions in the instance I cited.

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:04 PM

77. It was her body

So she should have been able to do with it whatever she wanted - including disposing of you if she wanted to. You should not have a say in what any woman does with her body!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #77)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:07 PM

79. All liberal democracies...

ablamj
77. It was her body
View profile
So she should have been able to do with it whatever she wanted - including disposing of you if she wanted to. You should not have a say in what any woman does with her body!


All liberal democracies balance the rights of the mother against the viability of the fetus and come ups with a schedule that protects both.

Please point to a liberal democracy that allows a woman to abort a fetus in the ninth month of gestation, for any reason.

Thank you in advance.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:10 PM

80. I don't have to point to one

My position is that no one has a right to tell anyone else what to do with their body Period!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #80)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:15 PM

82. Liberal democracies

Liberal democracies balance the rights of the individual against the rights of the community and in their infinite wisdom they have decided that allowing a woman to abort her fetus in the ninth month of pregnancy for any reason would create a dystopian society where life is devalued.


That's why they have come up with schedules that balance and respect the rights of the mother against the viability of the fetus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #82)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:19 PM

85. What makes you

Think they have infinite wisdom? That's about the dumbest thing I've read on du ever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:24 PM

87. Because we are not atomized individuals living alone on an island.

There must be a reason why no liberal democracy allows a woman to abort a fetus in the ninth month of pregnancy, for any reason.

Maybe because at that point it is beyond dispute that it's a human being and not a fetus, am I right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #87)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:31 PM

88. No

You are not right. They do not have infinite wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:35 PM

89. Let's get back to the topic...

The reason no liberal democracy allows a woman to have an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy , for any reason, is because it is a human being and not a fetus. If a woman chose to have an abortion on 7/28 for a baby that was due on 7/29 she didn't terminate a pregnancy, she terminated the life of a human being. A physician could have certainly induced labor at that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:39 PM

90. Her body

Her choice

You will not get me to change my position on that so you should just stop trying.

If I were on your mother's jury, she would not be convicted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:41 PM

92. We are at impasse. Please have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:41 PM

92. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:44 PM

94. That's why

I said you should stop trying to change my mind...

Looks like you just wanted the last word as there was no need to reply (especially twice)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #94)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:46 PM

95. That was a software error.

It was a double post that I changed to a period in the redundant one.


Insulting a person who has been unfailingly polite to you is bad form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:48 PM

96. Whatevs nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:49 PM

97. Have a nice day./nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:27 PM

102. Oregon.

You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:40 PM

110. If you do not support certain kinds of abortion, you are not pro-choice. (eom)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:58 PM

41. There is some seriously sanctimonious horseshit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:25 PM

12. One more time,

 

Once those restrictions she is "open to" are in place, who decides whether the mother's life/health is in danger? I am guessing it will be a judge, not a doctor.

Also, her other mantra was that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare", but again, who defines "rare"? What happens when it isn't "rare" enough for her?

A woman either has autonomy over her body, or she doesn't.

HRC is "open to" the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:27 PM

15. exactly. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:33 PM

20. We live in a nation that is governed by the rule of law.

The Supreme Court weighed the autonomy of the woman versus the viability of the fetus and came up with a scheme to protect both.

Here's a question. I was born on July29th. Could my mother have chosen to abort me on July 28th?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:53 PM

33. Not up to me

Or you...that is up to the person carrying the fetus, in medical consultation with their doctor.
The assumption is that just because it's legal that it will be a normal or regular thing and that is ridiculous.

What a women does when determining medical decisions should not be at the whim of politicians or judges, what is hard about that to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:54 PM

35. She would never have found a doctor to do it but you knew that

This is a medical procedure and requires an actual medical professional

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:57 PM

39. Then we agree ...

Arguing there is an absolute right to abortion, for any reason, at any time during the gestation period , is not a morally tenable position. It is tantamount to countenancing infanticide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:02 PM

46. No, we absolutely do NOT agree

"the decision is private between the patient and her doctor"

Does not mean

Arguing there is an absolute right to abortion, for any reason, at any time during the gestation period , is not a morally tenable position. It is tantamount to countenancing infanticide.


At all

Please don't ever dare put words in my mouth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:07 PM

49. That choice is nobody's business but your mother and maybe her doctor.

Certainly not anybody on DU's decision. Do you understand the concept behind who should make that choice?

But Hillary only wants to open the door just a crack doesn't she? What harm (visualizing a Republican foot jammed solidly into the slightly opened door) could that do?

What other medical decisions would you allow a judge to make? Cancer treatment? Alzheimer's treatment? How about letting judges deal with drug addiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:02 PM

98. The problem with your question is this -

Honestly, if things were bad enough in her life that your mother, should she have chosen to abort on July 28, would probably have just tossed you in the dumpster on July 29 if she couldn't have had an abortion that day. This sort of thing happens all the time, even with "safe baby" locations where you can just leave the newborn, no questions asked.

I often use hyperbole in my arguments if they come from an emotional place, myself.

See, during the days of "therapeutic abortions", women who had access to abortions did have late term abortions because they no longer wanted to carry the child - she would be diagnosed as "emotionally unable to handle the pregnancy/suicidal", and that was that. (That was a dark secret in my father's family; I found evidence of that happening in the 1930's in the bottom of my grandmother's vital paper's lockbox when I was executrix of her estate...)
If women didn't have access to abortions, they'd just drop the infant somewhere where it wouldn't be found after it was born, walking away. Or maybe they'd pretend to be the martyr, allowing themselves to get hurt badly enough to force a miscarriage, which backfired way too often.
For whatever reason - they lost means of support, they were angry, they waited too long, they were being pressured by family honor, they were tired of being sick and afraid the pregnancy was going to kill them - they were going to get rid of the pregnancy.

Abortion is a symptom; it is always the result of an untenable pregnancy, either as a miscarriage or a medical procedure. It is not a frivolous choice of a birth control option. It is never a goal unto itself.


So...if we were to have an honest discussion concerning late term/fetal viability and supposedly "frivolous" abortions, my argument would be this - if the mother choses to terminate her pregnancy, and the fetus is viable and has no significant birth defect or abnormality, and her health is not in danger, should the state determine that they don't want late term abortions of an otherwise viable fetus, the fetus should be delivered and placed in a neo-natal clinic as a ward of the state, allowing the mother to go on her way, as is done on with the safe baby locations.
That is the humane answer to both the woman and the fetus in this so-called modern era.

The situation of the woman in late term is often dicey.
I know, I wasn't supposed to be born, but my mom's OB was on the cutting edge of 1950's medical procedures, and she was allowed to stay at the hospital the entire last month with me until they could safely do a C-section.
And my stepdaughter just went through a wretchedly miserable pregnancy with her second, bordering on critical for her health since she was mid-way through her first trimester. She is under my very excellent employer insurance, with access to doctors and medical resources that I daresay 80% of American women do not have.
If she had corporate-focused (i.e. shareholder bottom-line) or resource-poor medical care, she may have had to go through a late-term abortion, just to save her life. It was touch and go back in November/December, she was hospitalized four times for a week or so getting either her or the fetus stabilized, enough so that she almost met the commonly understood threshold for a late-term abortion. But we got her and the baby through; she delivered two weeks early last Thursday.

In both cases, there were other children and an established family that was going to be impacted should something have gone wrong. What's a mother to do in either case, especially if going through with the birth might bring enough complications to either leave her sterile, disabled or dead? Or even if it's something as "silly" (to the life at all costs believers) in that she discovered she was going to lose income or support - the means for her and any dependents to survive - due to the constraints of going to term with her pregnancy.

So you can see, the right to an abortion or some other pregnancy-termination availability is always a serious consideration for me. I always "err" on the side of choice, because without choice, and support for that choice, being concerned "about the child" over concerns of the mother carrying that child is nothing but impotent platitudes to make one look properly concerned or pious to the average person who usually doesn't have to be concerned about a bad or unwanted pregnancy in their lives. An unwanted fetus will continue to end up in service station bathrooms and dumpsters near the end of term, and women will still end up damaged or dead through self-abortion, natural or induced.

Want to ensure fewer abortions - especially late term ones? Ensure fewer unwanted pregnancies through good comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives, and invest in a medical and financial support structure for the mother and any dependents throughout and after the pregnancy. (On edit) And that includes the option for some form of fetal abandonment, should the mother realize she just can't handle a pregnancy - for whatever reason.


Haele






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:44 PM

118. Either a woman controls her body or she doesn't

 

And we are NOT a nation of laws, since how the law is applied based on race, class and wealth.

A law is a law until it is inconvenient to the powerful, then it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:48 PM

28. She is "open to" gun control, except when she isn't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:56 PM

75. Her words are perhaps measured by internal polling?

Where's the authenticity? Don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:30 PM

17. well..that makes it all better

first she says her husband veteoed a late-term bill. then goes on about difficult choices and inviting women to the white house, etc. then she offers up a constitutional amendment to appease republicans. yep...that's leadership you can believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:29 PM

103. That, frankly, is bullshit.

 

There should be NO discussion whatsoever regarding constitutional amendments and abortion. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #103)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:34 PM

106. I stand by everything I said and I would literally rather have a stroke than retract it./nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #106)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:36 PM

107. You didn't say anything, you quoted Hillary.

 

And that is the bullshit. I don't know your position on it because you've not posted that you are proud to stand with Hillary and her openness to support a fucking constitutional amendment on women's reproductive rights.

If you tell us your position on it. I'll let you know if I consider it bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:39 PM

109. I support the scheme/schedule established in Roe V Wade.

All liberal democracies balance the rights of the mother against the viability of the fetus and come up with a schedule that protects both.

No liberal democracy allows a woman to abort a fetus in the ninth month of gestation, for any reason, i.e, in the absence of medical necessity or the unviability of the fetus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:48 PM

112. Noticeably absent in your answer is consideration of

 

a constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #112)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:49 PM

113. I would support a Constitution Amendment that incorporated the scheme/schedule in Roe./nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #113)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:50 PM

114. Okay. That's bullshit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #114)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:54 PM

115. I literally couldn't care less...

morningfog
114. Okay. That's bullshit.



I literally couldn't care less what you think of me. If die tonight I will go happily to my grave knowing I earned your contempt.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #115)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:56 PM

117. No contempt for you. I wish you nothing but health and

 

happiness for many long years to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:30 PM

18. This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on DU.

Hillary does not have a pre Roe v. Wade position.

That is not the truth. period. end of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:33 PM

21. Yes she does.


Before Roe v Wade, "therapeutic" legal abortion was only available when the health of the mother was in danger, just as Hillary states in her interview with Chuck Todd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:35 PM

22. pure unadulterated bologne.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:01 PM

44. no. truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:40 PM

24. I don't trust her. On this or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:50 PM

29. Pretending that Clinton doesn't vigorously and proactively defend women's reproductive rights

is patently false. While Sanders insulted Planned Parenthood as "establishment" and some of his supporters took glee in allying with pro-life groups to strip funding from the only source of reproductive healthcare available to women in great swaths of the country, she was proactively defending PP from RW attacks. http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-loses-support-donations-after-its-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/ When the right was issuing their clandestine videos designed to undermine women's reproductive rights, Clinton proactively defended women's rights, while Sanders didn't even make a public statement until asked by the press, instead choosing to use his public profile to comment on MSNBC programming decisions.

Once again we see that people are not remotely interested in the candidate's actual policy positions but feel compelled to falsify her record to score cheap political points. This demonstrates precisely what this campaign is about. People here have declared their willingness to refuse to vote for the Democrat and thereby allow the GOP to appoint the next several justices if the rest of the population doesn't vote for their guy as the nominee. That would mean my rights as an equal citizen would be stripped away, along with the rights of LGBT, African Americans, and everyone who isn't white and male. That we then see this cynical effort to manipulate the public is par for the course.


Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorsed Clinton for very good reasons.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Hillary Clinton

Our Nation’s Best Presidential Candidate for Reproductive Rights, Hands Down

There’s no question: Hillary Clinton holds the strongest record on reproductive rights of all presidential contenders in not just this election, but in American history. She doesn’t just support women’s health — she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to women’s health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about.

We live in an era where access to birth control, abortion, and services at Planned Parenthood are under unprecedented attack. With so much at stake, we can’t afford to have a president who continues these attacks — or who won’t stand strong and fight against them, no matter what.

We need Hillary Clinton, women’s health champion, in the White House.

3 Things You Might Not Know About Hillary Clinton

She introduced 8 pieces of legislation with the purpose of expanding and protecting access to reproductive health care — no other candidate has introduced any.
She's the most outspoken and frequent supporter of Planned Parenthood — and the only candidate to speak up for Planned Parenthood at the debates.
She's the only candidate who has testified before a Congressional committee on how abortion is an essential part of reproductive health care.


Chart: Hillary Clinton v. Bernie Sanders on Reproductive Health and Rights


Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
Clinton introduced eight pieces of legislation with the clear purpose of expanding and protecting women’s access to reproductive health care. Sanders has consistently co-sponsored and voted for pro-women’s health legislation.
Clinton consistently co-sponsored and voted for pro-women’s health legislation.
GENDER PAY GAP
Clinton introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2005, 2007, and 2009 to address the gender pay gap. Sanders has co-sponsored and consistently voted for legislation aimed at addressing the gender pay gap.
Clinton consistently co-sponsored and voted for legislation aimed at addressing the gender pay gap.
BIRTH CONTROL
Clinton waged a multiyear effort​ — and even blocked the nomination of an FDA head with Sen. Patty Murray — to pass a breakthrough in birth control access: the law that made emergency contraception available over the counter. Sanders has consistently co-sponsored and voted for legislation that expands access to birth control, family planning, and sex education.
Clinton helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which supports access to birth control, family planning, and sex education.
Clinton helped beat back a proposal to define birth control (including IUDs) as abortion, saving federal funds for certain medical providers.
Clinton has consistently co-sponsored and voted for legislation that expands access to birth control, family planning, and sex education.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Clinton boldly spoke out in support of Planned Parenthood — without prompting — at each of the first three Democratic debates, as well as dozens of times on the campaign trail. Sanders did not mention Planned Parenthood during the first three Democratic debates, but has made supportive statements several times on the campaign trail.
INTERNATIONAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS
As senator, Clinton introduced the legislation to restore funding to the UN Population Fund. President Bush suspended funding for it, but as secretary of state Clinton helped lead the U.S. in overturning the Bush administration's policy. Sanders voted for the legislation to restore funding to the UN Population Fund, which helps provide family planning, HIV, and maternal health care to millions of low-income people in developing countries around the world.
In an unprecedented move as secretary of state, Clinton launched the federal Office of Global Women's Issues, which aims to integrate women as central partners in decisions about foreign policy.
Clinton started myriad global programs that help women and girls survive extreme hardship in rural areas, as well as enter fields such as business and public service.


Bottom Line: Sanders and Clinton are Both Good on Reproductive Health — But Clinton Pushes Harder

When you see their records side by side, there’s no question why the Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. She has simply demonstrated the strongest record, clearest leadership, and most focused commitment to women’s health of any presidential candidate.

For anyone who supports Senator Sanders, know we are grateful for his strong record on reproductive rights. This endorsement doesn’t mean we’ll do anything negative about Sanders’ campaign. Instead it means that for the first time in history, we have the chance to help elect someone who’s been fighting to expand reproductive health and rights for decades to the White House, just when we need that kind of champion the most

- See more at: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/#sthash.dyFCMmC5.dpuf



Her record on women's rights is far superior to men who describe us as "wedge issues," who "agree to disagree" about equal citizenship for women but instead insist "the more important issue" is whether men can afford to send their children to college.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/03/matters-bernie-sanders-doesnt-talk-race-gender/
For whom reproductive rights doesn't merit a mention in his criteria for SCOTUS appointments: http://watch.knpb.org/video/2365669386/

People are entitled to their own political priorities, to privilege some issues above others. We all do so. But to deliberately seek to distort important issues related to basic rights for political gain, to advance one man's career, is a cheap, low tactic that says everything about those who engage in that behavior.

When one feels compelled to promote misinformation, it demonstrates in stark terms that they see their own cause as insufficient to merit support absent their efforts at distortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:53 PM

32. I will defer to you...

But I don't believe it's a defensible position to advocate an unlimited right to an abortion at any time during the gestation period, for any reason.

There has to be some weighing of interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:56 PM

38. I'll believe my own eyes and ears

 

A direct quote:

"if there is a way to structure some kind of constitution restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health then I'm open to that"

-Hillary Clinton

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:59 PM

42. You beat me to it. Thanks eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:14 PM

56. any time

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:26 PM

63. No, you don't

If you did you would examine her voting record and consider her many statements to the public in defense of women's reproductive rights. You willfully ignore that in order to take one statement and twist it, when the fact is if you cared at all about the issue you wouldn't so glibly distort it.

Imagine if tens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars had been spent mining Sanders every statement. We would have an unending list of contradictions because people say different things in different contexts. Given the considerable gap between what Sanders does and says, there might be even more to draw from. Yet without the GOP millions dedicated to that end, we are left with his recent statements. I suppose I could post what he wrote in the 70s about women and rape fantasies, but I consider it an unseemly approach to politics. I understand the other side has no such reticence.

See, should I trust PP or people who have announced they prefer the GOP to Clinton? Who worked to end funding for reproductive healthcare for the poorest women in America? Who think women's rights so inconsequential they use it as a political football to advance one politician's career? It's not even a close contest.


I understand now that this primary contest is about my basic rights as a citizen, that the other side sees those rights as a target in order to promote their singular cause of advancing one man's career. Working to keep the public uninformed and misinformed shows a pernicious agenda that runs counter to women's rights, civil rights, and human rights. Thanks to this thread, I now know that self-entitled white "progressives," who show no knowledge or fealty to leftist ideals, are willing to leave any casualty--especially the truth--in their efforts to reassert dominion over the majority. The only thing that matters is their rage and the man who channels it on national television. The rest of us exist only as pawns to manipulate. Dishonesty may win in the end, but it will always be intellectually and morally bankrupt, and its impact on society and its people is inevitably violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:32 PM

67. it's a direct quote and on video

 

if she doesn't actually mean that then she is pandering to people who want to hear that

on edit to add: i distorted nothing - glibly or ortherwise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:06 PM

48. OK, I get that Planned Parenthood is rah-rah Hillary - so how do you interpret this:

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:09 PM

53. pretending that we came out of the first Clinton admin better than we went in

in terms of abortion rights, is DELUSIONAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:28 PM

65. "Safe, legal and RARE?"

That's several million miles from the best position on this issue in "American history."

Hillary's record on reproductive rights may be solid overall, and I don't know that the quoted comments are "pre-Roe" or not, but she has also shown a willingness to adopt rightwing framing that abortion is a moral hazard we can justifiably argue needs to be "rare."

But "safe, legal and rare" is not a framework that supports women's health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.

In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".

"It separates 'good' abortions from 'bad' abortions", she added.

Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/hillary-clinton-abortion-legal-but-rare


What’s really at issue in Douthat’s column is the perils of accepting the right-wing frame when constructing liberal positions. By unilaterally presenting abortion as a very bad thing in the 1990s, the message mavens of the Clinton administration, with their construction of “safe, legal and rare,” gave abortion opponents a rhetorical rationale for piling on restrictions that, in many states, make abortion inaccessible to increasing numbers of women — despite the fact that the Supreme Court decided decades ago that their right to the procedure is protected by the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/breaking_where_abortion_is_ava035510.php

Debunking the right’s contraception myths

But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” Contrast the following data points — the 87 percent of U.S. counties that lack an abortion provider, the financial barriers that right-wingers would like to increase with insurance bans, and the significant stigma around abortion — with the fact that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:36 PM

70. adopting RW framing, such as the "rare" and moral hazard lens, leads to no good policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:17 PM

84. it's simply another example of Hillary trying to be on all sides of an issue

 

it's a finely honed Clinton skill and it works when people don't pay very close attention to history or details

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:03 PM

99. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:31 PM

104. Do you proudly stand with her openness to a constitutional amendment?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:53 PM

34. I can't believe this!!

I just can't see how this wouldn't give her supporters pause. I want to see what planned Parenthood would say about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:56 PM

37. A link would be damning.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:08 PM

52. Here's the interview:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:31 PM

105. It's a direct quote, and the video is in the post above yours.

So Clinton distorted her own position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:00 PM

43. Hillary Clinton: I Could Compromise on Abortion

HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

Video of statement


I'd like to know what she is willing to compromise and what constitutional action she'd like to take. The laws are already in place that protect the health and life of the mother. What is Hillary talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:07 PM

50. Her quote has to be seen in the context of a question about late term abortion and...

Her quote has to be seen in the context of a question about late term abortion and in its entirety...

Clipping her quote and taken it out of context is tantamount to gun enthusiasts saying the " right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and ignoring the part about a " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:20 PM

57. It's a step down an exceedingly

 

slippery slope. Why compromise with RWNJs at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:25 PM

61. I don't want to compromise with them...

I don't believe advocating abortion for any reason, at any time, , during the gestation period is a morally tenable or reasonable position, obscurantist arguments about individual sovereignty notwithstanding.

All societies balance the rights of the mother against the viability of the fetus. No liberal democracy allows abortion , at any time, for any reason, during the gestation period.


BTW, if we don't agree with them on first and second trimester abortions how are we going to get them to agree on third trimester abortions?

Heck, we can't even get them to agree on a morning after pill.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:07 PM

51. She also needs to stop talking

about seeing all those sad faces. I think she was talking about 3rd trimester but I do not give a damn. There should not be ANYTHING in the constitution about women's reproductive health period and for the record I do understand how a third trimester abortion would be a very sad thing but abortion in general is not. I do not know anyone who regrets that decision and even in the third trimester, if it is that bad with the fetus then yeah it surely may be sad but not as sad as having to give birth just to hold your child until it dies watching it suffer. Watch the film "After Tiller" for those who do not know why they are done.

Sad faces, really Hillary? I had mine before it was legal and it was scary and horrible but my face was not sad. That child would have had no life, I was not mature enough and my family would have abandoned me or killed me. I was pretty damned happy actually and glad that as awful as it was it was available in secret with a list of codes and numbers that did not work anyway. What a horror show that was.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IS NOT FOR LEGISLATION Mrs. Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:23 PM

59. Thank you for your very honest & moving response

Mrs. Clinton may never have had to make that decision, in which case, she is "lucky" as she has said in reference to not having to face the hardships of being African-American. But from what I know of her personal biography - from Goldwater Girl to Kissinger lover - in the pre-Roe days, as an upper middle class white girl, she probably would have had access to a safe (if illegal) abortion, unlike so many other women not so "lucky."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:25 PM

62. class, race, situation, health, sexuality--they're not problems for her, they're buttons to push for

more votes

and thanks to Muse for bringing reality into the discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #62)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:28 PM

64. So true. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #62)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:04 PM

78. I knew George Tiller

not well mind you but I knew people who worked with him and I worked with them so I met him on several occasions and spoke with him in political discussion. I doubt he would have remembered my name but maybe my face. Still, when I heard the news I just dropped. I knew enough to know what we had lost. That movie explains everything pretty well, I do believe it is on Netflix, it was but maybe not now.

Watch it everyone. THIS is what we are talking about. Only for the health and life of the mother? I'll say this, if I had to go through what some of these mothers are going through now because of these restrictions my life would not be pleasant and my health would be worse. My god, why torture people like this? Why torture the fetus?

EDIT to add, the movie IS still available on Netflix. Watch it, it is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MuseRider (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:47 PM

72. Bravo!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:11 PM

54. as far as restrictions

all this will enable to do is let some holy roller doctor declare this having the baby is pefectly fine, even if he lies about it, and even if the girl dies because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:22 PM

58. It's like her entire campaign strategy is "screw you Democrats, I will be the nominee anyway

 

and I will say and do anything I want because there is no way you will vote for the alternative."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:32 PM

68. permitted or not

the people I grew up with say it's always been illegal even though it took them 7 yrs to get behind a catholic (Lutherans behind a Catholic? since when.. and thus 7 yrs later I joined one. I was 5 in 1980, almost 12 in 1987

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:47 PM

73. pro choice my ass another reason i would have trouble supporting her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:59 PM

76. Planned Parenthood can change its endorsement if enough of us make noise about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:15 PM

83. The loathe is creeping in alongside the fear w/ HRC

 

She will literally say anything and that is NOT what ANYONE needs NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:21 PM

86. Hillary's a Witch, "Yeah, she is, uh-huh." ..LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:41 PM

91. Glad you posted this article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:20 PM

100. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:25 PM

101. Looks like the wind today is blowing

 

from the 1990s, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:38 PM

108. Her position sounds pretty much in line with Roe v Wade

Roe v Wade did not approve abortion on demand. It limits abortion to the point of viability and leaves it to the states to determine what that is. Some states therefore have abortion on demand until 24 weeks, the traditional point of viability, while others determine it on an individual basis (i.e., a healthy pregnancy might be viable at 24 weeks, but a pregnancy with a fatally ill fetus will never be viable and therefore can be aborted until the final trimester). As far as I know exceptions for the life of the mother are allowed even past the point of viability.

Roe v Wade is significantly more liberal than the laws in many progressive European states, where abortion for any reason is legal until 12 weeks, abortion for medical reasons until 24 weeks, and illegal after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:56 PM

116. I thought this was the ONE ISSUE which Hillary would refuse

 

to sell out to the Republicans.

I guess I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread