2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy it is important when Clinton talks about a third trimester ban.
In reading a few threads I was shocked to find that some people here are not truly familiar with what the Roe v. Wade decision does and does not allow when it comes to third trimester abortions.
It in NO WAY bans third trimester abortions outright, nor does it ban third trimester abortions except in the case of the life/health of the mother. Apparently some here are under the impression it DOES and that is not true. Roe v. Wade says that a State may limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, just so long as an exemption for the life/health of the mother is in effect.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
There is a world of difference in the use of the words "may" and "shall" when it comes to law. If Roe indeed banned third trimester abortions with the exception of the life/health of the mother the wording would have been "shall". Period. Currently the State "may" put restrictions on third trimester abortions, meaning they can but are NOT REQUIRED TO.
And, as of 2013, 9 States and the District of Columbia had NO specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, meaning third trimester abortions could take place with little or no restriction:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0
So Hillary Clinton advocating for a federal law banning third trimester abortions with the exception of the life/health of the mother IS a big fucking deal because Roe does NOT call for that, and such a law would further erode women's access to safe and legal abortions. Rape? Incest? Nope, too bad, that would not be allowed under Clinton's new third trimester law, nor would an abortion of an nonviable fetus.
That this has to be explained on DU is frankly astonishing to me.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)No wonder there are three triangles in her logo.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)In the third trimester. By this time TWO people are involved. One is completely helpless and must be protected by society.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)People have birthdays and social security numbers. A third trimester fetus is still a fetus, and a woman has a right to have it or not have it, as she wishes.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Per the OP. You might want to read it.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Most emphatically.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)I wrote it down on my journal, the one that is next to the little doll I made of you made out of your hair and finger nail clippings.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)There is apparently an epidemic of that these days.
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)in this campaign are astonishing to me and this most certainly is one of them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but also chucked the trimester apparatus as established in Roe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#Upholding_the_.22Essential_Holding.22_in_Roe
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)that was what I saw discussed. It's just fucking crazy to see people talk about something they are so wildly misinformed about.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)wait wut???? People do that on discussion boards???? I have had people trying to tell me about my own life experiences. I can tell you they are always way off. My favorite started with, Dude....lemme guess you are an older white guy....
AllyCat
(16,187 posts)I have a few on ignore because of it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)to their base or to not infuriate their most rabid foes. They're politicians, it's how they get elected. Her record on choice is strong and, to me, that carries more weight than a carefully worded response on FOX that was crafted to make her look like a baby murderer to their audience.
Notice she never said "ban" or even "restriction". She said "regulation". That's a politician and I don't fault her for being a good one.
You explained it perfectly.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)at all, I am talking about another incident in which she said she could get behind a "ban":
Oct. 8, 2000, New York Senate debate: "I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/10/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-hillary-clinton-supports-abortion/
"... I can support a ban on late-term abortions..." Straight from the horse's mouth.
And fuck "politics" when it comes to women's rights.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I am. Just parse my journal if you doubt that and see the heated discussions I've had here about it.
I think Clinton's record is strong and I trust she will make abortion rights a priority.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She said she would get behind a ban and she will. She is not as solid on choice as Sanders is.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I respect and admire them a great deal.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)That Clinton honestly would support a ban on third trimester abortions or that she says she would for some political Kabuki like the GOPers use abortion for?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)In the not-so-distant past, she has said that she is open to a ban, now she claims she is for "restrictions" -- well which the fuck IS it? And will she go back to being for a "ban" tomorrow when politics demand it? And regardless of whether she is for a "ban" or "restrictions", what she is willing to do will further undermine Roe and women's reproductive rights. Period.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)We all have our cherished reasons for being a Democrat. We all come into the party for different reasons and at different angles. I have a friend who works in maternal-child health for the State. I also have a friend who is an Ob-Gyn. Both are fierce advocates of women's reproductive health and a woman's right to choose. That is their life's work. They are Dems primarily because the party is so aligned with their values, specifically on those issues.
I also have cherished reasons for aligning with the Democratic party. I've always believed that the Democratic party was the part of the "the good guys." It goes back to when I saw a Democratic fundraiser on television at the age of ten and donated $10. That was in 1975. My central issue is being against war and the horrible atrocities that it creates for the victims and what it does to the people who are the perpetrators. I believe it devolves our society.
I always believed that our party would be "the good guys" who would try to avoid war, not perpetuate it. The Republicans never met a war they didn't want to start. I always saw our party as the protectors of our planet and the people in it.
When I first came to DU, we were aligned against George Bush and the Iraq war. Democrats knew it was a lie. And we all knew who the enemy was--the neocons. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton and the rest of the sociopaths. DU was my refuge during that horrible time...watching "Shock and Awe" in horror, as most of America cheered it on like it was a video game. As the months progressed, it was apparent that the premise for the war was a lie and that the entire act was corrupt, sick and for profit.
And now--today--our party is perpetuating as much war as the Republicans. Hillary was endorsed by the founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan. Kagan served as her Middle East foreign-policy adviser while she was at State. She helped the neocons overthrow Libya and turn it into the failed state that it is today. The country is uninhabitable with untold numbers of refugees feeling into Europe.
I see Democrats rationalizing and justifying neocon war in our party being perpetuated by Hillary. I NEVER thought I'd see this. Like you trusting that Clinton's "record is strong", I also trusted Hillary and our party to not cave on an issue that was central to our identity. Looking back, I was in serious denial. I also rationalized or made excuses. Or I decided to look forward and hope that the Iraq War would be the end of it. But it was only the beginning.
I'd think long and hard about what you are saying. I'm not criticizing you or trying to insult you. I get denial. It protects us when we feel uncomfortable feelings. You don't want to believe that YOUR OWN cherished reasons for finding a home in the Democratic party--could be compromised. It's painful. It could leave you re-thinking your politics or your political identity. That is difficult. So, we justify and we rationalize and we look the other way--and hope that these politicians don't really mean what they're saying.
But they do.
We should NEVER tolerate our values being sold out. Not even a little bit. Democrats have always said that this is a woman's right to choose without government interference. "The life of the mother" excludes situations where the baby is deformed or will die. Or when the woman is raped or a victim of incest. Those are jaw-dropping exclusions, that seem to me--take away a woman's right to choose.
I urge you to really think about this. I'm a Bernie supporter. I'm sure you see me as having an agenda, but I'm not trying to turn you off from Clinton or on to Bernie. I am hoping that you will hold strong when a Democrat begins to chip away at long-held Democratic standards and party planks. Do not stand for it.
I have been worried about our party for a long time--because of the infestation of warmongering and neocon policy; and also because of the corrupt corporate money that has control of our politicians. I have a new level of worry now because I see signals that the same erosion may happen on social issues, like our right to choose. Watch this issue like a hawk. Pay attention to what our leaders say.
Make sure that those who get your votes, are also being true to those cherished values that brought you to the party in the first place. They owe that to you.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Which leads me to believe she was clearly trying to establish this as her position.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Jump to 1:28 and she talks about it. Jump to 2:32 to hear her say she's OK with constitutional restrictions as long as the health of the mother is considered. It's over at 2:55.
She said this on Sept. 29, 2015. I believe she will go there, given the opportunity.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)You're actually advocating for regulations when it comes to a woman making decisions about her own body.
I thought our party was adamantly opposed to that, when it came to a woman's right to choose.
What in the hell is going on here?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025684730
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4015405
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1152484
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022133613
There are more.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)enough
(13,259 posts)confusion.
Thank you for this very clear and important post.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)savaged at the State level. To see a Democrat offer to help savage them further -- even if it is only a political ploy -- makes me a bit crazy.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)one day be thrown out the window too. There is literally nothing left of the Democratic Party.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)everything is negotiable or on the table, everything.
Dammit, I want someone who has got my back, not someone I have to keep looking over my shoulder at to make sure there isn't a knife about to be sunk into my back. I've got too many knives sticking out from them as it is.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)don't know that third trimester abortions are legal now, and can't grasp that Hillary is talking about adding restrictions that don't exist currently.
It's on the level of climate change denial.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And a very said state of affairs, frankly.
senz
(11,945 posts)And then Hillary's so-called feminist supporters make excuses for her and claim that since Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse her she must be trustworthy on this issue.
I'm glad other people are as shocked by her blatant perfidy as I am.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Most of the ones I know are for Bernie based on this exact issue.
enough
(13,259 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Imagine the screaming that would ensue if Sanders made such a proclamation.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)There should be some bedrock principles for a Democrat. Hell, I used to think there were. I don't like weasel words games, I don't like triangulation, I don't like parsing -- when you do that, you are signaling to me that I cannot trust you.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)If it meant the difference between winning and losing. You can take that to the bank.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And I find that depressing.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)is where she'll stand on an issue. She'll sell us women down the river and not think twice about it because her elite supporters will always be able to get a safe, clean abortion without fear of reprisals. She cannot be trusted with power, she's proven it many times over.
senz
(11,945 posts)she would sell her soul to get the presidency. In fact, I am certain she did it long ago. It is grotesque to behold. I find it difficult to watch her in debates, town halls, etc. On a subtler level, she's as much a side show as Trump.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Is that what's going on?
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)but it becomes clear the fetus had anomalies that are "incompatible with life" - will she expect the mother to carry it to term?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)advocated in the past and it has reemerged in the current campaign. In the past she has said she would support a ban so long as it allowed for the life/health of the mother, though she has now tempered her comments to say "restrictions". Rape/incest/viability of the fetus were NOT exemptions she has advocated.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Yeah, it was a shitty answer. But I still think she'd veto any bill banning or adding additional restrictions.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)All in it together
(275 posts)You don't believe is is telling the truth about restrictions on third trimester abortions. Yet you believe she won't approve of restrictions because you trust her?
That's misplaced trust.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And you are just not hearing it. Please listing to the video I posted above. As many times as you need to, to finally understand and believe what she is saying.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)She has been consistent. I can't say the same for people claiming that the one candidate who has consistently and proactively stood up for reproductive rights and is endorsed by PP and NARAL is weak on this issue.
When I see this sort of thing, I realize that for those who are desperate to see Sanders win, nothing matters but personality, not issues and certainly not my rights.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Those are her words...no one is putting words in her mouth.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)It was gutting, but was it any more gutting than carrying a non-viable baby to term? Hardly.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I remember reading interviews with some of Dr. Tiller's patients who had sought him out for 3rd trimester abortions of seriously compromised fetuses. Incredibly sad circumstances to lose a child under, but they all were incredibly thankful the service was available to them.
As is should be and it should remain.
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Original post)
Post removed
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's fucking ridiculous.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Trump is not more pro-choice than Hillary. Not a snowball's chance in hell. As to "talking women out of having one", that has been LEGISLATED in many conservative states, in an attempt to make it that much more difficult for a woman to EXERCISE her right to choose.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are very few doctors who will do it.
She is dead wrong on this.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The idea that Democrats do not support a woman's right to choose. And I'm thinking of many "Democrats," not just one.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I'd be interested in hearing what PP has to say.
Also, I thought the Democratic party agreed that abortion is a decision of which a woman should be in control--not the government.
I can't believe that I am seeing this in our party.
Is this another stalwart Democratic issue on which the party will cave--in order to continue supporting HRC?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)My body is my body. What to do about it, anything that's within it, is MY CHOICE. PERIOD.
fbc
(1,668 posts)and her supporters would find a way to justify it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)which in turn would give the Republicans the ammo they need to go full blast after it and the Democrats would cave and do whatever the Republicans told them to do.
Liberty Belle
(9,535 posts)Not all Zika cases are that severe, but some are--and too often such tragic results can't be seen until the third trimester.
Who is going to pay for lifetime care for such severely malformed babies, if they survive long past birth, which many may not?
There are other horrific tales. I had a friend who learned in the 7th month that her baby had all of the organs growing on the outside of the body plus a hole in the heart. She went forward with the pregnancy against her doctor's recommendations. The poor baby had open heart surgery the day it was born, and died on the operating table. Had it lived it would have faced numerous surgeries and never had a normal life. It was doomed to suffer either way, and perhaps the abortion may have been the least painful. By the way back then, they did surgery without anesethetic on newborns, believing they could not survive anesthesia.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)No, I did not know all this...but I do now.
She is SO bad for America...WTF is wrong with people that they can support such a person?
No...More...Clintons...EVER.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a womans right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it infanticide. Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
And again just last year:
I'm not shocked by Hillary's support of a ban on late term abortions, I am shocked by her supporters who are defending her. We all know they would have a meltdown if Bernie said he supported abortion restrictions.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Which leaves the repugs an opening.
Hillary is addressing that. The OP is making little sense, imho.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)To ban late-term abortions, with the exceptions, to stop Republicans from passing worse laws at the state level?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)monicaangela
(1,508 posts)we have been arguing about this for two days. My last word on the matter, after some were determined to say it was a mistake is this. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been endorsed by PP, if she is as brilliant as many claim she is, why wouldn't she know this?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)Weasel words, pandering, distorting, lying - her supporters think it's admirable but I think it's disgusting.