2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust when you thought it couldn't get worse. Horrific and telling. -H
Hillary Clinton Retweeted Ali Vitali
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse. Horrific and telling. -H
?@alivitali
NEW Trump to @msnbc: "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions but he has yet to determine what that should be.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)tempermentally unfit for office
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I can't help but think there's something major we don't know, because it really does seem like a political version of "The Producers."
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Whoever you are, Arugula, you deserve this today
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I wish I could take sole credit for the thought. If you get a chance to watch the video, it's really spot on and entertaining.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)It will buy him another day of free publicity on the networks including MSNBC and CNN.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)to get things done, I'd be more inclined to take her tweet at face value.
Instead, quite frankly, I can't tell when it is that she is pandering vs when she is being honest.
CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511552065
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.
CHUCK TODD: What are they?
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.
I remember in '96, Chuck, 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. You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions 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 actions.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)There isn't one nation in the world that allows unrestricted third trimester abortions.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Why even go there? Sadly, this kind of thing is SOP for her.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)It was based on the premise that SCOTUS provided a framework for when abortion is allowed in Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court has ruled there is no unrestricted right to third trimester abortions.
It is telling we are parsing Hillary Clinton's words when this thread is about Trump punishing women who have an abortion at any time during the gestation period.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)But I admit I'm not helping matters.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)So commenting on Hillary's positions is totally germane.
This discussion isn't just about Trump. If it is supposed to be, then it's in the wrong forum.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)There is a ginormous (sic) difference between criminalizing all abortions and discussing the conditions where third trimester abortions should be legal.
Third trimester abortions are so rare and tricky I don't even know how one decides when they should and should not be allowed. Roe V Wade was set up so that as the woman went further in her pregnancy the greater the state's interest was. That is basically how every liberal democracy deals with the issue.
I doubt Trump ever thought this through.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)They just can't keep themselves from widening the divide even further. I don't know how that's possible, but some will find a way.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Some will attest that HRC is as bad or even worse.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Since pregnancy is literally a parasitic relationship between the zygote and host. You actually want laws that say that.
But viability has always been a core concept of Roe v Wade.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)I don't know anyone who supports third trimester abortions outside of the health of the mother.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)seekers of third trimester abortions outside of the health of the mother. Are we truly to believe that a person, woman for this example as men don't get pregnant, who will go through 6 months or more of pregnancy and then decide that maybe this isn't the right choice for my lifestyle? That would be a person who really needs emotional/mental help not a law.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)She gave an ADMINISTRATIVE answer. She is currently a CANDIDATE.
The Democratic Platform is pretty damn clear: NO.
I don't want what looks like weasel pandering and equivocation to appeal to REPUBLICAN voters because that means she is misleading one set of supporters.
The answer is NO. No ifs, ands or buts. NO.
Here is an example of how easy it is to use the word NO --
Correct Answer: NO, and that is a DUMBASS QUESTION to be asking in this day and age!
Hillary Answer: "If there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional..."
Of course, when asked if she thought New York should recognize gay marriage, she sure popped out a pretty fast "NO!" then, didn't she?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I don't believe there is language in the Democratic platform that allows an unrestricted right to third trimester abortions.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
That seems like a pretty damn clear platform to me - no weaseling about first, second or third trimester, no attempts to tell doctors how to do their jobs of protecting their patients health, and not one mention of "constitutional amendments" to change established law about women's reproductive health issues. It hasn't changed in years.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Did or did not the Supreme Court in Roe V Wade place restrictions on third term abortions, and leave those restrictions up to the individual states?
If you believe there is no difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton there is nothing a random internet poster can do to disabuse you of that notion.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Hillary is NOT abiding by the Very Clear Language of the Democratic Platform, and thus this *DEMOCRAT* has concerns about her commitment to the principals of that platform.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)The Democratic party and I stand by the holding of Roe V Wade but Roe left it to the states to place restrictions on third trimester abortions.
The whole decision is based on the notion that the further along in the pregnancy the greater the interest of the state. It is a careful weighing of the rights of the woman versus the viability of the fetus. There is nothing in Hillary Clinton's comments that put are at odds with the decision.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)HILLARY: "if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that."
That isn't a goal post - that is an entirely new ball game. And for me, it is a non-negotiable deal breaker.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)It's what most love to hear,
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)This creep has to be stopped.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the Dumpster really does not want the job.
He would be laughing loud though, if he
could accomplish killing the repug's party.
That kind of thing is much more in his
line of "You are fired". What he did not
count on is the idiocy of that party's voters.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)Who in their right mind could even contemplate supporting this disgusting excuse for a human being?