2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAbortion right question for Clinton supporters
Here is something I saw in the Hillary group.
I will continue to be loud, rude and bitchy until every woman in this country has access to contraception and abortion rights. And I will bitch until that is a reality. HILLARY 2016!
I understand Clinton supports a ban on third trimester abortions. Is this adequate support for abortion rights? Your thoughts?
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)I will wait.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)A restriction is not a ban. An exception for the life and health of the mother is a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
That's why the conservatives won't agree to it.
The reality is nobody is having elective third term abortions. Even if there were women who would make that kind of decision, there aren't doctors who would go along with it. A late term abortion is not a simple procedure, and is risky in and of itself- more risky than natural childbirth.
The decision needs to be made by a woman and her Doctor. Hillary is in support of that.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Who can afford that unless you're very wealthy anymore?
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Anencephaly? Or Downs? There's a pretty wide range of "deformities." Should any fetal deformity be enough?
Where the "deformities" would complicate childbirth, that would constitute a threat to the physical health of the mother, would it not? Where the "deformities" involve pain or loss of life, or quality of life, for the fetus, would that not constitute a threat to the mental or emotional health of the mother?
I think we need to be extremely careful about introducing fetal disorders and/or disabilities to this debate. It quickly devolves into a discussion about the rights and value of people with disabilities, and whether we should advocate preventing them from coming into being.
Questions like this are why this should be a decision made by the woman and her Doctor.
I want to briefly address your comment regarding affordability. First of all, third trimester abortions are extremely expensive, and rarely covered by insurance. Only the more wealthy among us has the privilege of making that kind of choice. Secondly, interjecting economics into the argument invites an inquiry into whether financial difficulties are a "good reason" to choose a third trimester abortion. As militantly pro-choice as I am, I find that justification hard to accept.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Demsrule86
(68,817 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Sanders supporters cannot accept that reasonable people can view the same facts and arrive at different conclusions.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Cognitive dissonance is rampant in Camp Weathervane.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)The OP states that Hillary supports a ban on late-term abortions. I have been provided no evidence that is true. A restriction is not a ban.
Keep it up. I'm sure Trump will be a veritable champion of a woman's right to choose. Talk about cognitive dissonance....
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)are the sort of responses to legitimate criticisms of Hillary.
When Hillary supporters refuse to defend by fact or logic or even acknowledge valid criticisms of Hillary there is one real reason; cognitive dissonance which annoys them to the point where they resort to logical fallacies to mask the internal conflict and thereby ease their minds. Actually we all do it but until we are aware that we are we act irrationally, illogically and nonsensically because we are not acknowledging reality.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/13/1500795/-Hillary-Bernie-Honesty-Logical-Fallacies-Cognitive-Dissonance-Trust-and-Rational-Decisions
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)This one is not. Hillary does not support a BAN on late term abortions.
Is Hillary the perfect candidate? No. IMO, neither is Bernie. I find Bernie's deficits more troubling than Hillary's. Clearly you and I disagree on that. Probably, given that we are both members here, there are lots of things we DO agree on. Our time would be better spent focusing on those things. None of us should be doing the GOP's job for them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)With exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. As I said above, an exception for the health of the mother is an exception that you can drive a truck through.
Nobody elects a late term abortion on a whim. Those decisions are a horrendous burden upon the women and the doctors who have to make them.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts).... restrictions in the 1st and 2nd.
This is an example of where pragmatism undermines her principles and ultimately undermines civil liberties.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Delightful!
Hillary's position is consistent with current law. Msanthrope has explained that fairly exhaustively downthread. I'm not going to rehash it here.
Please ask yourself how hard a President Trump would work to protect abortion rights. Wouldn't our time and energy be better spent defeating him instead of ourselves???
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)There are a lot of positions consistent with current law that I don't want HRC supporting.
Hillary pitching her restrictions on abortions is working to defeat Democrats.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)That line of viability will push up earlier and earlier, and with it restrictions if we support them in the 3rd tri.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)That "door " is already open- there are already restrictions in the law.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)Damn, is the concept of reproductive freedom new to you?
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)No one is out there advocating abortion on demand in the third trimester.
After spending a few years of my youth on the other side of this issue, I have been staunchly pro choice for three decades. I absolutely support a woman's right to choose.
I despise the fact that people make third trimester abortions a political football. The decision to abort in the third trimester is heart wrenching and soul crushing. Nobody is doing it on a whim. No doctor is performing elective third trimester abortions. Using these women and their tragic circumstances as some kind of strategy to score points for your side is beyond despicable, and is counterproductive in protecting the rights that you have expressed more concern about. Demonizing the presumptive democratic nominee makes it more likely that we will have not only a Trump presidency, but as many as 3 anti-choice Supreme Court Justices.
creeksneakers2
(7,486 posts)the day before the baby is born?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)SBS says something vague and does nothing, so they are winging it- and poorly.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)contain restrictions on third trimester abortions?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)You do not use fact or logic, and you apparently cannot be bothered with anything that is even internally coherent as you rant and rave about things that contradict themselves, but which you insist must be true all the sane, despite never being able to back it up. Projecting your own reliance on fallacies and your cognitive dissonance is the real reason your silly attempts at argument fail all the time.
Yes, actually BSers do it a lot, line the COBS whose talking points you use.
The allegations you make are dismissed with merely putting the phrases you have taken back into context, as in this false belief about her stance on abortion you all apparently misread whole ignoring her consistent stance on abortion.
You apparently do not understAnd what she was saying, what a third trimester is, what Roe says, what the medical field says, or how she was discussing the topic. Irrational, illogical and nonsensical, simply because you don't understand the concept, terminology, history or the full quote. Hence your ad hominems, strawmen, assertions of falsehoods as "truth" only you know and a bunch of red herrings where you assert that anyone pointing out your ignorance is somehow doing the things you dedicate yourself to.
Learn the basics, do your honework and then you might be equipped to have a rational, fact based conversation about your errors of understanding.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Laws are all easy in place dealing with late term abortions. Why a constitutional amendment? It's not necessary.
Should we have constitutional amendments for all medical procedures? Kidney transplants maybe? Or hearts? How would we know the donor was really dead? We need to take that shit out of the patient/doctor's hands and define it in the US fucking Constitution where all grand ideas are decimated by a few crazy fucking politicians who can't get what "privacy" really means.
can we codify all medical procedures by constitutional amendment? Scientologists would have a field day with this. What a clown show party leaders put forth.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Most people berating Hillary on this issue seem to believe that the words "constitutional restrictions" mean a constitutional amendment.
I think, taking the whole thing in context, "constitutional restrictions" means restrictions that are constitutional- ie, do not infringe upon constitutional rights....
I have seen nowhere that she advocates for an amendment to the constitution on this issue.
katsy
(4,246 posts)States the power to regulate.
So this will be a congressional legislation?
I'm confused as you can tell because I thought this was going to be a clusterfuck attack on our privacy rights by restricting late term abortions.
Would it behoove our democratic representatives/nominees to just clearly state that they support choice & abortion is a matter of privacy & between a woman & her doctor. Period. EOM.
dchill
(38,623 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Or Bernie's actual votes, it is why they keep believing debunked lies about her, while reacting angrily when his past record is brought up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Said.
BS supporter bs.
angrychair
(8,755 posts)In her own words.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I do not need to be "educated" by some site.
angrychair
(8,755 posts)That she advocates for a constitutional amendment to ban late term abortions except to save the mother?
Those were her words. I assume she meant them as they were very specifically stated.
So, you agree then? I will say it again, it's like a Twilight Zone episode, where Democrats advocate for abortion bans. When did Democrats start wanting a government so small it fits in a women's vaginia?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)angrychair
(8,755 posts)Because she believes, personally, and its medically inaccurate belief, that a zygote or fetus is a baby, a person, when it is not?
Her line has always been "safe, legal and rare" why "rare"? What business is it of the government to do that?
"Rare" means "control" or to shape public attitudes that is something to be ashamed about and avoided.
Why does she call an abortion a "heart-wrenching choice for most women"? Only because we guilt-trip and humiliate women for that choice. A women getting an abortion is doing nothing wrong.
She is soft on the issue and would sacrifice it in a second.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)another. As one is allowed to have one view, the a slightly different view is allowed also, but her position stands. Period. She voted against the ban on late term and has always been a voice for a woman's right to chose. Strongly, loudly and consistently. I do not have to make a demand she must only see it one way, as I would refuse someone doing to me.
It is offensive, a woman that has for decades fought for women and girls to have bullshit Sanders garbage spewing he is more on my side. Bullshit. He has done nothing but voted what is put in front of his face, otherwise he ignores me or dismisses me. Clinton stands for women's rights, even viewing it slightly less than what YOU want her to think, she stands with women's right to chose.
angrychair
(8,755 posts)As it was not relevant to our conversation. I was talking about Clinton's views and actions. I neither tried nor wanted to compare or contrast Clinton with Sanders on abortion and women's healthcare rights.
This visceral disgust with Sanders is disturbing. You stated he has ignored or dismissed "you", I assume you mean women in general, how? He has fought for fair pay, abortion and women's healthcare rights as well as fair and equal access to education, housing and business.
He has done so for decades. What, specifically, has he done wrong?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)actually fighting and advocating for women and girls and our health and welfare.
Of course you are just aflounder why I do not accept this bullshit meme being perpetrated by Sanders supporters that Clinton is SOFT on abortion issues. Women's health issues. When for three decades, or more she has consistently advocated and fought for women and girls.
The audacity. How dare you denigrate all Clinton has done. The time and effort and money she has put into to women, girls and children. That you dare to tell me I need to accept your meme, a Sanders supporter, that Clinton FAILS at women and girls health issue.
Yes. It is an affront. It is insulting. And... fuck that shit.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that she would be open to the idea of a ban late term abortions if the health / life of the woman was taken into consideration.
This sounds maybe reasonable at first blush, until you consider that, by only mentioning the health / life of the woman, she is completely ignoring a whole class of late term abortions, where the fetus has severe abnormalities such as anencephaly (lack of a brain) or similar things, and will not survive anyway. It sure sounds like she would be okay with forcing women to carry those pregnancies to term, which is not in any way, shape or form a strong feminist position.
Here is what she said:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
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.
Boo, hiss.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I've seen a lot of people slam Clinton for this position... But it actually has been reproductive law for over 20 years now.
katsy
(4,246 posts)but allows states to regulate after viability, generally 24 + weeks.
That's it. That's Casey. Casey doesn't allow for restrictions like HRC is willing to bargain away by constitutional amendment.
If a woman is pregnant and say zika virus has affected the fetus and if born, the baby will die... The woman has every right to terminate in most states. HRC is limiting choice to only the mothers life. HRC has no business in this matter except to support the law of the land, ROE, and shut up about what is a personal individual choice.
That is no one's fucking business except the mother & her doctor. So fuck that!
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html
Currently appx 9+ states are in violation of Roe.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0
Here's why I don't support HRC position:
Unless & until you codify in the Constitution the activities of, including # of ejaculations & the purpose of these ejaculations, a mans penis.... stop trying to make a women's reproductive system a constitutional issue. It doesn't belong. The decision belongs to the woman & her doctor. No one else.
Don't codify restrictions with a constitutional amendment. My reproductive system, my right to enjoy my body, has NO business in the constitution. The courts will better protect my rights. And as we become less authoritarian, hopefully, the laws will follow custom.
HRC has as much business codifying this as the founding fathers had codifying who is 3/5 of a man. NONE. She has no business binding Roe. It's settled law. Better like this than allowing more restrictions. Our knowledge base may evolve. Our acceptance may evolve. This is an issue already settled by Roe so don't give another inch to any state. None. Let's the courts force the states that do not comply into compliance.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)There is no reason whatsoever to advocate for a constitutional amendment for this. None.
On edit: HRCs only statement on this issue should be that Roe is the law of the land. Period.
Enforce the law.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)than Casey.
katsy
(4,246 posts)amendment for abortion.
Roe is the law of the land & that is as far as any pro choice democrat should go.
Abortion is already regulated by the states. This matter is settled. Period.
The states must comply and the place for enforcement is thru the courts.
I wouldn't be in favor of any constitutional amendments made by the fuckwits in congress at this time. Not any religious liberty laws as a cover for bigotry, not defining marriage, no bathroom rights bill, no nothing. Congress is not to be trusted.
This has nothing to do with being angry at anyone. Our pro choice candidates should just STFU and offer NOTHING that could in any way shape or form be used to curtail any of our rights. If there's any way these red state knuckledraggers can decimate roe they will do it. Idk how but they will try. 9 or so states are already in violation of Roe. The higher courts are dealing with them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)>>>>>"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."<<<<<
She is calling for one where it is not necessary and where is it in Casey that calls for one? It does not call for one at all.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.html
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)right to abortion would be guaranteed by constitutional amendment. Would it be restricted? Of course.....we have restrictions on every fundamental right. The idea of unrestricted, late term abortion done on demand has never been supported by law or justice. Late term abortion to preserve and protect the health of the mother? Absolutely. That's what HRC supports.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Who defines what is included in "health".
What about encephalopathy? Must the mother carry to term then?
Who is qualified to make these decisions?
Not the doctor or mother? The lawmakers are?
I don't particularly care to codify these matters as s constitutional amendment.
Is murder codified in the constitution? NO. Not necessary.
The laws are clear and adequate.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's what HRC stands for.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html#ooid=N1ODF1dzpHyB52_cmPb77qDHRLMY2We_
CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
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.
https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests
The Democratic Party DOES NOT COMPROMISE ON ABORTION. But she's certainly left enough weasel words in there so that people can read whatever they want into it (which is why she is NOT TRUSTED, especially on this subject because I can't tell who she is pandering to, and I'm not willing to let her negotiate jack on abortion).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is subject to constitutional restrictions.
She is correct...if the Republicans ever got off their asses and codified Casey, the right to abortion would be a constitutional amendment. That there are restrictions on late term abortions, excepting the health an life of the mother ha been the law for 40 years.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I don't care how much Hillary weasels on it -- the answer is NO. I want her to Stay the Fuck Out Of Medicine. This is one of the MANY reasons I will not support her EVER. Fortunately, I don't have to yet. And Trump is an idiot.
But the bottom line is this -- the OP is correct, and if she wasn't such a liar, people would clearly understand her position. Bernie was able to articulate it clearly: NO, and oh by the way, going after the states that mess with a woman's right to choose by limiting their access.
Done now. You can explain it all you want, but the fact you need to try to explain it says everything: NO TO HILLARY.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the question they asked HRC was... She gave a perfect answer, and they don't know it- or even understand the nature of the question. The ignorance is staggering.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)answer that preserved women's choice. You think the GOP is going to constitutionalize our rights to abortion anytime soon? Seriously? We'd be better off if they did- but it is not happening.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)in multiple ways depending on what you are looking for AND I DON'T TRUST HER BECAUSE SHE LIES ALL THE TIME.
You should really watch the New York Times video about Libya. Anytime she smiles to your face, she's got a knife for your back.
Hillary is Horrible.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Like what? List where our rights are curtailed.
Rights are expanded, or should be, by constitutional amendment.
They already tried curtailing gay marriage through constitutional amendment.
Just no.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)Not me.
You can't name one.
The constitution shouldn't be used to curtail fundamental rights.
ON EDIT: Good place to start:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm
The constitution doesn't exist to curtail fundamental rights. It protects our rights from being taken away even by a majority. But you must know that. Being a lawyer.
Roe is the law of the land. Casey affirms Roe but leaves states to regulate late term abortion which they do.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is appropriate. None.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)by the same document and by 200 plus years of jurisprudence. Our rights are neither absolute nor unfettered.
Again....there is not a single fundamental right enumerated in the Constitution that is not subject to restriction. That's why you cannot name one. Not a single one.
Go ahead.....name one.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Abortion does not, IMO, rise to the level of necessitating a constitutional amendment to curtail choice. The constitution already protects our privacy rights and choice. No further curtailment is necessary.
Driving is a regulated activity. Medical associations are regulated. You don't need a constitutional amendment for heart or bone marrow transplants. Why do we not need constitutional amendments for every regulated activity? States are free to regulate late term abortions as long as they don't curtail a women's constitutional rights.
The only demo howling for constitutional amendments to curtail our constitutional rights are right wingers. They tried this with the right to marry in order to curtail gay rights.
Roe is the law of the land and states may regulate late term abortions.
Not one Democratic leader, elected official, had the right to bargain our constitutional rights away.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)law.
Roe is not the law of the land. Casey is. You might try reading it.
katsy
(4,246 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)a law degree to explain to others about the law? Why, we have tons of legal 'experts' here on DU willing to chime in at a moment's notice. They've all got Goggle!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)A thread in lbn.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Makes you wonder why we bothered spending the time to actually get the degree.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)feel this might get in the way of her core message, whatever it might be.
onecaliberal
(32,996 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions
In the exchange, Clinton seems to support limited bans on late-term abortions after a fetus is viable (about 24 weeks into a pregnancy). Her campaign has said nothing to contradict this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)more informed about actual reproduction law.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)one of our more 'intellectua'l former presidents) a damned piece of paper. Never let the law get in the way of an anti-Hillary rant.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And thus, is familiar with the ramifications and the law coming out of the Casey decision.... and those who are simply using reproductive law as the anti-hillary outrage du jour.
This does not win Bernie any supporters over any woman remotely familiar with the actual abortion restrictions in this country. Nor those remotely familiar with the law.
But it does tell me who thinks I'm stupid enough do not know reproductive law...... maybe I can have my uterus mansplained to me again.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)angrychair
(8,755 posts)More specifically, she is NOT "articulating the law as it currently stands." She is advocating for a Constitutional amendment to ban late-term abortions except to save a woman's life.
That is advocating for restrictions, by law, outside of the confines of sound medical advice and the wishes of the mother.
I feel like I have been dropped into an episode of Twilight Zone where Democrats are happy with and advocate to take or restrict the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body.
Fuck Casey and anything else that takes that decision away from a woman!
Now even so-called Democrats want to legislate and control a women's vaginia.
Disgusting
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)I also know that feminist candidates give unqualified support to women's rights. Prochoice is prochoice.
Hillary would sell out anyone. I don't suppose that bothers you, but it should.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who support unfettered abortion in the third trimester. Good luck.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hillary is waffling on choice. Women are upset about it.
Don't you love having a candidate for whom your biggest task is covering up?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)third trimester abortions, post 'email. You are the one who claimed there was support for this idea.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Much of her support is based on myth.
Support for LGBT rights? Not 100% there, never was.
Latino, other people of color? Not that strong, mostly myth.
And, womens' rights? Really sad that she gets so much support when her policies have hurt some many women and families.
No. Just no.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Because it's difficult to determine Clinton's exact position on some issues, and this is one of them. She made some statement about "regulating" late term abortions, but I don't know what that means. What exceptions would there be? How late is late term? Ans so on. So, perhaps those of you who accuse me of inventing this from thin air could provide more detail about her position on abortion. Not a demand, just a suggestion.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Period.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)NARAL:
"She has spent her entire life leading on equal opportunity for women and families--as a private citizen, first lady, United States senator, and secretary of state. As president, Hillary Clinton will be a champion for all. Thats why NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud to endorse Hillary Clinton to become the next President of the United States."
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2016/hillary-endorsement.html
Planned Parenthood:
"Theres 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 doesnt just support womens health she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to womens health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about."
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton
NOW:
Hillary Clinton has been a trail blazer for women with an impressive record of public service where she put womens rights at the forefront. Everywhere Clinton worked she has used her voice and power to raise the status and improve the lives of women and girls. Clinton made womens rights are human rights a rallying point throughout the world. Electing Hillary Clinton as the first feminist woman president is not only historic, but would fulfill the hopes and dreams of feminists everywhere.
Hillary supports full reproductive rights without restrictions. When Clinton was in the Senate she voted for every abortion rights bill presented and opposed the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to be Supreme Court justices, stating that they represented the gravest threat to Roe v. Wade in history.
She has said that overturning the gag rule would be one of her first acts as President. She opposes the Hyde amendment, and in her original health care plan, Clinton proposed no religious exemptions for employers for womens health care needs.
Clinton has called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment which prevents the use of federal funds for abortion.
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 that made emergency contraception available over the counter.
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.
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.
In an unprecedented move as secretary of state, Clinton launched the federal Office of Global Women's Issues, making women central partners in foreign policy decisions.
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.
Clinton introduced 8 pieces of legislation with the clear purpose of expanding and protecting womens access to reproductive health care.
http://nowpac.org
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Thirdly, these organizations have their own agendas and heads of the organization that appear to be easily bought off.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)"Hardest working is subjective." Fine.
Who worked harder?
"some of the items listed are false."
Which?
"heads of the organization ... easily bought off"
Ah, the old "bought off" excuse. Who would have "bought them off," and why? I thought the narrative is that Clinton was "bought off." Now she is "buying off" women's organizations?
Crazy.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)We both know you will just reply with snark.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I know many women who run circles around her and don't take thousands of dollars to do it.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She didn't "take thousands of dollars" for her work on reproductive health and choice, unless you're talking about her salary as senator.
Are you saying you know more than Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW PACs?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Flat out wrong. Read the endorsements again.
As a senator, he's voted the right way, but that's about it.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Clinton foundation takes donations from countries with horrible & horrific human rights records & women rights records.
Planned Parenthood's CEO's kiddo works for the Clinton campaign & did before they endorsed her.
Ditch your glases bro.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)The blogger clearly has a strong bias against Clinton, and is talking about "women's issues" without much understanding of what those are. The topic here is reproductive health/choice.
The blogger writes that Sanders is "staunchly pro-choice." I am sure. Other than that:
"Ms. Clintons stance on abortion, as pro-choice under the conditions that it be safe, legal, and rare, stigmatizes abortion and endangers the protection of the Roe v. Wade ruling. Her moderate stance helps conservatives justify restrictions and defunding of womens health programs. In contrast, Mr. Sanders has been much more enthusiastic in pushing for not only the protection of womens reproductive rights, but the expansion of and access to womens health programs."
Moderate stance, endangering Roe v. Wade? That is laughably false! I suppose you'd like to believe that this man knows more about the issue, as stated in this one little paragraph, than all the people who've worked on it for decades.
You're choosing opinions to support your beliefs. These are not the facts.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)You do know there are already restrictions on third trimester abortions, right?
Read the endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)But I had a poster tell me a woman should have an unfettered right to an abortion right up to the moment of birth. That is not policy anywhere on the globe.
Of course if the baby is going to be born horribly deformed or the mother's life is in danger she has a right to end the pregnancy at any time.
I support the scheme in Roe which weighs the interest of the fetus against the right of the woman . That has been the position of the Democratic party for decades.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Boy, this "pivoting" is gonna be exciting, isn't it?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Hekate
(91,017 posts)During the first trimester legal abortion is safe and easy, and the original law indicated there should be no restrictions on access. The second trimester is trickier, and less safe for the mother, but still quite legal.
The third trimester is when abortion almost never happens. I swear, some people think a heavily pregnant woman just wakes up one morning and decides this is what she's got to do today. No, dammit. Sometimes the fetus is dead. Sometimes the mother has eclampsia and her life is at stake. Sometimes the fetus has deformities incompatible with life itself, like anencephaly. G look that up.
And sometimes an antichoice interviewer stirring up trouble ambushes a pro-choice politician with The Question, framed as killing perfect Gerber Babies....
boston bean
(36,225 posts)They are just out to try and smear and make shit up.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She -- Hillary Clinton -- is not "under a criminal investigation."
Hekate
(91,017 posts)Hekate
(91,017 posts)There's no specially made up rules for them like there are for exactly one lifelong Dem candidate -- so why the stall on their tax returns?
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)You said it perfectly. Sadly some candidates are willing to use it as a bargaining chip - their words not mine. Wjphile others say quite frankly the government should stay out of women's wombs!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Years that the government does have an interest in fetal life. What that interest is varies according to the maturity of the fetus. This is the entire basis of law for Reproductive Rights in this country. I suggest you go read the Casey decision.
betsuni
(25,812 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Really sad to see what desperation has done to the Sanders campaign.
senz
(11,945 posts)Terrible to see what desperation does to the Hillary campaign.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously- you think he has said that? Or is he being deliberately vague... and leaving it to the states.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's up to the woman.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Hekate
(91,017 posts)"Bargaining chip" my rosy Irish ass.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Also, we have a ban on third trimester abortion, it's call Roe V. Wade, which sets the legal time frame at 24 weeks.
Yes, upholding that is indeed adequate support.
What's more is that she's also for doing what's necessary to reduce the number of late term abortions, this is defined at the ones between 20 and 24 weeks. These that are very small percentage that are done for extraordinary reasons (meaning out of the ordinary), the ones done for medical issues with the mother or the fetus, where the pregnancy is discovered at a later date (yes, this is a thing that happens for a variety of physiological and psychological reasons, there is even a tv show about, "I didn't know I was pregnant" or something).
So, Clinton supports the right of women to choose, and she also supports policies that keep women from HAVING to choose. Access to contraception, plan B, pre-natal care etc.
So your understanding of her position on women's basic human rights here is flawed.
In contrast, Bernie thinks this is a distraction, and it's not a litmus test for him for Supreme Court nominees. Ignorance of and dismissal of an issue he doesn't know much about is far more troublesome than the out of context spinning of her actual position.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)It is pretty simple. HRC does not believe women have agency over their body.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously, can't you guys make an effort to educate yourself? No one is fighting for no restrictions at all. No one. Not even Bernie. Get real folks. You are using our bodies as a football, and you do not know your shit. Mortified to read this crap here.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that call for late term abortions that HRC and the GOP want to outlaw. Women just don't decide in their eighth month that they need to get a pedicure and an abortion. The need for late term abortions comes about due to dire medical circumstances and the government has ZERO business interfering with such decisions.
And one more time, either a women controls her body or the state does.We have seen repeatedly what happens when the state gets to place restrictions on abortion: Women die.
HRC has made it crystal clear she is open to supporting restrictions on late term abortions, so quit pretending it is not an issue.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)why are people lying about her record? it is arrogant and insulting.
she gave a perfect answer to a purely hypothetical question. she has never supported restrictions, she has supported the most liberal interpretation of the law and fought to expand rights, again and again. SBS has sat on the sidelines, and gets a big old pat on the back for being vague. I am so embarrassed for any of you that try to make hay of this. WTF.
There is no one- not even SBS- that wants to take away the current restrictions so that women can abort a healthy fetus at 9 months. It is an ugly farce to pretend he supports it. If he did, it would kill his candidacy in an instant.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions
If you favor regulation, then someone has to determine when the regulation applies, and that means government getting involved in a private medical decision.
If this were the only place where HRC has given differing answers to a question, I might overlook it, but she does this all the time on a number of issues.
If there is one thing I learned about the Clintons, words matter.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the correct response. I think China might be the only country where you can legally abort a healthy pregnancy at 9 months. Do you really believe Sanders supports that? I wish someone would ask him to clarify.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Once you have a regulation, you make it the government's business. Again, WHO makes the call.? One doctors says it is needed, another doctor says it isn't. Then we have to go to court and get a decision, then that declension can be appealed, then appealed again. When the life of the mother is at stake, time matters.
Also, define "health of the mother". Does that mean just her physical health, or does her mental health enter into it? Again, who decides?
HRC is fine with government making this call.
We are talking about what the LAW is, and in the law words matter.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)advocacy and record of achievement on this? Is there anything other than a vaguely worded statement on his web site?
Complete and utter bullshit. I hope someone has the courage to demand a detailed statement from SBS on this.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)"The decision about abortion is a decision for a woman and her doctor to make, not the government. I will not allow the right wing to deny women control over their own bodies by forcing clinics to close, extending waiting periods, or inventing other methods that create de facto abortion bans."
12/30/15
"I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."
3/7/16
Asked to name a single circumstance at any point in a pregnancy in which you would be okay with abortion being illegal, the democratic socialist refused.
It's not a question of me being okay, Sanders said. I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.
When Fox News Bret Baier pressed Sanders on whether he agreed with other Democrats that access to abortion could be limited after five months, the Vermont senator reiterated his absolutist stance on choice.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to decide for the pregnant woman? WTF was he thinking? Not much.
So, he has done no advocacy at all- just been quoted. As I suspected.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)at its finest.
Again, you have gotten away from the fact that HRC opened the door for government regulation of abortion. Sanders stated his opinion on who should decide and chose to include "family", however he has consistently voted against all restrictions, and promises to continue to do so.
HRC on the other hand, tries to have it both ways:
"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception."
Yes, she then went on to say that she believed women should be trusted to make this decision, but she opened the door to the lunatic fringe who want to control women with this canard about life beginning at conception.
"I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare."
Who defines "rare"? That requires regulation, which then involves judges and appellate courts.
We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.
Actually, this is moralizing by Clinton and people who wish to shame women. I know a number of women who have zero regrets about their abortion. In just as many cases, an abortion is tragedy avoided.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Clinton did not open any door on regulations- they already existed!! - and she has fought them. Opening the door my ass. Total lie.
HRC has not just voted but fought hard- the best SBS can say is he agreed. He is not fighting for "no restrictions at all" and I get the sense he would like to let Dad in on the deacon with this "family" bullshit. He needs to explain his own words- pronto.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am not going to waste time debating this any more. You have made your choice. Good luck with it.
Ilsa
(61,714 posts)"I suddenly hate the daddy" abortions?
"I just changed my mind about going thru this" abortions?
What about, "my fetus has a condition not compatible with life," abortions?
Or "my fetus will live but have severe physical and cognitive functions and need constant care" abortions.
Where does Sec. Clinton draw the line?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As it takes little more than finding the respective candidate's positions on the major issues, positions which are clearly defined and spelled-out, and that this particular issue has come up repeatedly over the past six months, I'm compelled to find your post to be disingenuous and insincere at best.
Rather than ask her supporters what her positions are, it would be much more rational to easily locate the primary sources rather than cowering behind implication and insincerity, though I suspect a creative rationalization to be made, with alleged righteous rage on the one side, and and affirmation of innocence and purity on the other.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)My how things change. Its hard to keep up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Actor
(626 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html#ooid=N1ODF1dzpHyB52_cmPb77qDHRLMY2We_
CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
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.
https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests
The Democratic Party DOES NOT COMPROMISE ON ABORTION. Hillary does.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Even those of you who accused me of trying to smear Clinton. The varied responses, along with a lot of parsing and elaboration that does not come from the candidate herself, reinforce my original point, that it's difficult to know for certain where Clinton stands on this issue. Her record and her statements are good enough for her supporters, but not for her opponents, which is true of just about everything every political candidate has ever said or done. We shall see what happens when she gets into the White House.
Demsrule86
(68,817 posts)Bernie called the abortion issue a 'distraction' so I will take Clint on any day. And the quote which was taken out of context is wildly misleading. Roe V Wade has restrictions on late term abortion. Don't you feel a little bad about posting crap from Faux? Rightie lies?
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/debunking_the_latest_lie_about_hillary_clinton_no_she_didnt_say_she_supports_a_20_week_ban_on_abortion/
Laffy Kat
(16,393 posts)I also trust Bernie.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)If you're a few days from birth, no, I don't think you should be able to get an abortion. There are lines to be drawn and outside of health exceptions I think the third trimester ban makes sense.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)so that the pt can give informed consent.