2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary now addressing Planned Parenthood. I hope all are hearing this.
I am a grandma -- and I am choking up.
Returned to add: it's on MSNBC Now
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Hekate
(92,605 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)My maternal aunt died in a botched illegal abortion, before I was born. It destroyed my aunt's family and left three children motherless. This is personal!
Hekate
(92,605 posts)...who was left to die in an alley after an abortion.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)My aunt was married, but this happened during a time of economic downturn, and they absolutely could not afford a 4th child. I think she bled to death at home. My grandparents completely fell apart, and blamed my uncle, who took his kids and disappeared from the rest of us. Only after the kids were grown, and grandparents and uncle had passed, did we cousins reunite. My mother talked about this throughout my childhood. She was very close to my aunt and I know was terribly hurt by this completely needless tragedy. My aunt SHOULD have been able to get a safe abortion, no questions asked.
lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)including her proposed ban on "partial birth abortions"?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Hekate
(92,605 posts)Late term abortions are extremely rare, difficult for the doctor, and dangerous for the mother. They are only done if the life of the mother is at stake, the fetus has defects incompatible with life, or the fetus is already dead and decaying in utero.
However, anti choice fanatics like to portray this as infanticide of a darling Gerber Baby, and they and their surrogates in the MSM like to ambush pro choice politicians with this line of questioning.
Feel better?
lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)and not up to law makers.
And Hillary has said in the past that she would favor a law on this. I am wondering if she is going to clarify that position.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"Intelligent women who have heard her on the abortion issue know that she is accurately reflecting the state of the law for the last 40 years in this nation.... like it or not the state has the right to restrict abortion past the point of viability. It's settled law and that's not going to change.
Women who know reproductive law like me understand exactly what Hillary is saying. That you refuse to accept my expertise and the expertise of organizations like Planned Parenthood doesn't win any points for your argument.
In your attempt to explain reproductive law you only show your shallow understanding of it." ~msanthrope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2157046
lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)which is being eaten away by Repukes at the state level at a voracious rate.
We need federal protection and aggressive action by both the federal government and the courts to keep "settled law" in place and actually reverse the trend of the last decade or so on this matter.
I am hoping that Hillary supports a woman's right to choose AND the ability to exercise that right and the expectation of privacy between her and her doctor on this issue... not just "we need to maintain settled law".
PP could find itself with no federal funding in many states even with President Clinton. It's not that she would propose this, its only that she might not fight hard enough to reverse the trend.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)settled law doesn't change over time... when new state laws are proposed, the courts strike it down based on tons of court cases which decide in favor of the "settled law".
Which is why I am wondering if Hillary is addressing what she will do as President to REVERSE the trend... or if she will only maintain the present state of affairs (which are much different than when my girlfriend had an abortion in 1979 when we were stupid teenagers in college).
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)of an interview to try to manipulate that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2171539
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sadly it is Sanders who wastes our time with inaction and hollow promises.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)At which point alll bets are off
Hekate
(92,605 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,883 posts)The SCOTUS in Roe V Wade established a schedule that weighs the rights of the mother versus the viability of the fetus. The further along in pregnancy the female is the greater the interest of the state.
It's right wingers who try to obfuscate the issue and portray those who support a woman's right to choose as favoring infanticide.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And when you find a major party presidential candidate who doesn't think there should be any restrictions on abortion at all at any time, you let me know.
I'll be waiting.
I assure you Trump doesn't fit that standard.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Her position is clearly spelled out in her platform with great clarity and little ambiguity. If you are unable to comprehend, decipher or infer a sixth-grade level of reading, you may wish to attend evening classes for further education.
lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)where she has said something quite a bit different.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)lapfog_1
(29,589 posts)I watched the interview. She was not opposed to a federal ban on certain abortions.
She may have been pandering to the conservatives but her language in the interview was... not reassuring.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)A) that's about as likely as happening as unicorns flying out of my ass and she knows that
B) She never fucking proposed a ban and that is EXACTLY what you said - it's a lie (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512171205#post4)
Maru Kitteh
(28,495 posts)The brain is rather devious that way.
History, and facts refute you.
glowing
(12,233 posts)that made late term abortions illegal with the exception to threatening the life of the mother. Which is an extremely narrow window and actually takes away the ability of a woman to choose to abort, as example, if the baby has no stem brain. Going full term and having the baby die once born is not threatening to a woman's life, however the choice to be able to abort a non-viable fetus ought to be available to a woman. And that was for a constitutional ammendment; not just a bill floating they congress. Once an ammendment is in the constitution, it's hard to remove.
And what does that do for anyone. Pandering to the Republicans like that will never bring those right to life loony toons to ever vote for a Democrat. And what bill would be so instrumental in passing that a constitutional amendment should be placed in the constitution to take away rights of women?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Not just life.
And I'd love a politician who supports completely unrestricted access to abortion at any time, however we are very unlikely to find one on a major party presidential ticket. We certainly don't have one now. She is much better than Trump.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)However, it's irrelevant now as the choice is between Hillary and Trump. Hillary is obviously far preferable to Trump.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I just think that the two guys would fight it out for te disgruntled male vote while the Dem base would rather have HRC. Gotta respect the base.
mcar
(43,059 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,255 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)It was lovely to see how a roomful of women reacted to her, too.