Question: Should abortion rights be on the table for constitutional restricting?

[DFab420]

Should there be a discussion in the Senate and Congress on restricting abortion rights as long as provisions for mother and child are made?

I'm curious as to the opinion of this board as to whether opening up Roe v Wade to some constitutional restructuring if it meant getting some movement on the gridlock in DC right now.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. FUCK no..........

Government and the big bourgeoisie, and for that matter the petit bourgeoisie, needs to stay the fuck away from personal decisions on health.

[Silver_Witch]

51. Like your attitude

And no one should have their hands in my vagina except my doctor, me and my companion.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. Yep........

I agree wholeheartedly!

[SheilaT]

2. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe in abortion should not have one.

And stop trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

[Zira]

3. +10000

[2banon]

7. Agree Completely!

[NWCorona]

19. Preach!

[Kip Humphrey]

4. In spite of what Hillary is espousing, HELL NO!

[Silver_Witch]

52. I knew she would move right on this...

HRC is not a feminist if she supports anything that inhibits the rights of women to have full and complete healthcare. Decisions like this are NO ONE BUSINESS..period - end of sentence.

Oh my unicorn where the hell is she taking about this shit...anyone got a link?

[2banon]

5. If my understanding is accurate, it's what HRC recently proposed.

Of course I don't support that.

but given that Planned Parenthood already made their endorsement to the one who just gave a nod to this idea, I guess PP is for it.

[kristopher]

12. +1

[Arkansas Granny]

16. I must have missed something here. What was Hillary's recent proposal on abortion rights?

I tried google, but didn't get any results. Do you have a link?

tia

[TheDormouse]

18. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511552065

[2banon]

23. gosh, somewhere here on du. probably breaking news?

just a few days ago.. can't remember the source. sorry.

for clarity: I didn't mean to intimate she initiated the proposal herself, just that she is quoted as going along and support a constitutional amendment on restrictions if put before her as POTUS.

paraphrasing, but that's the jist of how i recall it worded.

[onyourleft]

6. No. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

8. NO. And fuck Hillary for even creating an opening.

Giving up my right to do what I want reproductively has nothing to do with Congressional gridlock.

What a stunningly crazy suggestion.

[CrispyQ]

15. Did I miss something? HRC is triangulating on this issue now?

I'm gonna have a hard enough time voting for her. If she starts giving in on this issue I'll write in Sanders.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Yes, she says she'd be open to a constitutional amendment @ restricting abortion

If there's a clause about protecting the life of the mother.

I'm on my phone which doesn't have my bookmarks so I'll will post a link later when I get home if someone else doesn't first.

[CrispyQ]

36. Post 22 has a link & vid.

But thanks!

[VulgarPoet]

9. Fuck no.

Especially given the gender makeup of Congress? How about we leave women's reproductive choices to women?

[ieoeja]

34. Better idea: how about we leave women's reproductive choices to the individual?

Women have no more right to trample on the rights of other women than do men. When it comes to anti-abortion activism the rank-and-file seems to be about 99% female. There is usually a male leader with a crowd of women doting on his every word.

[VulgarPoet]

40. Mmh, good point.

I apologize for not clarifying-- this was the idea I was trying to get to, but workday afternoon lag got me. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. No. A woman's right to choose should not be used as leverage for other legislation.

[loyalsister]

11. No.

There are more than enough unreasonable restrictions in place right now. I am sick of politicians demonizing a legitimate medical procedure that women make with informed consent. I'm losing confidence in the "between a woman and her doctor" line because it suggests that a woman should ask permission from a health provider who is not even the one who would perform the procedure.
TRUST WOMEN!

[CalvinballPro]

13. Never. The right to privacy is not subject to a vote.

[Prism]

14. They said only Nixon could go to China

And I guess only Hillary Clinton could make Roe v Wade negotiable.

But seriously. Best candidate for women ever, people.

[2banon]

25. especially with the endorsement of PP already in her bag.

Not signing anymore PP petitions for doing that. no freaking way.

[Prism]

28. In that vein, my personal favorite is the Human Rights Campaign

Best. LGBT. Candidate. Ever.

Then she praises the Reagans for their conscientiousness on AIDS.

L.O.L.

That about made my year.

[2banon]

37. that triangulation list is endless.

sure gets that old head spinning, don't it?

[haikugal]

17. Hell NO!!!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Over my dead body.

Can't state it any more plainly than that.

[ebayfool]

22. No. Hell no. Contrary to Clinton's statement saying SHE would be open to it, I say hell no!

Bad enough that GOPers want to get in women's privates, I'll be damned if I'm open to a Democrat helping them!

No.

A woman's body, a woman's right to choose. There are other reasons for late term abortions than the "life of the mother and her health" as she says. There fetal abnormalities found late in the pregnancy. Anencephaly for example. The doctor and the patient should be making these decisions, not politicians and not the government.


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_

"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."

For those that would prefer another link, @ the 1:30 mark:

[EndElectoral]

24. Question: Should this question even be considered asking?

[Kalidurga]

26. After this one would have to wonder how many other rights Hillary is willing...

to compromise on.

[Chan790]

49. All the rights!! n/t

[Kalidurga]

55. It appears to be so.

[auntpurl]

27. Of course not.

And Hillary would never in a million years do anything to restrict abortion rights while she is President. Never. She has a 100% rating from NARAL.

But they asked her the question, and she's running for President of the United States, not President of Democrats. If she'd said, "Abortion is off the table, anything that comes across my desk I will veto" (which is what I know, based on her past record, she will do) the Repubs could just run that quote in all 50 states in the GE and damage her.

She's being politically expedient. It's annoying, and I would love if we were at a place in America where she could just say "NEXT QUESTION", but we're not yet.

[LWolf]

58. This excuse has been used again and again and again

when we don't move forward on issues, or when we actually move backward.

It's total bullshit. If she can't stand for basic rights because it's not politically expedient for her, she should NEVER hold office of any kind.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. How about we re-open the slavery question as well?

[TheDormouse]

43. Don't give them any ideas! nt

[Chan790]

50. I'm sure she believes there is room for discussion...

for a solution that protects the health and welfare of minorities.

Excuse me while I go look for my copy of Aunt Hillary's Cabin.

[vintx]

30. And feminists have the nerve to claim it is feminist to support her

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. No!

[Aerows]

32. There should be no regulation

of what a woman chooses to do with her body.

Many women are incapable of having children without it killing them. Do we force her to do so?

Many women are victims of rape and incest. Do we force her to bear a child?

This entire "controversy" appears to me to make women broodmares.

And I don't think for a second that I am wrong about that assessment.

I'll tell you this - Catholic Priests became the only authority on who could be doctors because they put to the torch women that were interested in medicine. That isn't CT, that is recorded history. The idea being that if you are rigid in your environment, you are better, and then there is the pagan must be purged motivation.

I know I am rambling, but traditional medicine has always involved abortofascients.

There are a number of reasons that women are forced, unwillingly, to have a child.

It has been a situation that has pissed men off for centuries that the woman they picked is not eager to bear his sons. Rape of women in warzones is an expression of that anger.

Aborting the child is also a product of anger.

"You have no place in my body, and you have not place in my country."

[bettyellen]

42. her answer was slick, leaving it between a woman and her doctor is not something congress would

agree to, and the question was a hypothetical. But leaving it between a woman and her doctor in the last trimester is as good or better than it already gets in this country. No one can say full unrestricted access and not be shot down these days.
She will veto anything that tries to put a dent in Rowe, as she always has. There is a good reason why NARAL and PP back her, and it seems to be lost on people here. It is not because of cronyism, it is because she does fight very hard for women's health and reproductive freedom. This is bullshit.

[Dem2]

33. Nope

Just no.

[blackspade]

35. No

Abortion has been Constitutionally ruled on already.
all the Wingnuts are trying to get it back to the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn a constitutional ruling. my personal feeling is that it should be an unrestricted right of a woman to make choices about her own body in conjunction with her doctor.

[SamKnause]

38. NO !!!

[s-cubed]

39. NO!

[CharlotteVale]

41. Abortion rights are my #1 line in the sand. I will not vote for ANYONE who wants to

restrict them - in any way.

[Aerows]

44. yor fighe

[Bettie]

45. Never

Shouldn't even be a topic of discussion in DU. Choice is important.

[ljm2002]

46. Not only no, but HELL NO!!!!! n/t

[Chan790]

47. No. No! Fucking No! and Hell No!

That is beyond the pale of consideration or discussion. It's just not on the table and a plague of crotch-lice and scabies on any Democratic lawmaker or candidate that would consider it.

[Avalux]

48. I see what you're doing. Appalling a Democrat would say such a thing isn't it? n/t

[-none]

53. HELL NO!!!1!!

Abortion is a medical decision between the woman and her doctor. Nothing more.
It is not a political football to garner votes by the authoritarian busy bodies, bent on enslaving the rest of us.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

54. HELL NO!!!

This is why Roe v. Wade has three different standards of governmental interference for the three different trimesters, due to medical issues.

They keep trying onerous restrictions on women and clinics, and outlawing various forms of birth control to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

Henry Wade, former D.A. of Dallas County, was a notorious son of a bitch for numerous reasons.

[LWolf]

57. NO. NOT NOW, NOT EVER. NT