Simple question: Has Hillary ever committed to appointing pro-choice judges?

[jgraz]

And if not, what evidence do you have that she will do so?

[BluegrassDem]

1. Has Hillary committed to anything?

She's taken both sides of every issue. She's a triangulator.

[CTyankee]

2. She has consistently taken the same prochoice view as Planned Parenthood.

If that is any indication of her future appointments to you. I think she is. She has never given any indication to the contrary.

I wonder why you ask...

[paulk]

3. this good enough?

Hillary Clinton on Abortion
Democratic Jr Senator (NY)




Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice
Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?
A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk
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 woman’s 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. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s 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 woman’s choice.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose
I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and must remain vigilant.
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 Jan 22, 2000

Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
We come to issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion
I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC Jan 22, 1999

Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems
Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. Jan 22, 1999

Supports parental notice & family planning
If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.
I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.

Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 Feb 3, 1997

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003

Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.
Clinton is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”

Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Expand embryonic stem cell research.
Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.

We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.

However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.

Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:

While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.

[Lucinda]

4. Thanks for this!

:)

[jgraz]

5. There's nothing about her judicial appointments here

I'd be a lot more comfortable if she was on record with an explicit statement about how she would handle the courts.

[paulk]

6. I don't see how this could be interpreted any other way

"I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that."

[jgraz]

8. I bet Hillary does

There's a huge legal chasm between a justice committed to overturning Roe and one committed to upholding it. Until Hillary's on the record saying she'll appoint pro-choice judges, she has wiggle room to trade privacy rights for re-election votes.

[paulk]

10. be reasonable -

There is absolutely nothing in her record to indicate she would appoint an anti-choice judge.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

[jgraz]

12. Given her unwillingness to commit on any issue, I'm being eminently reasonable

The biggest scare tactic that pro-Hillary people use is the SCOTUS and reproductive rights. I don't think it's too much to ask that their candidate give us a definitive statement on the issue.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. she has

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/

[cali]

14. oh, you mistake the power of the filter that strong antipathy toward Clinton

has. There is virtually nothing you or anyone else could post that will sway certain people from the belief that Clinton is so evil that she's really just been voting this way and speaking out for choice, as some kind of elaborate ruse, decades in the making, and that if she becomes president, there is no guarantee that she won't nominate Scalia clones to the SC.

[paulk]

20. I don't , really

it's a useful stretegy to draw this type out - and expose their foolishness.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Can You Be More Transparent?

She has voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito... One can reasonably infer from those votes what kind of justices she finds desirable just as one can reasonably infer from your original post that you are just interested in creating a false perception...

You're just interested in starting a flame war...Well, I'm right here...

[jgraz]

9. She's a Senator who refused to lead a filibuster or put a hold on their nominations

It seems she's committed to reproductive rights as long as she doesn't have to stick her neck out. That's why it's important to get her on record saying that she will only appoint pro-privacy judges.

[cali]

15. Hmm. Did Edwards ever lead a filibuster against a right wing

appointee to the federal bench? Biden? Dodd? Why aren't you on their cases?

[jgraz]

16. When people start using the SCOTUS as a bogeyman to browbeat me into voting for Biden

I'll start asking the same questions about them. However, none of them have Hillary's record of skating around the truth.

[cali]

17. I really think this is a poor avenue to criticize her on.

About the one thing I am convinced about regarding Clinton, is that she is truly and strongly pro-choice. Her stance on foreign policy? She's triangulated the shit out of it. Her stance on the Unitary presidency? She won't committ to relinquishing the power that bush/cheney have accrued over the past 7 years. Her positon on trade? Mushy at best. Her position on the environment? Her deep corporate ties make me leery.

But on abortion rights, she's solid. I've said many times the SC is important to me, and I don't doubt that she'd appoint judges in a Ginsberg/Souter/Breyer mold. They aren't the most liberal people one could appoint, but their legal reasoning and ability to see beyond the narrowest possible interpretation of Constitutional law makes them decent jurists.

One thing Hillary Clinton has never skated around is her support for abortion rights.

[jgraz]

19. "One thing Hillary Clinton has never skated around is her support for abortion rights"

Aside from the aforementioned inaction on Roberts and Alito, she sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, potentially opening the door for pharmacists and doctors to refuse birth control to women. She's also continually accepted the right's framing on late-term abortions, calling them "partial-birth" and refusing to stand up for women's choice on this issue unless the life or health of the mother is threatened.

Again, I'm not criticizing her pro-choice record, which is pretty good (though not as good as she pretends it is). I'm pointing out that her record of dissembling and triangulation raises questions about how committed she'll be to ANYTHING if an election hangs in the balance.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. She's always been a strong pro-choice advocate

supported by Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

The notion that she'd be anti-choice is just stupid.

[JTFrog]

18. You have to at least give her credit

for Roberts and Alito. And I'm no fan, but I understand the impact of the election on the SC.

"The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts’s long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the “judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade.” The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts’s Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

----------

It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas’s assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.

----------

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts’s intellect, character, and legal skills."