Abortion right question for Clinton supporters

[HassleCat]

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. Support your assertion.

I will wait.

[Fawke Em]

24. In her own words, even.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[missingthebigdog]

85. Try again.

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]

124. What about the deformity of the baby?

Who can afford that unless you're very wealthy anymore?

[missingthebigdog]

125. What kind of "deformity" are we talking about here?

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]

130. Bottom line: it's none of YOUR business.

[missingthebigdog]

131. Then why did you ask me?

[Demsrule86]

123. Try this article

and stop misleading people.

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/

[AgingAmerican]

82. Her supporters dont even know where she stands on issues

[missingthebigdog]

86. This supporter knows where she stands.

Sanders supporters cannot accept that reasonable people can view the same facts and arrive at different conclusions.

[AgingAmerican]

87. You just got schooled on your own candidates stated position on abortion

Yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Cognitive dissonance is rampant in Camp Weathervane.

[missingthebigdog]

91. Nope.

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]

94. Ad hominems, red herrings, strawmen or claiming the truth is “counter productive”

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]

100. I am happy to acknowledge valid criticisms.

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]

102. She just supports restrictions on same

[missingthebigdog]

104. Yes.

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]

110. But once you codify an elective restriction for the 3rd, it sets up the rationale for the same...

.... restrictions in the 1st and 2nd.


This is an example of where pragmatism undermines her principles and ultimately undermines civil liberties.

[missingthebigdog]

114. Ah. A slippery slope argument.

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]

115. Its more than a slippery slope argument and yes, I know, its consistent with current law.

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]

116. What, specifically, is different about your position on this and hers?

[aikoaiko]

117. I would not leave the door open to restrictions in the 3rd trimester

That line of viability will push up earlier and earlier, and with it restrictions if we support them in the 3rd tri.

[missingthebigdog]

118. How would you close that door??

That "door " is already open- there are already restrictions in the law.

[aikoaiko]

119. By saying you oppose all restrictions on the principle that women can decide for themselves.

Damn, is the concept of reproductive freedom new to you?

[missingthebigdog]

120. Provide a list of progressive politicians that have said that.

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]

129. Would you support a choice abortion

the day before the baby is born?

[bettyellen]

132. no one actually does- they are just pretending to because they think Bernie does.

SBS says something vague and does nothing, so they are winging it- and poorly.

[COLGATE4]

152. You do understand that the law of the land, Roe v Wade amd Casey do

contain restrictions on third trimester abortions?

[bettyellen]

158. People seem very confused about this.

[synergie]

109. That is because these are the tactics you pretend are legitimate criticisms.

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]

151. A constitutional restriction. Why?

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]

154. I am not sure that we read this the same way.

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]

155. Thx for the clarification but the law leaves

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]

127. Hell, we can't even agree on what facts are.

[synergie]

108. Her supporters know, Bernie's don't have a clue about her actual positions

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]

2. No she does not. It was bullshit promoted by Sanders supporter that refused to being honest what was

Said.

[DURHAM D]

7. Yep.

BS supporter bs.

[angrychair]

57. See post #24

In her own words.

[seabeyond]

59. I am much more aware of Clinton's comments, vote, and position on the issue and her reasoning.

I do not need to be "educated" by some site.

[angrychair]

60. So, you know then?

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]

61. Uterus dude... Clinton voted against a ban on late term. That simple.

[angrychair]

66. Why?

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]

68. No, she is not soft on the issue. Often I hear women not seeing it exactly the same as

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]

71. I didn't mention Sanders or his views

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]

75. He has sign what is put in front of his face. Nothing more. Clinton has spent THREE decades or more

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]

3. What she said was...

...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

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.

Boo, hiss.

[msanthrope]

18. Actually, she's articulating the law of the land. You might wish to read Casey.

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]

54. Casey affirms Roe

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]

62. Um, no. Your post is completely incorrect. nt

[katsy]

67. Yeah cuz u said so 👎🏼

[msanthrope]

70. Well, yes. As the one with the law degree, yes. nt

[katsy]

74. And arrogant to boot maybe?

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]

80. Well....then what, precisely are you mad at her about? Roe was more permissive

than Casey.

[katsy]

83. No one should be calling for a constitutional

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]

84. And she's not calling for an amendment. And Roe is not the law. Casey is. Ntv

[katsy]

88. Realclearpolitics.com

>>>>>"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]

92. And again, she's correct. If the Republicans ever got off their asses and codified Casey, then the

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]

95. Define health.

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]

99. The mother's mental, physical, and emotional well-being. A doctor decides that.

That's what HRC stands for.

[IdaBriggs]

90. She says she is open to "some kind of constitutional restrictions" so WRONG.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511552065

From an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd that apparently was broadcast the week of September 29, 2015 on MTP Daily.

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]

93. There are constitutional restrictions. Why shouldn't there be? Every fundamental right we have

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]

96. I do not want a constitutional amendment on this. Period.

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]

103. Neither do the Republicans. Ask yourself why. Nt

[bettyellen]

134. You gotta love all the "concern" from people who don't seem to know how seriously hypothetical

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]

133. She doesn't want one either, LOL. She was asked a hypothetical question and gave a brilliant

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]

140. I think she gave an answer that could be read

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]

98. Every fundamental right subject to restrictions?

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]

101. Name a single fundamental right not restricted by the constitution. A single one. Nt

[katsy]

105. You made the statement about the constitution curtailing fundamental rights.

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]

107. Every single one of our fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution is restricted

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]

111. Technically, common sense, you are correct.

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]

112. Technically? That's the word people use when they realize the other person has correctly stated the

law.

Roe is not the law of the land. Casey is. You might try reading it.

[katsy]

113. I have read it.

[COLGATE4]

153. Oh, there you go again. Dontcha know that you don't need

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]

156. not just the law... But also attorney-client privilege.... perhaps you missed a spectacular fail of

A thread in lbn.

[COLGATE4]

159. Privilege schmivelege. Everybody here is a lawyer - except the lawyers.

Makes you wonder why we bothered spending the time to actually get the degree.

[msanthrope]

160. We could have just stayed at Holiday Inn. nt

[COLGATE4]

161. Would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.

[silvershadow]

4. I've learned she will say anything to any group, sometimes for lots of money. Somehow I

feel this might get in the way of her core message, whatever it might be.

[onecaliberal]

39. ^^That^^. She has NO core message.

[LaydeeBug]

5. I understand you made that up about her position. Prove it. nt

[senz]

8. Here ya go --

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

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]

20. She's articulating the law as it currently stands. Reading Casey would make your posts

more informed about actual reproduction law.

[COLGATE4]

38. Law, schmaw. All the law is (paraphrasing

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]

40. This thread is a reminder of who actually advocates for reproductive law.....

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]

41. Really does separate the sheep from the goats, doesn't it?

[msanthrope]

43. You Better Believe It!!! nt

[angrychair]

58. Please see post #54

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]

63. Um, no. That is completely incorrect. nt

[senz]

69. I know the law w/respect to abortion.

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]

72. That is completely wrong. Otherwise, you'd be able to post quotes of women poiticians

who support unfettered abortion in the third trimester. Good luck.

[senz]

73. Oh cute. You set the terms of the discussion?

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]

81. Again....if you think there are progressives politicians out there who support unrestricted

third trimester abortions, post 'email. You are the one who claimed there was support for this idea.

[bettyellen]

136. that is a bald faced lie, and women who care know that.

[CentralCoaster]

6. Hillary enjoys support via a myth about fully supporting womens' reproductive rights, just a myth.

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]

9. Why I said "I understand."

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]

11. Nobody has fought harder or longer for women's reproductive health and freedom.

Period.

[Live and Learn]

15. Bull crap. nt

[Sparkly]

21. Endorsed by NARAL, PP

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. That’s 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:
"There’s 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 doesn’t just support women’s health — she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to women’s 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 women’s 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 “women’s 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 women’s 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 women’s access to reproductive health care.
http://nowpac.org

[Live and Learn]

22. First of all, hardest working is subjective. Secondly, some of the items listed are false.

Thirdly, these organizations have their own agendas and heads of the organization that appear to be easily bought off.

[Sparkly]

23. Weak.

"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]

106. Not in the mood to play the cut and paste game with you.

We both know you will just reply with snark.

[Fawke Em]

25. Bullshit.

I know many women who run circles around her and don't take thousands of dollars to do it.

[Sparkly]

27. Such as?

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]

28. Bernie has.

Period.

http://observer.com/2015/11/why-bernie-sanders-cares-more-about-womens-issues-than-hillary-clinton/

[Sparkly]

31. Bernie has "fought harder or longer for women's reproductive health and freedom?" Wrong.

Flat out wrong. Read the endorsements again.

As a senator, he's voted the right way, but that's about it.

[pinebox]

35. No I'm 100% correct

http://observer.com/2015/11/why-bernie-sanders-cares-more-about-womens-issues-than-hillary-clinton/

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]

37. He's "more enthusiastic?" LOL!! Nice try.

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. Clinton’s 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 women’s health programs. In contrast, Mr. Sanders has been much more enthusiastic in pushing for not only the protection of women’s reproductive rights, but the expansion of and access to women’s 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]

30. Lies!

[Sparkly]

32. What lies, please?

[seabeyond]

46. 2003 Senator Clinton voted against late term abortion ban. Her vote is out there, position clear.

[Sparkly]

10. This again?!?

You do know there are already restrictions on third trimester abortions, right?

Read the endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

[ieoeja]

44. Read the ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. She does not score 100%. He does. n/t

[Sparkly]

45. Link please?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I am reluctant to get into this conversation again.

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]

13. Only ONE Candidate Has Expressed Support For A Woman's Right To Choose, Unequivocally : Bernie

[JaneyVee]

17. Bernie never brought a bill to the floor. Hillary did 8x in 8 years.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Her advisors have decided to go after "megachurch moms" - I'm not making this shit up.

Boy, this "pivoting" is gonna be exciting, isn't it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. The centripetal force involved in this particular pivot will throw off some poorly fastened parts.

[Hekate]

16. Roe vs Wade allows for increasing restrictions with each trimester. THAT's the LAW.

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]

19. They don't have a fucking clue as to the issues.

They are just out to try and smear and make shit up.

[Fawke Em]

26. We have a fucking clue that our candidate isn't under a criminal investigation.

[Sparkly]

29. Way to change the subject, and repeat another rightwing lie.

She -- Hillary Clinton -- is not "under a criminal investigation."

[Hekate]

48. Neither is ours. But thanks for your Right Wing contribution to this discussion. nt

[Hekate]

50. As long as you're changing the subject: Where are Jane&Bernie's tax returns? Coy; incompetent?

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]

34. Than taht candidate should say exactly what. You just did!

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]

42. she's accurately explaining the law as it is. .... hate to tell you but it's been the law of the lan

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]

33. "I understand"

[NCTraveler]

36. This deception is nothing more than a continuance of Sanders attack on Planned Parenthood.

Really sad to see what desperation has done to the Sanders campaign.

[senz]

89. Sanders has ALWAYS supported Planned Parenthood. ALWAYS.

Terrible to see what desperation does to the Hillary campaign.

[bettyellen]

135. is he supporting unfettered access to late term abortions for a healthy pregnancies up to 9 mo?

Seriously- you think he has said that? Or is he being deliberately vague... and leaving it to the states.

[senz]

157. Bernie opposes all abortion restrictions.

It's up to the woman.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

[Sparkly]

47. Naral Video

[Hekate]

49. Excellent endorsement from National Abortion Rights Action League!

"Bargaining chip" my rosy Irish ass.

[synergie]

51. Your unerstanding is incorrect. She supports a woman's right to choose, period.

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]

52. A woman either has complete agency over her body, or she doesn't

It is pretty simple. HRC does not believe women have agency over their body.

[bettyellen]

137. You should be embarrassed you don't know your history, yet spout off as if you do.

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]

138. I know my history and I know the medical circumstances

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]

139. if so - you'd know she has repeatedly voted AGAINST RESTRICTIONS- EVERY TIME-

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]

141. So, she was lying when she said this?

"No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

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]

142. Nope, life and health of the mother= between a woman and her doctor, period. that is

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]

143. The reason why a woman seeks an abortion is none of the government's business

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]

144. Show me where SBS has fought against any and all restrictions on abortion? Where is his courageous

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]

145. He is pretty damned detailed:

"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]

146. "choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family." Who is this family who is going

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]

148. Ah, Clintonian parsing

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]

149. It is actual words he used "and family" that he should be explaining.

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]

150. She said she was open to further regulation of late term abortion

I am not going to waste time debating this any more. You have made your choice. Good luck with it.

[Ilsa]

53. What would a ban on late term abortions be intended to stop?

"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]

55. I'm compelled to find your post to be disingenuous and insincere at best.

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]

56. Bitch and bitchy? These are acceptable words now?

My how things change. Its hard to keep up.

[seabeyond]

64. Ya.. Kinda edgy that, right? Feels all cool now.

[bunnies]

65. Totally. I think Ill have a shirt made.

[Actor]

76. Hillary's position is imperfect, Trump's position bans all reproductive healthcare.

[Lil Missy]

77. Frankly, I feel mighty queasy about late term abortions. But I don't think that is Hillarys position

[silvershadow]

78. Last I knew she was open to modifications to the law. It was on tv, so it can't be disputed. nt

[IdaBriggs]

97. The exact phrase was "constitutional restrictions".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511552065

From an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd that apparently was broadcast the week of September 29, 2015 on MTP Daily.

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]

121. Thank you, everyone.

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]

122. Well

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]

126. I trust Clinton on Choice and reproductive rights.

I also trust Bernie.

[Zynx]

128. I don't support completely unlimited abortion rights, no.

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]

147. She needs to stay out of the exam room. This is a dr/pt matter. The dr. should advise the pt

so that the pt can give informed consent.