Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Right Wing Troll Tulsi Gabbard blames Transgender People for Abortion Ban
This was on her Twitter along with her support for the SC's recent ruling on Guns .
Remember in 2016 Tulsi Gabbard lied about the DNC and we dealt with those attacks throughout the campaign . And even now idiots keep trying to push those lies .
At least there is no TPP . Remember this was the fucking concern of these scumbags in 2016 .
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Abortion.htm
No 3rd-trimester abortion unless life of mother at stake
We see how the consequences of laws can often lead to a dangerous place. As they're passed in other countries, where a woman who has a miscarriage passed that six weeks could be imprisoned because abortion would be illegal at that point. I do however think that there should be some restrictions in place. I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that during the third trimester abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate , Oct 15, 2019
Abortion should remain legal and accessible
Gabbard believes that abortion should remain legal and accessible.
She voted against a proposed ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Ban discrimination based on sexual preference, identity.
Gabbard has changed her position since she entered politics at age 21.
She was initially anti-abortion, or opposed to increased abortion access.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls , Jan 14, 2019
I consider myself pro-choice.
Gabbard opposes the PVS survey question on abortion
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q1 on Aug 30, 2012
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Gabbard co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013
Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.
Gabbard voted NAY No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women's health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama's approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.
Thus both sides' fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0007 argued on Jan 22, 2015
Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.
Gabbard voted NAY Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman's right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman's health, no matter how severe the situation. H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so "complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0036 argued on May 13, 2015
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women.
Gabbard is endorsed by Congressional endorsement list
EMILY's List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office:
EMILY's List looks for viable political opportunities and recruits strong pro-choice Democratic women candidates to run.
We tell our community of members about these women, and ask them to give directly to the campaigns.
We provide extensive training for candidates and staff so they can make the most of limited resources.
We conduct in-depth, ongoing research into the minds and moods of women voters, a critical bloc for Democrats.
Finally, our WOMEN VOTE! project reaches out to women voters to go to the polls and cast their ballots for progressive Democrats--because When Women Vote, Women Win!
EMILY's List's motto is "win today and build for tomorrow."
No 3rd-trimester abortion unless life of mother at stake
We see how the consequences of laws can often lead to a dangerous place. As they're passed in other countries, where a woman who has a miscarriage passed that six weeks could be imprisoned because abortion would be illegal at that point. I do however think that there should be some restrictions in place. I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that during the third trimester abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate , Oct 15, 2019
Abortion should remain legal and accessible
Gabbard believes that abortion should remain legal and accessible.
She voted against a proposed ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Ban discrimination based on sexual preference, identity.
Gabbard has changed her position since she entered politics at age 21.
She was initially anti-abortion, or opposed to increased abortion access.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls , Jan 14, 2019
I consider myself pro-choice.
Gabbard opposes the PVS survey question on abortion
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q1 on Aug 30, 2012
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Gabbard co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013
Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.
Gabbard voted NAY No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women's health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama's approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.
Thus both sides' fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0007 argued on Jan 22, 2015
Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.
Gabbard voted NAY Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman's right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman's health, no matter how severe the situation. H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so "complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0036 argued on May 13, 2015
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women.
Gabbard is endorsed by Congressional endorsement list
EMILY's List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office:
EMILY's List looks for viable political opportunities and recruits strong pro-choice Democratic women candidates to run.
We tell our community of members about these women, and ask them to give directly to the campaigns.
We provide extensive training for candidates and staff so they can make the most of limited resources.
We conduct in-depth, ongoing research into the minds and moods of women voters, a critical bloc for Democrats.
Finally, our WOMEN VOTE! project reaches out to women voters to go to the polls and cast their ballots for progressive Democrats--because When Women Vote, Women Win!
EMILY's List's motto is "win today and build for tomorrow."
