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
 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:19 PM Mar 2016

Why it is important when Clinton talks about a third trimester ban.

In reading a few threads I was shocked to find that some people here are not truly familiar with what the Roe v. Wade decision does and does not allow when it comes to third trimester abortions.

It in NO WAY bans third trimester abortions outright, nor does it ban third trimester abortions except in the case of the life/health of the mother. Apparently some here are under the impression it DOES and that is not true. Roe v. Wade says that a State may limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, just so long as an exemption for the life/health of the mother is in effect.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

There is a world of difference in the use of the words "may" and "shall" when it comes to law. If Roe indeed banned third trimester abortions with the exception of the life/health of the mother the wording would have been "shall". Period. Currently the State "may" put restrictions on third trimester abortions, meaning they can but are NOT REQUIRED TO.

And, as of 2013, 9 States and the District of Columbia had NO specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, meaning third trimester abortions could take place with little or no restriction:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0

So Hillary Clinton advocating for a federal law banning third trimester abortions with the exception of the life/health of the mother IS a big fucking deal because Roe does NOT call for that, and such a law would further erode women's access to safe and legal abortions. Rape? Incest? Nope, too bad, that would not be allowed under Clinton's new third trimester law, nor would an abortion of an nonviable fetus.

That this has to be explained on DU is frankly astonishing to me.

86 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why it is important when Clinton talks about a third trimester ban. (Original Post) Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 OP
The Great Triangulator is setting up her next Pivot to the Right. Xipe Totec Mar 2016 #1
Or that the arrow is pointing right and further right... Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #73
Babies are listening to the world and sucking their thumbs Hortensis Mar 2016 #75
Disagree My Good Babushka Mar 2016 #79
Protections are already in place noiretextatique Mar 2016 #83
There is a world of difference in the use of the words "may" and "shall" when it comes to law. elleng Mar 2016 #2
Damn straight. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #8
I said it about a month ago and no one paid attention. onecaliberal Mar 2016 #3
I cared Gwhittey Mar 2016 #4
"...no one paid attention." Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #28
Indeed. Thank you! onecaliberal Mar 2016 #50
Some of us are paying attention. nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #42
Relieved to know. onecaliberal Mar 2016 #51
A Lot of Things Happening noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #5
Actually, Casey vs. Planned Parenthood in 1992 not only reaffirmed the right to privacy re: abortion Warren DeMontague Mar 2016 #6
I stuck to Roe because -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #13
It's just fucking crazy to see people talk about something they are so wildly misinformed about. Kalidurga Mar 2016 #29
I'm stunned at the people who tell me how my life is. AllyCat Mar 2016 #67
There's no doubt that politicians choose their words carefully to either pander PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #7
+1 itsrobert Mar 2016 #9
I'm not talking about the FOX townhall -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #11
Yeah, I don't think you'll find many here on DU who are more passionate about abortion rights than PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #16
Your trust doesn't mean anything to anybody but you farleftlib Mar 2016 #19
Maybe. Cecile Richards and Ilyse Houge trust her, too. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #21
What's more disgusting? Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #26
She didn't say ban tonight. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #27
And THAT is the problem in a nutshell. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #37
Regulations. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #39
You know what PeaceNikki CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #62
great post! amborin Mar 2016 #82
She referenced those prior statements in her response tonight. Barack_America Mar 2016 #31
Here is the video of her talking to Chucky about this passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #65
But a "regulation" is a "restriction" CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #55
No, I'm not. My position on abortion is pretty fucking clear. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #56
I believe that you are a fierce advocate for a woman's right to choose. (nt) CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #63
When I heard her say that, I could not believe it. I thought she must have had a moment of enough Mar 2016 #10
Women's access to abortion services have been -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #17
All other issues have already been thrown out the window. It was inevitable that this would liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #12
With the New Democrats -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #20
I was shocked that DUers and self-described feminists noamnety Mar 2016 #14
Mind-blowing. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #30
Yes, true and well-said. senz Mar 2016 #66
Yep - I don't know why feminists support her. vintx Mar 2016 #81
That is right. (nt) enough Mar 2016 #86
No principles. None. If she will curtail roe v wade, there is NOTHING she won't give up Doctor_J Mar 2016 #15
That's what scares me -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #32
she'd chuck her pro choice positions ibegurpard Mar 2016 #18
Sadly, I think you are correct. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #33
Whichever way the weathervane flips farleftlib Mar 2016 #40
I am positive senz Mar 2016 #70
It would be ironic that a woman democratic President would be the one to begin to erode Roe v. Wade EndElectoral Mar 2016 #22
Wait does Clinton support a third trimester ban on abortions without exceptions for rape or incest? Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #23
And what happens when the mother's health is not an issue dflprincess Mar 2016 #34
Yes, that is what she has -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #35
Regulations. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #36
Woefully naive in light of her past triangulations Arazi Mar 2016 #43
Why do you think you can know what Hillary would do? All in it together Mar 2016 #57
K. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #58
I'm sorry, but she's said it often enough to believe it passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #68
Who cares? She keeps offering the carrot eom noiretextatique Mar 2016 #84
Thank you for this absolutely critical diary. eom Karma13612 Mar 2016 #24
She will say anything at anytime to anyone , in order to get elected. She CANNOT be TRUSTED! AzDar Mar 2016 #25
She isn't the one saying anything BainsBane Mar 2016 #60
Then you too need to watch the video I posted above. passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #69
I know someone who aborted an anencephalic fetus at 5.5 months XemaSab Mar 2016 #38
Exactly the type of situation I was thinking of. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #44
Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #41
Trump is IN NO FUCKING WAY "more pro-choice" than HRC. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #45
no way in hell DemonGoddess Mar 2016 #47
It is a huge deal. Women travel to those states. morningfog Mar 2016 #46
K&R! zentrum Mar 2016 #48
Also astonishing HassleCat Mar 2016 #49
What does Planned Parenthood have to say about Hillary's comments? (nt) CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #52
I am an extremist/fundamentalist on this. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #53
Hillary could propose the end of social security fbc Mar 2016 #54
They are already okay with means testing which would basically turn it into a welfare program liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #59
So if you have a Zika baby with a liquid brain, you're forced to give birth to a vegetable. Liberty Belle Mar 2016 #61
Whoa... SoapBox Mar 2016 #64
Thank you! This isn't the first time either: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #71
Happy International Women's Day. noamnety Mar 2016 #72
Right, and the "may" is what is at issue here. boston bean Mar 2016 #74
She's open to a constitutional amendment noiretextatique Mar 2016 #85
This is SO stupid on her part, the RightWing Rs will NEVER vote for her, even with this capitulation peacebird Mar 2016 #76
It didn't get by me and friends of mine monicaangela Mar 2016 #77
I was astonished too. Thanks for your post. It clarifies the issue. Vattel Mar 2016 #78
She is pandering. vintx Mar 2016 #80

Xipe Totec

(43,890 posts)
1. The Great Triangulator is setting up her next Pivot to the Right.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:24 PM
Mar 2016

No wonder there are three triangles in her logo.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
75. Babies are listening to the world and sucking their thumbs
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:10 AM
Mar 2016

In the third trimester. By this time TWO people are involved. One is completely helpless and must be protected by society.

My Good Babushka

(2,710 posts)
79. Disagree
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:37 AM
Mar 2016

People have birthdays and social security numbers. A third trimester fetus is still a fetus, and a woman has a right to have it or not have it, as she wishes.

elleng

(130,865 posts)
2. There is a world of difference in the use of the words "may" and "shall" when it comes to law.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:24 PM
Mar 2016

Most emphatically.

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
4. I cared
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:27 PM
Mar 2016

I wrote it down on my journal, the one that is next to the little doll I made of you made out of your hair and finger nail clippings.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
13. I stuck to Roe because --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:47 PM
Mar 2016

that was what I saw discussed. It's just fucking crazy to see people talk about something they are so wildly misinformed about.

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
29. It's just fucking crazy to see people talk about something they are so wildly misinformed about.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:04 PM
Mar 2016

wait wut???? People do that on discussion boards???? I have had people trying to tell me about my own life experiences. I can tell you they are always way off. My favorite started with, Dude....lemme guess you are an older white guy....

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
7. There's no doubt that politicians choose their words carefully to either pander
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:37 PM
Mar 2016

to their base or to not infuriate their most rabid foes. They're politicians, it's how they get elected. Her record on choice is strong and, to me, that carries more weight than a carefully worded response on FOX that was crafted to make her look like a baby murderer to their audience.

Notice she never said "ban" or even "restriction". She said "regulation". That's a politician and I don't fault her for being a good one.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
11. I'm not talking about the FOX townhall --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:43 PM
Mar 2016

at all, I am talking about another incident in which she said she could get behind a "ban":

Oct. 8, 2000, New York Senate debate: "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."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/10/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-hillary-clinton-supports-abortion/

"... I can support a ban on late-term abortions..." Straight from the horse's mouth.

And fuck "politics" when it comes to women's rights.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
16. Yeah, I don't think you'll find many here on DU who are more passionate about abortion rights than
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:49 PM
Mar 2016

I am. Just parse my journal if you doubt that and see the heated discussions I've had here about it.

I think Clinton's record is strong and I trust she will make abortion rights a priority.

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
19. Your trust doesn't mean anything to anybody but you
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:52 PM
Mar 2016

She said she would get behind a ban and she will. She is not as solid on choice as Sanders is.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
26. What's more disgusting?
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:59 PM
Mar 2016

That Clinton honestly would support a ban on third trimester abortions or that she says she would for some political Kabuki like the GOPers use abortion for?

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
37. And THAT is the problem in a nutshell.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:34 PM
Mar 2016

In the not-so-distant past, she has said that she is open to a ban, now she claims she is for "restrictions" -- well which the fuck IS it? And will she go back to being for a "ban" tomorrow when politics demand it? And regardless of whether she is for a "ban" or "restrictions", what she is willing to do will further undermine Roe and women's reproductive rights. Period.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
62. You know what PeaceNikki
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:48 AM
Mar 2016

We all have our cherished reasons for being a Democrat. We all come into the party for different reasons and at different angles. I have a friend who works in maternal-child health for the State. I also have a friend who is an Ob-Gyn. Both are fierce advocates of women's reproductive health and a woman's right to choose. That is their life's work. They are Dems primarily because the party is so aligned with their values, specifically on those issues.

I also have cherished reasons for aligning with the Democratic party. I've always believed that the Democratic party was the part of the "the good guys." It goes back to when I saw a Democratic fundraiser on television at the age of ten and donated $10. That was in 1975. My central issue is being against war and the horrible atrocities that it creates for the victims and what it does to the people who are the perpetrators. I believe it devolves our society.

I always believed that our party would be "the good guys" who would try to avoid war, not perpetuate it. The Republicans never met a war they didn't want to start. I always saw our party as the protectors of our planet and the people in it.

When I first came to DU, we were aligned against George Bush and the Iraq war. Democrats knew it was a lie. And we all knew who the enemy was--the neocons. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton and the rest of the sociopaths. DU was my refuge during that horrible time...watching "Shock and Awe" in horror, as most of America cheered it on like it was a video game. As the months progressed, it was apparent that the premise for the war was a lie and that the entire act was corrupt, sick and for profit.

And now--today--our party is perpetuating as much war as the Republicans. Hillary was endorsed by the founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan. Kagan served as her Middle East foreign-policy adviser while she was at State. She helped the neocons overthrow Libya and turn it into the failed state that it is today. The country is uninhabitable with untold numbers of refugees feeling into Europe.

I see Democrats rationalizing and justifying neocon war in our party being perpetuated by Hillary. I NEVER thought I'd see this. Like you trusting that Clinton's "record is strong", I also trusted Hillary and our party to not cave on an issue that was central to our identity. Looking back, I was in serious denial. I also rationalized or made excuses. Or I decided to look forward and hope that the Iraq War would be the end of it. But it was only the beginning.

I'd think long and hard about what you are saying. I'm not criticizing you or trying to insult you. I get denial. It protects us when we feel uncomfortable feelings. You don't want to believe that YOUR OWN cherished reasons for finding a home in the Democratic party--could be compromised. It's painful. It could leave you re-thinking your politics or your political identity. That is difficult. So, we justify and we rationalize and we look the other way--and hope that these politicians don't really mean what they're saying.

But they do.

We should NEVER tolerate our values being sold out. Not even a little bit. Democrats have always said that this is a woman's right to choose without government interference. "The life of the mother" excludes situations where the baby is deformed or will die. Or when the woman is raped or a victim of incest. Those are jaw-dropping exclusions, that seem to me--take away a woman's right to choose.

I urge you to really think about this. I'm a Bernie supporter. I'm sure you see me as having an agenda, but I'm not trying to turn you off from Clinton or on to Bernie. I am hoping that you will hold strong when a Democrat begins to chip away at long-held Democratic standards and party planks. Do not stand for it.

I have been worried about our party for a long time--because of the infestation of warmongering and neocon policy; and also because of the corrupt corporate money that has control of our politicians. I have a new level of worry now because I see signals that the same erosion may happen on social issues, like our right to choose. Watch this issue like a hawk. Pay attention to what our leaders say.

Make sure that those who get your votes, are also being true to those cherished values that brought you to the party in the first place. They owe that to you.

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
31. She referenced those prior statements in her response tonight.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:05 PM
Mar 2016

Which leads me to believe she was clearly trying to establish this as her position.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
65. Here is the video of her talking to Chucky about this
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:05 AM
Mar 2016


Jump to 1:28 and she talks about it. Jump to 2:32 to hear her say she's OK with constitutional restrictions as long as the health of the mother is considered. It's over at 2:55.

She said this on Sept. 29, 2015. I believe she will go there, given the opportunity.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
55. But a "regulation" is a "restriction"
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:19 AM
Mar 2016

You're actually advocating for regulations when it comes to a woman making decisions about her own body.

I thought our party was adamantly opposed to that, when it came to a woman's right to choose.

What in the hell is going on here?

enough

(13,256 posts)
10. When I heard her say that, I could not believe it. I thought she must have had a moment of
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:41 PM
Mar 2016

confusion.

Thank you for this very clear and important post.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
17. Women's access to abortion services have been --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:50 PM
Mar 2016

savaged at the State level. To see a Democrat offer to help savage them further -- even if it is only a political ploy -- makes me a bit crazy.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
12. All other issues have already been thrown out the window. It was inevitable that this would
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:46 PM
Mar 2016

one day be thrown out the window too. There is literally nothing left of the Democratic Party.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
20. With the New Democrats --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:54 PM
Mar 2016

everything is negotiable or on the table, everything.

Dammit, I want someone who has got my back, not someone I have to keep looking over my shoulder at to make sure there isn't a knife about to be sunk into my back. I've got too many knives sticking out from them as it is.

 

noamnety

(20,234 posts)
14. I was shocked that DUers and self-described feminists
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:49 PM
Mar 2016

don't know that third trimester abortions are legal now, and can't grasp that Hillary is talking about adding restrictions that don't exist currently.

It's on the level of climate change denial.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
66. Yes, true and well-said.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:15 AM
Mar 2016

And then Hillary's so-called feminist supporters make excuses for her and claim that since Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse her she must be trustworthy on this issue.

I'm glad other people are as shocked by her blatant perfidy as I am.

 

vintx

(1,748 posts)
81. Yep - I don't know why feminists support her.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:47 AM
Mar 2016

Most of the ones I know are for Bernie based on this exact issue.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
15. No principles. None. If she will curtail roe v wade, there is NOTHING she won't give up
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:49 PM
Mar 2016

Imagine the screaming that would ensue if Sanders made such a proclamation.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
32. That's what scares me --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:09 PM
Mar 2016

There should be some bedrock principles for a Democrat. Hell, I used to think there were. I don't like weasel words games, I don't like triangulation, I don't like parsing -- when you do that, you are signaling to me that I cannot trust you.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
18. she'd chuck her pro choice positions
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:51 PM
Mar 2016

If it meant the difference between winning and losing. You can take that to the bank.

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
40. Whichever way the weathervane flips
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:38 PM
Mar 2016

is where she'll stand on an issue. She'll sell us women down the river and not think twice about it because her elite supporters will always be able to get a safe, clean abortion without fear of reprisals. She cannot be trusted with power, she's proven it many times over.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
70. I am positive
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:36 AM
Mar 2016

she would sell her soul to get the presidency. In fact, I am certain she did it long ago. It is grotesque to behold. I find it difficult to watch her in debates, town halls, etc. On a subtler level, she's as much a side show as Trump.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
23. Wait does Clinton support a third trimester ban on abortions without exceptions for rape or incest?
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:55 PM
Mar 2016

Is that what's going on?

dflprincess

(28,075 posts)
34. And what happens when the mother's health is not an issue
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:12 PM
Mar 2016

but it becomes clear the fetus had anomalies that are "incompatible with life" - will she expect the mother to carry it to term?

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
35. Yes, that is what she has --
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:22 PM
Mar 2016

advocated in the past and it has reemerged in the current campaign. In the past she has said she would support a ban so long as it allowed for the life/health of the mother, though she has now tempered her comments to say "restrictions". Rape/incest/viability of the fetus were NOT exemptions she has advocated.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
36. Regulations.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:27 PM
Mar 2016

Yeah, it was a shitty answer. But I still think she'd veto any bill banning or adding additional restrictions.

All in it together

(275 posts)
57. Why do you think you can know what Hillary would do?
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:19 AM
Mar 2016

You don't believe is is telling the truth about restrictions on third trimester abortions. Yet you believe she won't approve of restrictions because you trust her?
That's misplaced trust.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
68. I'm sorry, but she's said it often enough to believe it
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

And you are just not hearing it. Please listing to the video I posted above. As many times as you need to, to finally understand and believe what she is saying.

BainsBane

(53,031 posts)
60. She isn't the one saying anything
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:39 AM
Mar 2016

She has been consistent. I can't say the same for people claiming that the one candidate who has consistently and proactively stood up for reproductive rights and is endorsed by PP and NARAL is weak on this issue.
When I see this sort of thing, I realize that for those who are desperate to see Sanders win, nothing matters but personality, not issues and certainly not my rights.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
69. Then you too need to watch the video I posted above.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:28 AM
Mar 2016

Those are her words...no one is putting words in her mouth.

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
38. I know someone who aborted an anencephalic fetus at 5.5 months
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:35 PM
Mar 2016

It was gutting, but was it any more gutting than carrying a non-viable baby to term? Hardly.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
44. Exactly the type of situation I was thinking of.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:46 PM
Mar 2016

I remember reading interviews with some of Dr. Tiller's patients who had sought him out for 3rd trimester abortions of seriously compromised fetuses. Incredibly sad circumstances to lose a child under, but they all were incredibly thankful the service was available to them.

As is should be and it should remain.

Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Original post)

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
47. no way in hell
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:57 PM
Mar 2016

Trump is not more pro-choice than Hillary. Not a snowball's chance in hell. As to "talking women out of having one", that has been LEGISLATED in many conservative states, in an attempt to make it that much more difficult for a woman to EXERCISE her right to choose.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
46. It is a huge deal. Women travel to those states.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:53 PM
Mar 2016

There are very few doctors who will do it.

She is dead wrong on this.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
49. Also astonishing
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:05 AM
Mar 2016

The idea that Democrats do not support a woman's right to choose. And I'm thinking of many "Democrats," not just one.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
52. What does Planned Parenthood have to say about Hillary's comments? (nt)
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:12 AM
Mar 2016

I'd be interested in hearing what PP has to say.

Also, I thought the Democratic party agreed that abortion is a decision of which a woman should be in control--not the government.

I can't believe that I am seeing this in our party.

Is this another stalwart Democratic issue on which the party will cave--in order to continue supporting HRC?

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
53. I am an extremist/fundamentalist on this.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:14 AM
Mar 2016

My body is my body. What to do about it, anything that's within it, is MY CHOICE. PERIOD.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
59. They are already okay with means testing which would basically turn it into a welfare program
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:22 AM
Mar 2016

which in turn would give the Republicans the ammo they need to go full blast after it and the Democrats would cave and do whatever the Republicans told them to do.

Liberty Belle

(9,534 posts)
61. So if you have a Zika baby with a liquid brain, you're forced to give birth to a vegetable.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:45 AM
Mar 2016

Not all Zika cases are that severe, but some are--and too often such tragic results can't be seen until the third trimester.

Who is going to pay for lifetime care for such severely malformed babies, if they survive long past birth, which many may not?

There are other horrific tales. I had a friend who learned in the 7th month that her baby had all of the organs growing on the outside of the body plus a hole in the heart. She went forward with the pregnancy against her doctor's recommendations. The poor baby had open heart surgery the day it was born, and died on the operating table. Had it lived it would have faced numerous surgeries and never had a normal life. It was doomed to suffer either way, and perhaps the abortion may have been the least painful. By the way back then, they did surgery without anesethetic on newborns, believing they could not survive anesthesia.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
64. Whoa...
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:01 AM
Mar 2016

No, I did not know all this...but I do now.

She is SO bad for America...WTF is wrong with people that they can support such a person?

No...More...Clintons...EVER.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
71. Thank you! This isn't the first time either:
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:42 AM
Mar 2016
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

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm


And again just last year:



I'm not shocked by Hillary's support of a ban on late term abortions, I am shocked by her supporters who are defending her. We all know they would have a meltdown if Bernie said he supported abortion restrictions.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
74. Right, and the "may" is what is at issue here.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 07:38 AM
Mar 2016

Which leaves the repugs an opening.

Hillary is addressing that. The OP is making little sense, imho.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
85. She's open to a constitutional amendment
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 06:31 PM
Mar 2016

To ban late-term abortions, with the exceptions, to stop Republicans from passing worse laws at the state level?

monicaangela

(1,508 posts)
77. It didn't get by me and friends of mine
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:26 AM
Mar 2016

we have been arguing about this for two days. My last word on the matter, after some were determined to say it was a mistake is this. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been endorsed by PP, if she is as brilliant as many claim she is, why wouldn't she know this?

 

vintx

(1,748 posts)
80. She is pandering.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:41 AM
Mar 2016

Weasel words, pandering, distorting, lying - her supporters think it's admirable but I think it's disgusting.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why it is important when ...