Hillary: Abortion should be rare, abstinence is vital and let's find "common ground" with other side!

[Bonobo]

Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 08:12 AM - Edit history (3)

Sarcastic OP changed for those who can not be troubled to read carefully.
--------------------------------------------

Whew... it was a good thing that wasn't Sanders at all. It was Hillary "Sanctity of Marriage" Clinton.

In 1994, according to Sally Bedell Smith’s book, For Love of Politics, Hillary said she was “not comfortable” with distributing condoms in schools. Hillary promoted abstinence from pre-marital sex in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, and surprised many reporters by declaring in a 2005 speech to family planning activists that “research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do.” In It Takes a Village, Hillary is also critical of adults for being too quick to divorce, arguing that “children without fathers, or whose parents float in and out of their lives after divorce, are precarious little boats in the most turbulent seas.”

[jfern]

1. 1994 was also the year her husband fired Joycelyn Elders

Surgeon General Elders got fired by Bill Clinton for supporting by encouraging contraceptives and masturbation instead of unsafe sex.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Hillary Clinton: "I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions"

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

Bernie believes it should always be a woman's choice, not a politician's.

[Bonobo]

3. Hush with your mansplaining! nt

[msanthrope]

14. I have absolutely no problem with this. As someone who has had to actually undergo such a procedure

this stance is completely in keeping with what kept me safe and legally protected.

[beam me up scottie]

15. I disagree, late term abortions should not be restricted by anti-choice legislation.

As someone who almost died from a botched abortion, I resent the right wing's interference and their manipulative tactics - these laws do not protect women.

The decision to abort a fetus should be between a woman and her physician.

Period.

[msanthrope]

17. Late term abortions are restricted by law and ethics--as they have always been. HRC's stance does

not unduly restrict, and I support her stance on abortion, and on abstinence, fully.

No girl should be pressured into early sex. Girls should be empowered to say no, if they wish.

[beam me up scottie]

19. A ban on late term abortions does unduly restrict them.

And no one is saying girls should be pressured into sex.

Hillary's pandering to the anti-choice right is coming back to haunt her.

[msanthrope]

22. A ban on late-term abortions that recognizes health and life of the mother does not unduly restrict

them. Like it or not, the state does have an interest in fetal life after the point of viability. That is settled law of the land for about 50 years now.

And HRC is right--abstinence is important. It is absolutely a choice that girls and women should have, and it is a choice that should be supported.

HRC isn't pandering....she's talking sense.

[beam me up scottie]

27. If I'm carrying a fetus with fetal defects the state shouldn't prevent me from aborting it.

Women don't make this decision lightly, I trust them.

Who Has an Abortion After 20 Weeks?
That’s right when my patients find out about devastating fetal defects.

The Texas House of Representatives this week passed HB2, a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. Many opponents of abortion may hope this means that all late mid-term fetuses in Texas would soon be carried to term and live healthy lives instead of being terminated. But lost was any discussion of why women might seek a late mid-term abortion in the first place—and the unintended, counterintuitive effects of a ban on such procedures, which might even increase the total number of abortions.

Abortions today are common. At current rates, it is estimated that roughly 1 in 3 women will have one by the time they reach 45 years of age—including in places like Texas. One important reason is that half of all pregnancies are unintended. The cause isn’t just unprotected sex; as I wrote last year in Slate, many forms of birth control are much less reliable than many women realize. For example, 5 percent of women on the pill still get pregnant each year.

Of the roughly 7 million American pregnancies each year, about 1 million end in abortion. However, almost all of the procedures are performed early in pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, only about 1 percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks of gestation (a normal pregnancy is 40 weeks), which are those banned by the proposed Texas law.

Why do some women wait so long? The answer is that comprehensive fetal testing, such as anatomical sonograms and ultrasounds of the heart, are typically performed just before 20 weeks of gestation. Such scans are critical for uncovering major birth defects, such as anencephaly (severe brain malformations), major heart defects, missing organs and limbs, and other severe birth defects. Fetal development is a complex process that often goes awry. Roughly 2 percent of all pregnancies are complicated by a major birth defect, and of those about 0.5 percent have a chromosomal defect, such as an extra or missing segment of normal DNA. Birth defects are a leading cause of infant mortality, and in many cases of severe birth defects, no medical treatment can salvage a fetus’s life or result in any measure of normal future health.

I am a pediatric cardiologist and work in a tertiary care center specializing in high-risk pregnancies. When helping families cope with major birth defects, our medical team tries to educate families about the full range of choices available to them, including advanced treatments that can help many major birth defects. But we also are clear about the severe challenges that other fetuses may face as newborns, and the limitations of modern medicine. Many loving families choose to continue their pregnancies, and we do our best to help them in every possible way. But some families faced with severe fetal disorders—severe brain defects, entirely abnormal gut structures, devastating chromosomal problems—choose not to carry to term and request referral to an abortion provider.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/07/texas_abortion_ban_after_20_weeks_prenatal_testing_reveals_birth_defects.html

[msanthrope]

28. Absolutely. And a ban on late term abortions that takes into account the health and life of the

mother does not interfere with the type of abortion you are talking about....abortion because of severe fetal defect.

After all....the health of the mother encompasses her mental health, and any woman who feels they cannot carry and care for a severely disordered fetus should have the choice to terminate. HRC supports that, and I think she is right to do so. No reasonable legislation would restrict such a choice.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Late term abortion bans absolutely do prevent me from making that choice.

The Secret History of the GOP's New Abortion Ban
The threat—and theater—behind the 20-week abortion bills aimed at the heart of Roe v. Wade.

THE FIGHT OVER BANNING ABORTIONS after 20 weeks is as old as Roe v. Wade. (Older, actually—more on that below.) In Roe, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion by forbidding states from banning the procedure anytime before viability, when fetuses can be expected to survive outside the womb. Experts maintain that viability truly begins at 24 weeks after a pregnant woman's last period, or about 22 weeks after fertilization. (The most rigorous and widely accepted way to date a pregnancy is by counting the weeks since a pregnant woman's last period. The House bill and the majority of state 20-week bans, however, measure pregnancy from the fertilization of the egg; in medical terms, a 20-week ban is actually a 22-week ban.)


Yet proponents of banning abortion at 20 weeks insist that there are cases of infants born that early who survive. It's true that since Roe, medical advances have enabled a tiny, yet unknown, number of preterm infants to be born in the middle of the second trimester. But almost none survive. One study found that 85 percent of infants born 20 weeks after fertilization die within 12 hours. Another study found that 98 percent are born with major health issues such as brain hemorrhaging; 93 percent die within a year. The University of California-San Francisco Medical Center states that no infants born earlier than 21 weeks have survived.

Anti-abortion rights groups such as Americans United for Life, which authored several states' 20-week bans, deny that they are targeting Roe's viability rule. Instead, they focus on 20 weeks postfertilization because, they claim, it's the point at which fetuses experience pain. "Many of them cry and scream as they die," Franks says. But the scientific consensus roundly rejects this idea: For one, the relay path between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex—the connection that allows the brain to recognize pain—is not fully developed for another six weeks. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that the developmental milestones at 20 weeks—namely, the appearance of hair—are no more significant than those coming before or after.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/republican-abortion-ban-20-weeks

The Republicans are not trying to protect women and viable fetuses, they are trying to restrict my reproductive choices and any Democrat who sides with them is allowing them to do so.

[msanthrope]

35. You are moving goalposts....no reasonable ban that takes Casey into account

would restrict you from having a late-term abortion that takes into account your health or life.

FYI--any article that conflates the Casey viability line and the Roe trimester construct is a poorly-written one.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Poorly written?

I think it exposes the reasons Republicans are pushing these bans and why Democrats should oppose them:

Women who end their pregnancies after 20 weeks' gestation account for less than 2 percent of all abortions performed in the United States—a figure that has been static since the early 1970s. About 13,000 women sought these later abortions in 2011, the most recent year for which there is reliable data. Solid data on why women seek abortions after 20 weeks is scarce. What is known is that majority of women who terminate their pregnancies because of fetal anomalies, like Elizabeth, do so after the 20-week mark. Researchers say that most women who have abortions after 20 weeks do so because they didn't have the money for an earlier abortion; they experienced a disruptive life event such as divorce, abuse, or the death of a partner; or they didn't realize they were pregnant. That last category includes teens who don't have a regular period or who don't recognize the signs of pregnancy.

Abortion opponents have used this information to suggest that women who have late abortions are irresponsible. "It's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on healthy mothers, on healthy babies," says Maureen Ferguson, a senior policy adviser for the conservative Catholic Association. Her group has called these abortions "inhumane.""People don't like the idea of late abortions," Pollitt says. "It's hard to mobilize sympathy for that." The proposed ban, she continues, will appeal to "people who don't know anything about what women go through to get an abortion."

This decision should be between a woman and her physician.

Period.

[msanthrope]

48. Yes.....poorly written because the author gets basic legal facts incorrect.

It is settled legal precedent with the state does have interest in late term fetal life. If you're going to have a legal argument with me at least argue the facts not what you wish would happen.

[beam me up scottie]

51. I am against late term abortion bans because I trust women to make their own choices.

And I'm sick of seeing right wing talking points used on DU, especially by people who should know better.

This isn't a matter for the courts, it's something that should be left up to women and physicians.

[msanthrope]

53. That's fine, well, and a great slogan, but you simply aren't addressing the legal issues.

The state has an interest in late term fetal life. that precludes decision-making between a woman and her doctor alone when you're talking past the point of viability.

I didn't make that law. I'm simply saying what the law actually is.

[beam me up scottie]

54. And I disagree with the law.

I'm one of those radical pro-abortion feminists who wants the US to be more like Canada.

[msanthrope]

56. You think the state should have no interest in late term fetal life? nt

[beam me up scottie]

58. Nope.

Works for women in Canada.

[msanthrope]

60. so you think feticide laws are unconstitutional?nt

[Doctor_J]

34. This is the decision of the women and their doctors, not John boner

I literally can't believe that hillarians are now going to accept anti choice positions.

[msanthrope]

37. And nothing in HRC's stance changes that. Like it or not, for decades, SCOTUS

has outlined the state's interest in fetal life. HRC's stance is correct legally, and protects women.

[Skwmom]

4. Suggest you change your title to which candidate or Hillary Clinton. Some people only read the

headlines. n/t

[Sophiegirl]

5. I agree. eom

[Jester Messiah]

6. +1. This tactic could backfire terribly. [nt]

[Skwmom]

18. I would not have made the post. However, with that said - why attribute it to

Bernie in the title, when later it is attributed to Clinton.

[Enthusiast]

8. I was alarmed when I read the headline first.

1994 was a very different time. But........

I don't mind them encouraging abstinence. It is the abstinence only programs that have proven to be a dismal failure. Additionally, and contrary to the assertion of the dippy fundies, access to condoms and birth control does not encourage sex.

[Bonobo]

9. Done. nt

[Sophiegirl]

11. The snarky comment...

About being reading disabled was completely uncalled for.

[Bonobo]

12. Gotcha! nt

[Sophiegirl]

13. ...

[PADemD]

7. Misleading Title is Not a Sanders Position!

[Motown_Johnny]

10. At least she wants to try and find common ground with us.

I suppose that is something.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. I thin you get the thread win here.

Tough to top that

[Ikonoklast]

59. But I have to work for a living.

I'm not a hedge fund manager or investment banker, I have nothing to offer Hillary, nor do I have anything she wants.

[msanthrope]

16. I have absolutely no problem with abortion being safe, legal, and rare. Nor do I have a problem with

girls being empowered to say no to early sex. Girls should absolutely have the power to make choices that reflect their values, even if you do not agree with them.

What, precisely, is wrong with a 15-year-old girl saying "no" to sexual intercourse?

[Laser102]

26. Teens are way too young to engage in sex and this should be discouraged!

No way are they ready for the consequences their actions may have. I think most young girls regret having sex at an early age. It can be devastating and life changing. Opportunities they may have had can be changed with a pregnancy. Emotionally and mentally they are still immature. However, should an unwanted pregnancy occur, all options should be available. I think Hillary has it right.

[Bonobo]

29. Framed the way you say it, you are correct. But...

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

Should shed some light on the nuances of the issue. As a starting point.

[msanthrope]

32. Well, you are now moving your goalposts. Kindly cite where HRC thinks "abstinence only" programs

are the way to go?

Any girl who wishes to practice abstinence, even one you think are poorly educated, should be supported in their choice.

[Bonobo]

36. I think when you open that door, you open the door to all sorts

including religious education and all that stuff.

Hillary knows who she was talking to when she said "common ground" to anti-choicers.

And you should know that includes the kind of people like those creepy "Promise keepers" or "Oath Givers" or whatever they're called.

[Agschmid]

44. Yup.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. Thank goodness she hold traditional

Democratic values on social issues, or she'd simply be a Republican.

Oh, wait, what? Abstinence, dislike of contraception, and religious values dictating sexual activity?

This is a Democrat?

[msanthrope]

24. What, precisely, is wrong with empowering teenage girls to say no to sex if they wish to?

And I see nothing about HRC that indicates a dislike of contraception. I mean....she's got only one kid. That's not by coincidence, I imagine.

[davidpdx]

23. Not only in that book

But also in Living History she said, "The Clinton Administration's policy was to make abortion 'safe, legal, and rare.'" pp. 641

The name of the chapter that quote came from (I kid you not): Third way.

[msanthrope]

25. Excellent. Safe, legal, and rare is exactly what abortion should be. nt

[Indepatriot]

30. If only she would "abstain" from all those fund-raising "trysts"with bankers.....I'm sorry what was

that thing she was saying about "moral values"?.....

[msanthrope]

31. My atheist daughter has a moral value that she does not wish to engage in sex before she is ready.

What, precisely, is wrong with that?

[Bonobo]

38. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Stop trying to restrict the conversation to one where you only win

I know you are a lawyer and that probably comes very naturally, but your particular situation is not the only relevant one.

Abstinence education includes many things that are not as open-minded and progressive as I am sure your parenting is.

[msanthrope]

50. on the contrary you are the one deliberately conflating abstinence education

With what Hillary Clinton was talking about. She was in no way shape or form condoning ignorant abstinence education that is based in fear mongering. What what she was saying is extremely important girls have the right to say no.

[haikugal]

55. Now who's moving goalposts?

Abstinence is a choice, one choice not THE choice..all forms of birth control should be available to women and yes, girls, AND it should be affordable. Rare doesn't enter into it, at all. She's pandering to the enemy...a good third way effort on her part that will empower the nay sayers and small minded not women and girls. Choice not restrictions, not sermons, not slut shaming. Choice. Hillary is not for choice she's for restrictions.

[Indepatriot]

62. I don't get the connection between your daughters

Personal choices and HRC's Wall Street "morals"...

[Vinca]

39. Well, if Bernie's old writings are going to be taken as gospel . . .

[MADem]

57. Annnnnnnd BOOOOOOM! goes the dynamite....!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-disowns-1972-article-on-womens-fantasies-of-rape/

[left-of-center2012]

42. abstinence is vital

'cause it works so well.

"Sarah Palin's daughter, advocate for abstinence, says she is pregnant (again)"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-people-bristolpalin-idUSKBN0P62H120150626

[Metric System]

43. Hillary is the candidate backed by pro-choice groups. That's the only response this thread needs.

[frylock]

46. You sure you don't want to cite some national polls as well, just for good measure?

[betsuni]

45. So suddenly you're a feminist? Hillary's a fundamentalist right-winger and YOU'RE a feminist?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA --- oh, it's too much, so funny, thanks for the laffs!

[hrmjustin]

47. I was never good at abstinence.

Too boring.

[Dragonfli]

49. Around the same time, she also held the position

that marriage had always been and should be a sacred bond between a man and a women and was very concerned with the sanctity of marriage.

Many that live in NYS remember her stances and the re branding effort is less successful with us because we DO remember her positians.

[still_one]

52. Her voting record has been consistent that abortion should be legal, and trying to paint it as

something else is B.S.

[fredamae]

61. Bottom line always

People Not Governments should rightfully make decisions individually and without interference by those who hold different values and opinions.
If ya don't like cannabis---Do Not Use it.
If you don't like Spinach---Don't Eat it.
If you disagree with Abortions---don't get one.

No one would rob a mother her right to die from her pregnancy, but others Are forcing women to die, against their will, by these Prohibitions.
My body? My Choice. Butt Out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. It all seems so basic. Well said. +1

[hifiguy]

64. It really is that simple.