Senator Clinton Speaks of 'Common Ground' on Abortion

[seriousstan]

ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Proposing new political language about abortion rights for the Democratic Party, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion - particularly members of religious groups - asserting that there was "common ground" to be found after three decades of emotional and political warfare over abortion.

---cut---

While she acknowledged in her address today that Americans have "deeply held differences" over abortion rights, Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State, "I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available."

In addition to her description of abortion as a "tragic choice" for many," Mrs. Clinton said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sexual relations, and reminded the audience that during the 1990's, she promoted "teen celibacy" as a way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/politics/25cnd-clinton.html?hp&ex=1106629200&en=76a8a5d8460cde43&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[LiberteToujours]

1. And we wonder why people don't trust Democrats

Observe exhibit A: Wet finger in the wind.

[Dookus]

3. I don't get it....

why is it "testing the winds"? It's what her and her husband have said for a very long time - abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I don't see Sen. Clinton advocating any change from her long-held position.

[LiberteToujours]

6. Not a change in a position

But a change in tone. She has never gone to such great lengths to pay lip service to the anti-abortionists before. I'm not sure what her game is though, because this is only going to piss of her supporters and those who hate her would vote for Monica Lewinsky for president before her.

[w4rma]

105. Well it's just under 2 years before the next elections and 4 years until

the next presidential elections. I think if Dems keep using this tone for the next 2 - 4 years folks will have gotten used to it by the time elections roll around.

[cleofus1]

138. some people are full of shit

Hillary has always spoken this way regarding abortion. Her feeling on the subject reflect my own exactly.
The Hillary bashers here (and those fools who feel the Democrats are "just like the repugs") need to get some perspective on the reality of politcs.
Hillary is good...repugs=bad!

[AngryOldDem]

239. I agree with what she's saying but I do question her motives n/t

[Randers]

68. The best model IMO is the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the teen pregnancy rate is something like 7% while it is 48+% in the US. They are non-moralistic and provide info and contraceptives to everybody.

You can't have it both ways. The politicians, etc. here want to pretend people are going to be celibate and then cross their fingers instead of giving people what they need.

--------
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm
--------

In the United States, teens get pregnant, have abortions, and contract sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at rates ranging from three to 74 times higher than teens in the Netherlands, France, and Germany.

Another reason for Europe’s lower teen pregnancy rates is the acceptance and availability of contraception. Teenage girls in Germany and the Netherlands use more oral contraceptives than U.S. girls.

“First, European teens are provided with national health insurance, which is universal and covers the cost,” said Barbara Huberman, director of education and outreach at Advocates for Youth. “Secondly, young woman are taught in school how to use the Pill. Last, but not least, instead of being taught to say ’no’ to sex, women are supported in their prevention of unplanned pregnancy.”

In Europe, teen contraception is so accepted that a commonly-used term is “double-dutch,” which is when the guy wears a condom and the girl is on the Pill, says Huberman. This has contributed to the lower rates of teen pregnancies, abortions, and STIs. The European focus, Huberman says, is on empowering young people to make an informed decision on whether they want to become sexually active. If they decide to, then they know it is expected they will always use protection against pregnancy and STIs.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[American Tragedy]

131. Cost is a legitimate factor, too.

I'd get an IUD, if insurance would cover it at least in part. I refuse to take hormone pills.

[Randers]

165. Pay for birth control or pay for an abortion.

Or pay a hell of a lot more if you decide to raise a child.



(I don't like the idea of taking hormones, either - but IUDs work)

[American Tragedy]

249. Understood.

But I question why "erectile dysfunction" drugs are covered, but not birth control. That can be justified only by sheer misogyny.

[Randers]

164. Corrected statistics

It's actually more like .7% for the netherlands and 4.8% for the US teen birth rate.

Pregnacy rate is .87% for the Netherlands and 8.% in the US (notice the dot).

ABORTION rate is .4% for the Netherlands and 2.75% in the US.

All this even though the typical age of first sexual intercourse is the same 17.5. (According to the factsheet).

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm

[electropop]

191. I think it's perfectly reasonable, consistent with Dem ideals

and a clever way to peel off some anti-abortion voters. I think most people would prefer to see fewer abortions; it's time the anti-choice crowd begin to see there are productive options far more practical and kind, than banning it. Why shouldn't Dems be the ones to point out that we can do far more to reduce abortions by increasing the use of birth control, improving sex ed, promoting morning-after pills, etc? We would surely benefit from a few more votes, without compromising our beliefs.

[roguevalley]

2. no turning back. we can't go back. as for those who don't believe

in it, don't GET ONE! Honestly, I am sick of pandering to the loud mouths of the minority on this issue. The majority want to keep it
and they are the ones who should be reassured, not a buncha dumasses
who want us to go back to the dark ages.

[BeFree]

10. A Majority? How do you figure?

Most men don't care one way or the other, and some of 'em are rabidly against it.

Then there are a lot of women who are against abortion. Frankly I don't see the majority you speak of.
Myself? I don't really like the idea, but I am pro-choice. I believe everybody should be able to choose what they do to their bodies. But I see the protection of the unborn as an issue, duh.

And, it's an issue used by some politicos to divide the people. Finding a common ground will help defeat that division.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Latest stats say 66% of Americans want Roe V Wade to be left alone

[VegasWolf]

22. Sounds like a majority to me. n/t

[Rush1184]

117. You could almost say it is a mandate...

[Osamasux]

32. That agrees with most figures I have heard through the years.

The Moral Majority never were either and never will be. They are just loud.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleofus1]

139. Befree is correct...

right on the money....

[ldf]

188. most men don't care?

try telling a man that under no circumstances is he EVER going to have sex unless he is married.

see how quick he develops an opinion.

i have thought all along that they way to get this whole issue decided once and for all is for all women to say just that.

either support a woman's right to choice, or YOU AIN'T GETTIN' ANY. PERIOD.

and that mean's all women. ESPECIALLY the republican's mistresses.

and just because someone is married doesn't mean they have to submit to sex when they don't want to. that is called rape.

[pokercat999]

262. One simple policy

it's none of the governments' goddamn business.

If I can by law, tell a woman she must carry a fetus to term then how far a stretch is it to say I can by law, demand that she get pregnant in the first place and then how long before I can decide by law, who will be the father?

What is the real aim of anti-abortion law other complete governmental control over women?

[Gloria]

4. I don't "respect" them because they don't respect me...

I'm going to puke.

[Generator]

5. Ah Hillary, pandering for '08 as fast as she can

[cleofus1]

140. yeah....

If hillary is the candidate...she has my support 100%!!!!

hell...whoever is the Democratic candidate has my support!

[Bush on crack]

292. Hillary

Hillary is playing it smart. She is signaling that she is in touch with different views but will be there for us. Don't worry the Clintons are brilliant.

[mordarlar]

313. right to life people can see the game as clearly as any of us here.

regardless of her long term stands on the issue this is Hillary bending a bit too low for the situation we find ourselves in. It fuels the fire of people who believe Bush and all his insanity is justified because of the "evil"of abortion and now Hillary has told them it is ok. This while they are laughing because they see the point she is REALLY trying to make..2008 I do not stand far from her on my opinions. But while criminal wars are being fought on the vote of people who claim abortion was justification enough, this is horrible timing.

[IndianaGreen]

315. Right-to-lifers are opposed to contraception and family planning

We will never have common ground with them because they base their beliefs on an extremist religious ideology that rejects science and hates sex, other than the missionary position within marriage and strictly to procreate.

There is no common ground!

[MichiganVote]

7. Reproductive rights don't belong in the hands of Republicans

Even Clinton republicans

[cleofus1]

142. MichiganVote

As a Clinton suporter I believe you are way out of line...

[MichiganVote]

291. And cleofus, I believe I'm entitled to my opinion AND

I voted for Clinton too.

[cleofus1]

316. i don't care who you voted for

in essense you're name calling..labeling Clinton supporters as republicans....ifs that's not what you meant perhaps you should rephrase...

[MichiganVote]

321. No, in essence, I compare Senator Clinton to Republicans

[BrklynLiberal]

8. If she puts even one toe into the waters of doing away with freedom of

choice, I would not even say her name again, much less vote for her.

[Jon8503]

319. Agree, Iam having trouble with this one. All of her actions are coming

down consistant with the fact she wants to run in 2008. This crap just doesnt get it.

[EVDebs]

9. Nobody wants an abortion... Looks like she's fighting for Plan B

also known as the Morning After Pill. If Dems can fight for this and push it through at the same time the Repubs are pushing to 'outlaw' abortion, the way it looks...Plan B could make the whole debate MOOT.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Morning after pill and abortion are not mutually exclusive.

They are resolutions to totally different situations.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EVDebs]

250. Only if too much time is allowed to pass and if you ignore Post #68 above

in reference to the Netherlands.

In the US birth control is suppressed apparently. Start the fight there ! And with the Plan B "morning after pill", once the information gets out there with media help (a BIG Problem, since they're part of the rightwing 'mighty Wurlitzer') you beat them at their own game... They want to appear rational. How rational sounding is "Zygote Rights" "Zygote killer"....

Look to the Dutch for help on this one !

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

11. What common ground?

I think I get do determine who hangs out in my uterus, the misogynists of the right don't. They fear sex, I respect it. I love and respect children after they are born, they see them as sinful little hedonists who must be dominated at the teat. I don't regret my abortion, they think I'm going to hell.

We have the majority on this one, why the hell should we be compromising?

[BrklynLiberal]

Thr irony here is that the anti-choicers have no intention whatsoever of

trying to find common ground. As soon as they see the slightest sign of wavering or weakness they will come in for the kill! Remember, there are no shades of grey for them. It is black or it is white. That is all they see.
These are organizations who have in the past condoned murdering physicians who performed abortions and bombing clinics and killing innocent people to stop abortions. I would not trust any of them as far as I could throw one.

[genieroze]

86. Exactly, give these morons an inch they will take a mile.

[Just Me]

25. There is a distinction between "compromise" and "sacrifice".

There is no compromise in sacrificing fundamental tenets of "liberty", "equality", "justice" in pursuit of a "democracy" of and by and for the people.

Women had to fight and sacrifice and DIE for the FREEDOM to have control over their own bodies.

That RIGHT women gained is NOT up for sacrifice,...by ANYONE!!!!

The "compromise" was already reached. That "compromise" is a contract which NO ONE should advocate be breached!!!!

:mad: I am so freakin' angry that there are those who are casting the past into the present and future. While I respect history, I freakin' OBJECT to those who recycle it,....:mad:

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

219. If Roe is overturned

the fight moves to the states. Obviously in some states that's going to mean a ban on abortion or big restrictions, in others (it's times like this I love California) there probably wouldn't be many changes. Undoubtedly the court battle over what constitutes a legitimate restriction in a post-Roe enviornment will stretch on for years. Public opinion still matters in all of this.

Besides, the cons know that they will lose centrist women if they are percieved as the party that banned abortion.

[Emillereid]

259. Amen sister!

[KamaAina]

13. That would be the Sen. Clinton who praised "faith-based" programs

just last week?!

Blech.

Imagine what would happen to a repuke who suddenly started sounding like a Dem in public. Not a free ride like this, I'll wager.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. Right..Wait and see what they do to Arlen Spector.

He will be crawling out of the Senate on his hands and knees....

[Bush on crack]

295. specter

He will be crawling to his daddy George W. He is just another evil pubbie with his hands all over this war and soaked in blood. My bet is that he plays hardball for a little bit and then becomes more of an android!

[cleofus1]

144. even as an atheist...

Faith based programs do do some good...and some faith based programs do a lot of good...nothing wrong with that...

[GiovanniC]

151. Nobody Has a Problem With a Christian Giving a Hungry Man a Sandwich

They have a problem with a Christian telling the hungry man he can have a sandwich when he accepts Jesus into his heart.

The same applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, et al, although interestingly that's less of a problem because apparently their faith-based programs aren't quite good enough for our government to fund them, which is also something to think about.

[cleofus1]

153. i agree

but i repeat...some of these programs do a lot of good...hell i'm an atheist and i still can see the good some of these programs do...
a sensible person does not throw the baby out with the bathwater...

[GiovanniC]

186. Nobody is Recommending That

But the program as it exists now is unacceptable. You've got non-Christian faith-based charities shut out of funding. You've got existing faith-based charities tying help to conversion.

Those are the parameters we're operating under right now. Your atheist tax dollars are being spent in your name to convert people to Christianity in exchange for charitable assistance. Hell, I'm a Christian and even I don't think that's a good idea.

[Just Me]

15. Hillary, PLEASE stop appeasing/enabling the control/power freaks.

Please, STOP BEING MANIPULATED. There is NO LAW which usurps these people's power to choose. To the contrary, they seek laws which usurp a woman's power to choose. Haven't we already been there done that,...with great pain,...already?

Please, redirect the "manipulator's" sense of powerlessness and cynicism into that which we can ALL agree EXISTS and which deserves our attention over the unknown lives of the unborn!!!!

It is a HUGE mistake to be distracted from exercising the power we have to MAKE THIS LIFE BETTER with some "magical" pursuit of saving the "unborn".

IF WE CAN'T SAVE OURSELVES, IMPROVE ALL EXISTING HUMAN LIFE,...GUARANTEE A QUALITY LIFE FOR EVERY "BORN" LIFE ON THIS PLANET,...IT IS AN ESCAPIST FANTASY TO ADVOCATE FOR THE "UNBORN".

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Right on!!!!! This is what I posted on another thread earlier today

It reinforces my belief that the entire "prolife" campaign was, and
always will be, in reality, a crusade to control women and their lives.
The old, white men who initiated this crusade have bamboozled some sincere people into joining them, but this is not the true aim of this movement. They are against prenatal health care for pregnant women, post natal care for women, health care for babies, world wide womens health education, birth control, sex education, AIDS relief and many other things that have nothing to do with the "soul" of an unborn child.
This is all a farce. It comes down to man controlling woman...plain and simple. Read: American Taliban.

[primavera]

17. Wasn't it just a few days ago...

... that she was making overtures to faith-based communities? Today reaching out to the anti-choice community, hmmm, I wonder what will be next? The gun nuts, perhaps? Or maybe she'll come out in favor of torture. No wait, I've got it: next on the list will be tax cuts for the wealthy!

[w4rma]

19. WOW! This is great!! That's perfect!!! Folks, read the article.

Don't stop reading at the headline.

[Bono71]

167. I don't get the anger...the article clearly (as plain as freaking day)

states she is 100% behind abortion rights. She says that there is common ground to be found in trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies...what the F*CK is wrong with that?????!!!!!

[grahamhgreen]

20. When does the spirit enter the body?

St. Thomas Aquinas thought it was in the third trimester.

Nobody knows for sure.

Historically, humans did not generally have funerals for miscarriages.

When does the spirit enter the body?

This is the central question.

Clinton? - the right will not believe her, and the left will be dismayed.

[VegasWolf]

24. Does it ever? If one is not a supernaturalist, one has to doubt a spirit.

[VegasWolf]

21. Hillary needs to borrow some of Barbra Boxer's spine. n/t

[w4rma]

23. Read the flipping article instead of stopping at the headline.

She's got this issue nailed if liberals can avoid being as kneejerk, when a headline like this appears, as you guys are being on this thread.

[VegasWolf]

26. I did. What spine do you see in Hillary? Where do you think this

common ground lies.

[w4rma]

31. This is a change in tone. A non-belligerent tone. But, a very pro-choice

tone. pro-Sex-education (emphasising the inclusion of abstinance and not excluding everything else). Educating teens to prevent unwanted pregnancies rather than supporting an oppressive and punishing law that will result in back alley abortions and witch hunts.

[VegasWolf]

35. As I said below, education is fine when not limited to abstinence

only. The opponents of abortion want it outlawed, a lot
of us don't.

[w4rma]

39. What's your point then? (nt)

[VegasWolf]

43. My point, Hillary has no spine and she is saying happy words to

placate the peoples and keep her job. She LUVS power.

[w4rma]

47. Are you just trying to be divisive? Are you trying to prevent Dems from

finding a way to talk to folks without antagonizing them? Are you trying to prevent Dems from supporting something that we can openly talk about in conservative areas while keeping the whole Democratic platform?

[VegasWolf]

50. You are missing my point. I'll try one more time. I don't believe

that there is a viable middle ground, unlike you. Instead
of calling me divisive, recognize the fact that I disagree with you.

[w4rma]

55. The middle ground is a position that prevents Dems from being labeled

"baby killers" while supporting pro-choice policy and social programs.

[VegasWolf]

56. See, as other posters have noted, you can't seem to understand that

we disagree with you. This conservation is becoming unproductive.

[w4rma]

58. Yeah. I think you just want to rage against the machine rather than trying

to tone down the divisions. Is it really that hard for you to support a change in tone that might bring some of these folks on board?

[VegasWolf]

61. So you believe that happy words will bring over people orthogonally

opposed to abortion, even to save the mothers life. Good for you.
If happy words work, sure then by all means use all the weasel
words you want. The conservatives at least know where THEY
stand and aren't trying to be on all sides of the issue.

[w4rma]

64. Are you so shaky on your position that you can't see when it's being

supported and in a way that can bring more folks together on it? "Happy words"? Would you rather just shoot them, instead?

[VegasWolf]

65. Yeah, let's nuke em. Boy do you know how to debate. n/t

[w4rma]

66. You said it. Not I. (nt)

[TankLV]

80. Again, for those who have difficulty with the concept like you:

PRO-CHOICE does not equal "pro-abortion".

You can be "pro-choice" and "anit-abortion" at the same time.

PRO-CHOICE IS THE COMMON GROUND - PRO-CHOICE IS THE MIDDLE POSITION.

Anything else is "pro-birth" and "anti-women".

Get that thru your thick skulls!

[w4rma]

99. MY "thick skull"? You think this way of explaining things is geared toward

ME? I'm pro-choice. Clinton is pro-choice. WTF are you disagreeing with?

[cleofus1]

143. w4rma I think she may have posted to the wrong post...

I agree with you and I think she does too...I think

[amandabeech]

93. I doubt that she needs to say this to keep her job in NY.

I think that this has more to do with Iowa, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and perhaps Arkansas.

[w4rma]

100. She's up for re-election in 2006. So whatever she is doing now, is

important for that election. And as far as I'm concerned she's advancing Democratic policy rather than gunning for 2008.

[Liberty Belle]

78. She never said abstinence only.

A sex ed program that includes info on both birth control and abstinence is the best approach all around. Either by itself invites problems of one sort or another.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

248. Yes. Non-belligerent, as in Chamberlain.

Negotiating with a pack of hungry sharks in the hope that they'll eat you last.

[primavera]

27. Which part?

The part where she expresses her warm regard and respect for persons who believe that abortion should never be available under any circumstances? Or the part where she advocates on behalf of abstinence education?

[w4rma]

29. She's being respectful towards the folks who hold that belief and that is

a good stance. Respectful. Honorable. That's the stance she should take.

Her support of sex-education, includes abstinence but is not limited to abstinence. That is the way to explain this position. That is the policy that will reduce unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions).

The whole article. Read it in detail, every single detail because they are all important in this particular article.

[VegasWolf]

33. Sure, be respectful and honorable, but disagree. These people

want to outlaw abortion, to force it once more into back alleys.
Abortion will either remain legal or it will become illegal.
There is no middle-ground and both sides are fighting for their
viewpoints.

[w4rma]

38. There IS a middle ground. In involves avoiding using oppression to try

to prevent abortions. Sen. Clinton is supporting choice and is supporting other means to reduce abortions that Republican ideology does not support: Social programs.

This reframes the debate for religious conservatives to "HOW would you rather reduce abortions? oppression or social programs".

[VegasWolf]

41. Sorry, I don't buy it. Yes, she is supporting choice and supporting

other means to reduce abortion, fine. But, that won't satisfy
the anti-abortionists. Wrt education, all that they want
do is discuss abstinence, outlaw condoms, etc. in schools.
Sorry, I see any middle ground as fleeting as a willow-of-the-wisp.

[w4rma]

46. She's not trying to satisfy ALL of the anti-abortionists. Why do you even

think that anyone would be dumb enough to think that is possible?

[VegasWolf]

52. Read my post above about middle grounds.n/t

[Eloriel]

213. The flaw in your argument is a false premise

as others are trying to point out:

This reframes the debate for religious conservatives to "HOW would you rather reduce abortions? oppression or social programs".

They don't WANT to "reduce abortions." They want to END THEM. Period. And every other step they take is not intended to "reduce" abortions but to erode their availability, popular support and ultimately, TO END THEM.

The gigantic danger, as others have pointed out or are trying to is that with these people, there IS NO MIDDLE GROUND, no desire on their part for compromise. And where OUR side is concerned, there can BE NO MIDDLE GROUND because abortion is either legal or it's not. They want to make abortion illegal -- any compromise, any softening of the rhetoric on our part, any "reframing" that is more accomodating of THEIR side is capitulation and WILL result in further loss of abortion rights until there are none.

Period.

The ONLY reframing of the debate that I'll accept is one more like Howard Dean's, one that allows for absolutely NO COMPROMISE whatsoever while still making perfect sense out of the problem and putting it into its absolutely proper perspective: Congress (and the State Legislatures) should stop practicing medicine (re partial birth abortion ban). Abortion is a medical decision which should be left to the doctor and his/her patient. Period.

[w4rma]

221. They can't be "ended", that might be what they "want" but it can't be done

Only reduced. I could have used the word "end" when speaking about Clinton's plan, but it would be just as pie in the sky as saying that oppressive laws have any chance of "ending" abortions.

I don't talk in absolutes. And the anti-abortionists that Clinton is trying to reach aren't stupid enough to talk in absolutes, either.

[saracat]

327. Excuse me? Respectful? Honorable?

When they have no respect for women? When they think a fetus has more rights than a women? I DON'T RESPECT PEOPLE WHO DON'T RESPECT ME, and neither should Hillary.

[DemBones DemBones]

134. Exactly right! Way too many people post before they read, no matter

what the topic is.

[fooj]

70. My thoughts, exactly!

[Osamasux]

28. It seems like she is saying "We don't agree on Choice

and never will, but let's find something else we can agree on." Hillary did not back away from Choice at all.

If she is just trying to find the sane ones and break the connection these people have that if you are anti-abortion, then you are required to vote Repuke, I don't have a problem with that. If they can support Pro-Choice Dems because they finally realize those Dems share their values much more than Bush's army of hate-filled fundamentalists, that is a good thing.

[mamalone]

189. EXACTLY!!!!!

As a pro-life Democrat I applaud Sen Clinton. When my other pro-life friends say "How can you be pro-life and Dem?" I say, "I am Dem because I am pro-life!" I believe that the dem party is the most likely one to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Abortion have skyrocketed under the Bush admin..why? Because when women feel insecure of their futures and the futures they can offer to their children they will feel that they have no other choice than to abort. When women feel empowered, when the safety net is in place they are more likely to choose to carry their babies to term. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't going to do away with abortions..commiting to the care of the vulnerable in our society will.

This whole thing is very interesting to me as well for another reason...I called the Senator's office shortly after the election and discussed this issue at length with an aide... about how the Dems have allowed the Repubs to frame this debate(pro-choice=pro-abortion=Dem=evil...pro-life=pro-baby=Repub=good) I stressed the need for common ground and that the common ground is that we can all agree that an abortion is an unfortunate event and that reducing them is a good thing. The aide got very animated and said.."This is really interesting..really good." I said more, but, the words I used in that discussion are the *exact* words Clinton used in this speech. Perhaps I sound a bit full of myself, but I am wondering if that discusssion was the genesis for this change in rhetoric- at least in part.
Just wondering....

[Bush on crack]

290. true

Don't worry Hillary will be there for us! I am for Boxer in 2008, but she will be there fighting beside for more abortion.

[Bush on crack]

294. not more abortion

I meant to say abortion rights but common sense abortion.

[CoffeeCat]

30. Interesting...same rhetoric that * used today!

This is the same thing that chimpy said to the anti-abortion activists during his phone call.

It almost seemed as if chimpy was skirting around ending abortions by legal means. He mentioned the legalities, then quickly said, "but most importantly, we're not only focusing on the law, but on changing hearts." Chimpy talked about finding common ground with those who are pro choice.

Interesting...that Hillary and the Chimpster would say the exact same thing.

Note: After hearing Bush today, I had the sense that he was almost backtracking from overturning Roe v Wade. However, I wondered if that wasn't my own wishful thinking clouding my thought processes. I heard a bit of redirection and manipulation with the Chimpster--as he cleverly pandered to them and tried to refocus their thoughts away from legal remedies. I may be way off though.

[w4rma]

34. No no. That's definitely wishful thinking.

"changing hearts" = "changing minds" means convincing more folks to support anti-abortion laws.

[Disturbed]

45. " no circumstances under which abortion should be available."

Not in case of rape &/or incest? She respects people that have that view?

She is pandering to to rightwing in every way that she can. I expect a lot more of it from her. She and Bill are cozy with the Bush Junta. Do you wonder why?

[w4rma]

49. Yes. She's not promoting hate towards them. Do you think she should? (nt)

[VegasWolf]

67. No, but she might consider disagreeing with them. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

82. Interesting thoughts, Disturbed...

Why do you think Hillary is pandering to the rightwing?

I didn't realize that Bill/Hillary are cozy with Bush.

It sure seems like Hillary is pandering. Her comments the other day about faith-based initiatives were definitely noticed.

I'm curious as to why you think that Bill/Hillary are cozy with Bush?

If they are, I sure want to know why.

You've piqued my interest!

[American Tragedy]

132. Which is why we have to stick by our position.

He's not changing my mind.

[Osamasux]

40. Chimp's played that line throughout.

Gore tried to pin him down and could not.
Kerry pointed out to anyone who would listen what Chimp was doing, but they just went on hearing what they wanted to hear.

[Carolab]

36. Way to sell out, Hillary!

Roe v. Wade was settled a LONG time ago. It's the LAW.

Shut up and stop caving to these people.

[w4rma]

42. Do folks have a problem with reading past headlines? (nt)

[Carolab]

48. Reading them doesn't mean we agree with them.

Mrs. Clinton said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sexual relations.

PUHLEEZE. Oh, that works. I'd REALLY like to see that statistics on all these faith-based Republican families and their abortion and out-of-wedlock births.

[w4rma]

54. That fact is probably correct.

I can't really think of another major reason that folks would "abstain from sexual relations". She didn't say that organized religion was the primary reason that folks didn't have abortions and out-of-wedlock births. See the logic and how you cannot say she meant one by saying the other?

[Carolab]

69. First of all, it isn't only an issue of "abstinence" or "non-abstinence".

A person who is raped isn't "not abstaining", for example. And then, of course, there are medically necessary abortions.

But, to say that faith will stop a horny young person from getting pregnant is just naive. Most girls will stop themselves (if they do) because of a fear of getting pregnant; others will just succumb to the heat of hormonally-raging desires and hope for the best, UNLESS they have contraception.

Most abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

These greedy Republicans object to two things here:

1. They don't want to have to pay for someone else's contraception in the form of state-sponsored contraception (or higher insurance premiums).
2. They don't want to have to pay for someone else's abortion in the form of state-sponsored abortion (or higher insurance premiums).

A lot of these unwanted pregnancies are poor people who can't support themselves let alone another kid. They can't pay for contraception or their insurance won't cover it (if they can even afford that). And they can't pay for abortion either.

Once that poor kid is born, these greedly Republicans don't give a RIP about its well-being--or the ability of its parent(s) to survive with another mouth to feed. They cut funding for education (from cradle to grave), for housing and for public assistance or health care. They outsource jobs. What's left for these people and their kids? Illegal abortions which can kill or injure the mother for life (and greedy Republicans don't care), or people who have to live on slave wages to survive (and greedy Republicans applaud this state of affairs).

Get it?

It has NOTHING, NOT A DAMN THING, to do with being "pro life". As Howard Dean says, being pro-life means that you care about the child AFTER it is born, not just before.

[w4rma]

87. What is your point?

Do you for some reason think that either I or Clinton's position is anti-choice?

[Carolab]

120. I think that Hillary is "triangulating", just like Bill.

Triangulation is what is ruining the Democratic party. The progressive position is pro-choice, in a general sense. It does not "waffle" on Roe v. Wade, which is the law of the land. The progressive position fosters sex education and contraception. It is based in science, and in reality, and not in "faith". Now, faith has a place in all of this, as well, and if families want to use religion as part of the argument for abstinence as a prevention for abortion, fine. But you cannot stop unwanted pregnancies by religious faith alone, nor abortion, just by pushing faith or abstinence. The statistics argue against it.

[Piltdown13]

79. I can think of one

Though admittedly, it might not apply to a huge number of people. The reason: desire to avoid pregnancy, plus the fact that I knew I wasn't emotionally ready. It's why I abstained all through high school; I wasn't afraid of disease, but I did know that there was always a chance of contraceptive failure, and as far as I was concerned, it wasn't worth the risk. Faith/religion had nothing to do with my decision to abstain. But, of course, I'm only one person, and I only know firsthand of a few others who also abstained for non-religious reasons.

[phylny]

137. Hmm, I can think of a few reasons.

Respect for self, self-control, keeping your eyes on a larger prize down the road, the desire to keep your life as uncomplicated as possible.

I have teenaged girls, and we discuss this issue all the time. I do not discuss abstinance in threatening tones, nor would I be wigged out if they decided they had to become sexually active. But they're teenagers, and they don't have the means to support a child, they need to take the time to educate themselves, and none of them are boy crazy anyway. I'm certainly not in the position of wanting to take care of grandchildren at this age - and we've discussed how difficult it is to make a decision about abortion. Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is an easy decision for a woman to make.

We've discussed the benefits of waiting, the fact that no 16-year-old boy gives a hoot about a girl (they won't be thinking, "OH, now she must really love me!") and we also talk about safe sex to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Our girls have consoled their friends who get dumped by a guy because they wouldn't put out, and that other girl there will. They also see that the guy in question wasn't a very quality person to begin with.

I don't actually use faith or religion in this particular discussion at all.

[Damien]

107. apparently

We are too reactionary anymore. Sen. Clinton tries to work within the system for change instead of condemning it and people try to lynch her. It's knee-jerk reaction.

[proudbluestater]

37. Here's my words to Hillary, F OFF.

The government does NOT get to make my reproductive decisons. EVER.

[w4rma]

60. She's isn't advocating that. Read, plz. (nt)

[FlemingsGhost]

44. The trouble with Hillary Clinton is, she's not her husband.

There is an art to talking from both sides of one's mouth.

Bill did it masterfully. Hillary does not.

[cleofus1]

145. boy i wish i could say what i really feel

is that supposed to be a compliment?

[MattNC]

51. is there any doubt

she's running for president in '08? laying the groundwork early.

[VegasWolf]

57. Yes, and she will have about as much chance as a snowball in

hell. Repukes hate her and many dems are starting to
think she's spineless. Go Dean!

[FlemingsGhost]

59. Democrats sure love losing causes, don't they?

Please, DLC, run Hillary in '08.

It's difficult to see the Party suffer so. Provide the mercy kill, and put us all out of our misery.

[w4rma]

62. I don't support Sen. Clinton in '08, but she's right on target on this.

And no she isn't supporting oppressive anti-abortion laws. This is a wholy pro-choice/pro-freedom position.

[VegasWolf]

63. Snicker!!! Mercy kill us please. n/t

[OHdem10]

53. She is giving Faux News

more grist for their propaganda machine than they use.

Tammy Bruce was on Fox giving sum and substance of Hilary's
speech on Religion or Faithbased Initiatives. Tammy's descriptions is
"Hilary used the word God in that spech more times than she probably
has the last 4 years. She then went on to explain how Hilary is
truly a socialist and America, do not let her manipulate you."

At some point someone pointed out that her speech on Immigration
puts her to the right of George Bush.

I thought the DLC saw what Bush Campaign did to Kerry--made him a flip flopper long before the convention. This is why we lose elections.

Remember when President Clinton was in office ; they said he had no
moral compass therefore he put a finger to the wind to decide
his position on issues. Rank and file Republicas believe this This why "Conviction Politics" are so effective right now. The Church goers want their leaders to have the courage of their convictions. I do not necessarily agree. Bush is conviced he is right but he does some wrong things. The publicis going to have to realize they have been sold a pig in a poke. Convictions can be good but you have to make good decisions.

What Hilary is doing is saying the Right is correct and have all the answers. This just gives Bush room to be more radical. I am sure
this is not her intention. It is unintended consequences

Oh well, I could be wrong--just my thoughts as I hear various TV
Reports.

[mirror wall]

73. HA! She thinks she can actually run.

How ADORABLE.

The "centrist" rhetoric she's been coming out with lately proves that. This is just the latest addition the that pile of sad.

Hillary stands no chance in a general election. If the Democrats have not gone completely insane (from the guffaws I've seen from insiders when Hillary '08 is brought up, I hope they haven't), she stands no chance in the primaries either.

Her ridiculous prospects aside, it -is- disturbing that she didn't seem to mention once that Roe v. Wade was decided on the issue of privacy moreso than anything else. Dems -should- in theory be jumping all over this; the Repubs have been abrogating our right to privacy ever since the OMG 9-1-1 histrionics kicked into high gear. If the Dems did truly want to mount an offensive against this odious practice, they'd seize on every opportunity to bring it up.

[PassingFair]

159. Welcome to DU, Mirror Wall!

Great Post! I agree with every word.

[Liberty Belle]

75. This is "reframing" the debate, in line with

Lakey, Dean, and others have been advocating.

It is NOT retreating from a pro-choice stance. It is, however, acknowledging the genuine sentiments of the pro-lifers who want to save babies. By acknowledging their feelings, the speaker then gets them to listen--and be educated. Note the surprised reaction of the crowd to learning how many unwanted pregnancies occur because of failure to use birth control. This is a good strategy for convincing the less rabid among the pro-life movement to support birth control as a means of preventing abortions. Since many of them currently are OPPOSED to birth control in the extremist view that an egg becomes a fetus the instant that it's fertilized, Hilary is actually doing our side a favor by converting some away from this radical viewpoint.

Similarly, one could educate these people that the number of abortions in the US has increased under the Republican leadership in large part because of the bad economy. Most women who have abortions say the reason is because they can't afford to have a baby. Lift women out of poverty and the abortion rate goes down--something we should all agree is a worthy goal.

In Africa, abortion is way up because the Bush administration has cut funds to international aid groups that provide birth control--another fact that can be conveyed if you persuade people in the pro-life (or anti-choice) movement to listen. But if you start by insulting their religious belief or their purported concern for babies, you only succeed in alienating them.

A sensible approach, I think, as long as you don't give away any ground on access to abortion services.

[FlemingsGhost]

77. Actually, it is called "desperation."

Plain and simple.

[w4rma]

89. Bullcrap. This is the tact that should have been used from the beginning.

But I suppose that there are some Dems who WANT to try to divide the country as best as they can because maybe they personally can't get along with folks.

[d_b]

150. Haha

[hastomen]

222. "no cross" icon

Do you have any idea how offensive your "no cross" icon is? Do you really expect anyone to respect your opinion with that kind of message?

Perhaps this is the kind of "respect" Hilary is calling for in her speech . . .

[d_b]

257. aww

:P

[IndianaGreen]

Ahhh, the new DLC Talking Points on abortion

and as always, the DLC will blame the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for our stubborn obsession with what they will derisively refer as "abortion on demand."

[w4rma]

90. This isn't DLC crap, IG. DLC crap would have been anti-choice. (nt)

[fshrink]

81. Introducing Ms. Lieberman Lite.

Although we had moved way right to wind up dead center, we musta been too far left last time. Well, He! let's go further to the right and maybe we'll get the votes. Logical uh! This is to vomit.

[IndianaGreen]

83. "But then she quickly shifted gears..."

as she prostrated herself at the altar of Operation Rescue.

Between Hillary and Pelosi, who needs enemies?

[Psephos]

84. Politics is the art of finding common ground to build electoral majorities

People who don't understand this don't understand how to win elections. In short, they are political losers.

Bitch bitch bitch about who's noble and pure to the progressive cause, as if politics depends upon nobility and purity, meanwhile the repukes are laughing into their beers.

Is anyone else in here sick of losing?

[IndianaGreen]

91. What common ground could we possibly have with the Taliban?

What's next, eliminate all positive messages about homosexuality in TV and books?

There is no common ground when it comes to the Religious Right!

BTW, all of this groveling to the right-to-lifers will not get us a single vote on Election Day. Democrats cannot out-Republican the Republicans!

[w4rma]

98. How the fuck

is supporting pro-choice, sex-education and social programs "out Republicaning" the Republicans?

Are you *trying* to keep folks divided as possible, IG?

[IndianaGreen]

101. It has the stench of Republican moral sermonizing

Hillary is endorsing the same putrid propaganda the rightwing has been pushing for years.

What is going to be Hillary's next nod to right-to-life, fetal pain?

'Fetal Pain' Bill New Item on Anti-Choice Agenda
Run Date: 08/16/04
By Cynthia L. Cooper
WeNews correspondent

Controversy over fetal pain--if it exists and when it occurs--is building. A congressional bill now proposes that doctors discuss the topic with patients. Opponents say the bill ignores medical disputes and is another attempt to restrict choice.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Anti-choice groups are following up on their successes with President George W. Bush, who has thrown himself behind laws, executive orders and judicial appointments restricting reproductive rights.

Now they are pushing fetal pain, a subject of medical and political controversy for over 20 years, into the legislative arena.

"The natural question for the pro-life movement is what should our next step be?" wrote Paul Weyrich, an anti-choice leader, in a June 25 column on the Free Congress Foundation Web site and republished widely on conservative outlets. Then Weyrich, the chair and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, an ultra conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., went on to answer his own question and pointed supporters toward the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

In May, anti-choice legislators introduced the proposed legislation that requires doctors to read a standard statement about a fetus' capacity to experience pain to women about to undergo abortions.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1951

[w4rma]

103. That's not "Republican" sermonizing. That's how folks down here in the

South talk. You're all bent out of shape about culture when your priority should be policy.

[IndianaGreen]

109. We are in a cultural war, as Pat Buchanan says

The Democrats will not win in the South even if belief in Jesus were made mandatory for party membership! That region of the country has been overrun by the American version of the Taliban.

[w4rma]

113. So you think that proving Buchanan correct is the way to go? I don't. (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

116. The other side has been waging cultural war against Liberalism for years

If you cannot recognize that fact, then you have no chance of ever being able to challenge them effectively, much less defeat them.

[w4rma]

119. As I said before the priority is POLICY not culture.

Trying to change Southern and/or rural culture is futile. If you cannot realize that fact then *you* have no chance of ever being able to challenge them effectively, much less defeat them.

If your policy is sound it will translate effectively into the language of cultures other than your own.

[FlemingsGhost]

95. And insanity is repeating the same action over and over again ...

expecting a different outcome.

Einstein, I believe.

Sick of losing? You bet.

The DLC-lead Party keeps moving to the right, expecting to win elections. November was strike three, as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, your understanding of the art of politics is simplistic and naive. But I would never call you a "political loser." Because "the art of diplomacy is saying 'Nice doggy ...' while trying to find a whooping stick."

Will Rogers.

[w4rma]

96. Sometimes I wonder.

Man, some of the BS I'm reading on this thread is just flat out stubborness.

[Psephos]

128. I hear you, w4rma

On election night, the candidates are sorted into the sheep and the goats. Whichever candidates find common ground with more of the voters have their names put the win column. (Assuming the votes weren't tabulated on Diebold equipment, lol.) The others are, by definition, losers.

I look at the repukes and marvel at how they are able to subvert their differences enough to find a way to send out a unified message of common cause. Not monolithic, by a long shot, but unified enough that it gets through to a majority of voters. (As long as it resonates with 51 out of 100, then it's good enough.) Most people don't vote for policies, they vote for candidates, out of a sense that a candidate has something in common with them, at least nominally respects their views without condescension, and can be trusted to work on solving the problems they confront.

I don't understand this stubborn and righteous attitude in here about not selling out progressive values, not trying to out-right the right. No real Democrat would suggest that. Trying to be someone you're not didn't work in high school, and it sure as shit won't work as a political strategy. Democrat election failures aren't due to lack of right-wing policies, they're due to a (mistaken) sense in the majority of voters that Democratic candidates aren't in tune with what's important to them. The Democratic strategy should not be to turn right, but to show how bedrock Democratic policies and positions actually hold more in common with what's most important to the majority of voters than the policies and positions of the repukes.

I'm not a major Hillary fan, but I've got to hand it to her (or perhaps more accurately, to her political advisor Bill) for understanding how to win over skeptics and opponents. First, you do it piece by piece, over time. Second, you do it by finding actual common ground with the people you want to vote for you, not fake common ground dreamed up by some focus group. Hillary is adamantly committed to protecting abortion rights, now and forever. But she's willing to say there are other ways of approaching the problems of unwanted pregnancies than abortion alone. Ways that do not impinge upon a woman's right to control her own reproductive choices. Hillary also understands that there are a lot of repukes who held their noses when they pushed the * lever in the booth. If Kerry had convinced just one in twenty of the nose-holders that he was more like them than *, he would have won. ONE IN TWENTY. Hillary understands that picking off one in twenty is a doable task. That's smart politics.

We've had our asses handed to us three elections in a row. No Democratic presidential candidate has gotten even 50% of the popular vote in the past seven presidential elections. (Clinton would not have even been elected in 1992 if Perot hadn't run.) I can't think of a starker way to define losers and winners than by who wins and who loses. Someone posted about insanity being the act of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. I couldn't have said it better.

[Qanisqineq]

251. I agree

some people read too much into things and others won't be happy unless Sen. Clinton stands in front of a crowd and says, "Fuck you pro-choicers, we want nothing to do with you." I saw absolutely nothing wrong with what she said.

[fshrink]

97. If you're sick of losing, I suggest

you do like the majority: vote with the tide. Whatever that might be.
And politics is nothing but the art of keeping the people quiet.

[Matilda]

85. Hillary is such a disappointment.

She says she can "respect those who believe with all their heart
and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion
should be available." But where does she say she can respect those
who can see no other way out of an untenable pregnancy?

Abortion is never a good thing, and there would be few women who
undertake it lightly. Those who feel there is no other way,
whether for economic, health, or social reasons, deserve compassion
and support.

I think pro-choice means the right of women not only to choose for
themselves, but their right to be respected for their decision,
whichever way it goes.

Hillary the hard-liner is not an attractive sight.

[IndianaGreen]

94. Condoms prevent AIDS

Let's hear Hillary take the Pope to task for his idiotic opposition to condoms....

chirp... chirp...

[genieroze]

88. What a DINO. eom

[Dervill Crow]

92. Respecting isn't necessarily agreeing

So she said she respects people who "believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available." She didn't say she agrees with them, just that she respects them. And she says that teen celibacy is a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Well, yeah, it is one way. What's the problem? Probably it would be more effective to find some common ground and have some dialogue rather than saying people who are anti-abortion are dumbasses. I'm an ex-right-to-life chapter chair who is vehemently pro-choice. The terms aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[IronLionZion]

102. I, John Ellis Bush, do solemnly swear...

I'm afraid...very afraid. :scared:

[Emillereid]

104. For all of you who think Hillary is simply re-framing the issue a la

Lakoff. I just saw Lakoff on Saturday and one of the things he stressed was that any move to the middle, anything that evokes the other side's frame doesn't change the frame, it simply reinforces and buttresses the frame. What Hillary is doing is saying, I can see your point of view; maybe we on the left are wrong. The use of words like tragic just plays into the right wing's frame. Frames are like a paradigm through which you filter and understand the world; each frame evokes a different set of facts, etc.

We need to continue to evoke the frame of responsible choice; reproductive decision making and privacy; trusting women to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. Abortion should not be isolated from the whole frame of reproductive rights and responsibilities that are really pro-life.

I think through Hillary we are once again hearing Bill Clinton and his awful need to please everyone -- in other words -- pandering!

God -- I want all these politicians and religious do-gooders to leave me and my sisters' and my daughters' sexual/reproductive lives out of their equations -- It's none of their fucking business! We are not returning to back alley butchers and coat hangers!

Yes, I agree that we should educate and arm people with all the information they need to prevent un-intended pregnancies -- but when the test comes back positive, it's only one person's decision and hers alone. That's as far to the middle as I'm going!

[w4rma]

108. You're missing out on another frame that Clinton creates.

Social programs. She introduces social programs as a method of reducing abortions. That is policy that folks who really want to cut down on abortions will have to go to Democrats for. It forces anti-abortionists to make a choice between oppressive laws+coat-hanger abortions or social programs to reduce abortions.

This is not using the Republican frame of reference at all.

Democrats have never thought that abortions were "good" which you seem to want to argue in favor of. Arguing that abortions are "good" is arguing on the Republican frame of reference.

[FlemingsGhost]

112. Social programs? After the "Crusades," where's the money?

Besides, the plan is to eliminate any and all social programs. Jesus Inc. will take care of our needs, remember?

Yup, I was right the first time ... "simplistic and naive" sums it up nicely.

[w4rma]

114. Where's the money for the enforcement of anti-abortion laws?

That costs money too and the anti-abortionists don't care.

[BRockNYLA]

115. Wow, you are persistent

I must hand it to you. You have the patience of Job here. Some people will simply never get it because they don't want to get it. It should be obvious to anyone who reads this article that Clinton has not retreated one iota from choice. Since when is respecting the opposition, while holding your own ground, considered a retreat? Sen. Clinton has offered us probably the most effective framing of this issue that we have had in a very long time. It is the drawing of the line in the sand: We believe in choice. You don't. Let's agree to disagree and lets try to find a way to work together to achieve the mutual goal of reducing abortions in this country. WHO CAN ARGUE WITH THAT!?! The extreme right and the extreme left, of course, will both argue with that position. It is sad, but true. Anyway, I commend you for taking some of these posts seriously enough to respond. Note how most people have gotten their panties in a bunch simply because she expressed some respect for the anti-choice crowd. All the while she stands her ground on the issue. While luring fair-minded moderates to work together she has unleashed the fear of the left. Is there any hope for us at all?

[VegasWolf]

121. Nobody is arguing against reducing abortions. You simply state

the obvious. Many of us here don't believe that mollifying
words like you're okay, I'm okay will do one fucking thing
to help us win votes. Liberalism is in a cultural war and
our side is vacillating. These people aren't going to
suddenly say that pro-choice is acceptable under any circumstances
simply because Hillary that respects them. Sure social
programs to help reduce abortions will be acceptable to all
sides ought to be obvious to even someone with chimp's intellect.
The bottom line is that they will not stop until Roe vs Wade
is overturned.

[BRockNYLA]

123. and what you fail to comprehend

that the target of the reframe is not the extreme right. the audience she is speaking to consists of people in the middle who misunderstand our position as pro-abortion. she is moving the debate beyond the legality of abortion--that is a non-starter for most Democrats. it may be obvious to you and to I that we do not celebrate abortion and we want to reduce abortions, but it is not obvious to many people who should be voting with us. Their bottom line is stopping Roe, but they are on the losing end of this argument because their extremism is revealed when they object to the Clinton reframe. They just look like the silly fools that they are. This frame is not vacillating in any way. It is marginalizing the opposition and putting us on the side of common sense policy.

[VegasWolf]

124. Sorry, we all comprehend that. You seriously believe that non-fundies

are confused as to our position on abortion? This is
where I disagree with the other poster, I think the average
person is smart enough to know that we are not advocating abortion
for the fun of it. I think we lose more by not having a clear
consistent stand. The other side does. I think people in the
middle see us as weaklings struggling for a point. Hillary
looks too much like a common panderer.

[BRockNYLA]

125. I dunno

I guess you have more faith in the average American than I do. how many Catholics were scared in to voting for Bush because they were stupid enough to think he is pro-life? I'd guess way too many. And I'd submit that Bush actually does NOT have a clear position on abortion. All he talks about is a culture of life. it's blah, blah, blah rhetoric. Let anyone ask him if he thinks Roe should be overturned and watch him twist and turn like a lil retarded pretzel. But, I think this Hillary reframe actually clarifies out position pretty nicely. We believe in abortion rights and we believe we should work together to reduce abortions. No reasonable person can argue with that. And all the unreasonable folks can simply kiss our ass. I know it would feel better to people for her to actually use those words, but that is exactly what she has said but with more stealth language. And my bottom line: Hillary is not the enemy. Let's just listen to what our leaders are actually saying. Let's try to understand the political calculus before we jump ship at a slight change in tactics and language. She has not retreated on abortion rights in any way shape or form and this discussion seems to miss that point altogether. Please show me one thing she says in this article that is objectionable beyond her words of respect for the opposing position. These are just words. what is the actual policy? what is the objection to the advocated policy?

[VegasWolf]

127. She "appears" weak and vacillating. Hell even us liberals are

disagreeing about her intentions! Drudge and Rush will
tear her apart. It's not that I have faith in the average person,
I just don't think that this is a hot button for the non-fundies.
If they are ambivalent about choice then by redundant definition, they are ambivalent. I think the bubble in the middle is more
swayed by what appears to be strength. A vacillator is
not going to protect them from the forces of evil that the
neocons have them convinced is waiting for them at the local mall.

[BRockNYLA]

129. May I submit

that Rush and Drudge are not her audience? Who gives a F*** what they think? I surely don't. Liberals are hating on Hillary because they have bought in to the bunk fed to them by MSM, Rush, Drudge, etc. Its really a gross and disgusting thing to watch.

Just to be clear, the agenda associated with this reframe:

Putting Prevention First S. 20

The United States has the highest rate of unintended pregnancies among all industrialized nations.  Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion. By increasing access to family planning services, our bill will improve women’s health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions – all while saving scarce public health dollars.  The Democratic bill will increase access to family planning services, reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.  It will also provide relief to Medicaid by decreasing the financial burden of pregnancy-related and newborn care.  Specifically, our bill will:

Increase Access to Family Planning Services.  This bill increases funding for the national family planning program (Title X) and will allow states to expand Medicaid family planning services to women with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

End Insurance Discrimination Against Women.  The legislation ensures equity and fairness in contraception coverage by ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraception as they do for other prescription drugs and services.

Provide Compassionate Assistance for Rape Victims. Women who suffer sexual assault should not have to face the additional trauma of an unwanted pregnancy.  Our bill ensures that women who survive sexual assault receive factually accurate information about emergency contraception (EC) and access to EC upon request.

Improve Awareness about Emergency Contraception.  Approved by the FDA as a safe and effective means of contraception, EC could substantially reduce the staggering number of unintended pregnancies.  Our bill provides $10 million to implement important public education initiatives about EC and its benefits and uses to women and medical providers.

Reduce Teen Pregnancy. The bill would provide $20 million in annual funding for competitive grants to public and private entities to establish or expand teen pregnancy prevention programs.

Truth in Contraception.  Government-funded abstinence-only programs are precluded from discussing contraception except to talk about failure rates.  A recently study found these programs distort public health data and misrepresent the effectiveness of contraception.  Our bill ensures that information provided about the use of contraception as part of any federally funded program is medically accurate and includes information about the health benefits and failure rates of contraception.

[VegasWolf]

133. I thought that you were arguing that some people in the middle

were the target of Hillary's talk. These people do listen
to conservative commentators. I think we are arguing at cross
purposes. None of us disagree that your listed programs are not fine.
What we disagree on is Hillary's effectiveness. Many of us
believe that the current democratic leadership is ineffectual
and weak. The conservatives pander to their base, and our leaders
now think that being repuke lite will win them votes. Many
of us disagree with this and think that they are alienating
their own base to pick up a few nebulous votes in the middle on
issues these people don't really give a damn that much about.
It's the fundies that are hell bent on abortion and they won't
be placated by Hillary's happy words.

[BRockNYLA]

202. hmmm

I thought you were arguing that Hillary was shifting position in some way. that is clearly not the case. it is most unfortunate that our 'base' only responds to rabid red meat. someone introducing a new, possibly more effective frame of one of our most fundamental issues and she is derided and maligned from with in. It is a sad commentary of our state of affairs. every time Bush says something objectionable to the right the FReepers say, "well, that's just politics. we know what he truly believes" and move on. i wish we had that much discipline on the left.

[VegasWolf]

212. As I said, we disagree, Hillary does not inspire me. I see little

admirable about the woman. I think she is a panderer
and will say anything to get elected.

[athenap]

180. I think the real problem...

...at least the one I have that makes me so ambiguous on what she says, is that we have been saying, "I'm okay, you're okay," all along on a variety of subjects. But the other side returns with, "I'm okay, you hate America and OMG WTF LIBERALS WILL KILL YOUR BABIES AND BURN YOUR HOUSES DOWN AND BRING BACK SATAN!!!1!1!"

On the one hand, I think Hilary did a very clever job in turning the issue away from overturning Roe into pushing for social programs and birth control. She seems to be trying to offer a solution that says, "here is a way to do what you say you want--stop abortions--so if you don't take it, then people are going to start thinking that you don't really want to stop abortions."

It sounds to me on the one hand like she's pandering--not bluntly calling a wingnut a wingnut, which needs to happen in some public forum or another--*somebody* needs to draw a line and say, "look, these foamers are looney-tunes, and what they advocate just plain ain't gonna work in the really real world." But on the other hand, she's rather deftly putting the onus of responsibility on the other side, by offering a solution that works towards their stated goals, and that we can live with as well, but if they don't take will reveal their stated goals to be *not* what they claimed.

But I don't know if subtlety will be effective against the "OMG WTF!!!1!111" screeching of the rightwingnuts.

[cleofus1]

146. amen....

a level headed cogent treatese...my god how unusual on this board.

[Emillereid]

258. I am not arguing that abortion is good -- it's neither good nor bad. It is

just a fact of life. I'd like to think the appropriate frame to evoke might be one that makes one think of responsible women able to make the appropriate decisions regarding their own bodies and reproductive lives -- a private, personal decision. Not anyone else's business. To the extent that it is often a painful, personal decision (again not good or bad), then we might need to talk about our collective responsibilities in making sure that people are educated regarding ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and stds, etc. Education is another right -- not simply a means to an end to prevent women from having to do 'bad' things like terminate a pregnancy.

I think as soon you start referring to abortion with words like tragic or as good or bad or something that society should want to reduce, you are inside the republican frame. Personally I won't give them an inch -- abortion is simply no one else's business. And a woman's right to safe termination procedures is non-negotiable.

Underneath the so-called pro-life movement is a war against women -- their reproductive freedom; their sexuality; their freedom; their independence.

There are people who do honestly believe that human life begins at conception -- then they should act accordingly and carry through with all their pregnancies. I could get nosy and invade their privacy and decide that it might be in the interest of the greater good for them not to bring another child into the world that they can't afford or do not have the resources to give a good start in life or the mental capacity to raise or to have a child that might be retarded or whatever -- we could play the card back and start talking about all these people who continue the pregnancy when all manner of measures indicates that it is irresponsible to bring the child into the world. (My niece found herself pregnant at 18, but just couldn't imagining aborting the 'little baby' and without getting into all the details, that decision was ruinous for all involved!)

Now I'm not going to make women have abortions when they don't want to, but should -- I respect their private, though, tragic decision -- and I expect the same with regard to other women's decision to terminate.

[Bush on crack]

293. abortin is what it is

I think Abortion can be good but is usually bad. Like if somebody is aborting for birth control I find that to be sick and irresponsible, i believe they have a legal right, but still? I counter-protested a clinic in Lexington just because those right wing nut jobs were making me sick with their hypocricy.

What ticks me off is to kill a baby for no reason but you were irresponsible. Look as the left wing we should also be resonsible then we will the hearts back of this glorious country. It's the irresponsible women and men too, that have created this such an issue. I am for freedom but I am for sanity!

[Emillereid]

322. With that thinking you are definitely within the Republican frame --

abortion is not killing a 'baby.' I think the medical term that is used is 'product of conception.' It is not my business nor the government's to pass judgment on why a woman chooses to have an abortion.

[CTyankee]

325. And if you have an abortion because you are "irresponsible"

you should have gone ahead and had the baby, even tho you are still irresponsible? That poor kid!

[flygal]

106. Abstinance programs - bullshit! She pitching faith-based crap again

She should have addressed the fact that abortions have increasedsince * has been in office! Obviously cutting social programs and having out of pocket health care doesn't help.

First she sold out to the banks and walmart during Bill's second term, now she's giving the fundis more clout. I remember her in '92 marching for abortion rights - we need her to be loud again.

[w4rma]

110. sex-education, INCLUDING abstinance education, not excluding everything

else. (Although how one could teach sex ed without teaching abstinance is beyond me, but the emphasis is important in reaching folks who have their hands over their ears.).

[Damien]

111. Think about this

I've read everyone's comments, and I want you all to realize what you're saying. You're condemning her for attempting to lower teen pregnancy. If she can convince SOME of the anti-choicers that sex-ed can do that, isn't that a good thing? Yes, some can be convinced.

BTW. No one is pro-abortion. Some of you seem to want to believe that massive amounts of abortions are a good thing. I've watched several friends go through it, and although I agree with the choice (and the right to it) completely, it's not something you want to happen. Isn't working to prevent abortions from being needed a good thing? They should be a last resort. Sen. Clinton understands that. A legal and safe last resort, but a last resort nonetheless. We should work with ANYONE we can to help lower teen pregnancies through sex-ed (abstinance and other) and whatever else we can.

Stop and think about it.

[VegasWolf]

122. I haven't seen one poster advocating "massive amounts of abortions".

Even a monkey will agree that sex ed is good. We
are talking about the apparent impotence of Hillary's actions.
Happy, mollifying talk won't cut it with these people.

[Swamp Rat]

126. Yeah, leave that to Dumbya.

He's ESPECIALLY good at retroactive abortions.

[DemBones DemBones]

135. When you say "these people" you are assuming that

all pro-lifers are the same. We're not. I have nothing in common with many pro-lifers because many of them are conservatives and support other forms of killing like war and the death penalty, Many of them also oppose sex ed and contraception, which I support. And many of them oppose having the government provide financial help to women who feel economic pressure to abort while I favor such help.

With the country divided as it is, and the GOP in control, Democrats need to stop taking the hard-core "Abortion is a sacrament!" approach and appeal to all the people who want to keep abortion safe and legal but want it to be rare. Because if we don't work out a manageable compromise, the hard-core anti-abortion people will push for a complete ban, and they're likely to win.

I personally don't want abortion banned but I do want the numbers of abortions to decrease. I also want the Democratic Party to be strong again and get the GOP out of office. For those reasons, I applaud what Senator Clinton said. I've not been a big fan of hers but she's doing the right thing here.

For those old enough to remember, another big court decision back in the days of Roe was the SCOTUS ruling that capital punishment was unconstitutional. Our celebrations didn't last long, though, before it was reversed. Roe has lasted 32 years but it's probably not long for this world. Now's the time to choose: build some bridges or just go down in flames.

[VegasWolf]

136. Sorry, where did I say "these people"? I understand your point,

I just disagree with it. I am not convinced that this is
a major issue for the non fundies. I think security concerns
are a much higher priority and they will not be moved to
vote for people they feel are not solid in thier convictions.
Just my opinion, everyone has one.

edit: sorry, just found my 'these people"

[98geoduck]

118. FACE IT, THE CLINTONS SUUUUUCK!

The life out of the Democratic party.

The Clintons ARE Republicans, and one could argue, fairly conservative. This country has swung so far to the extreme right that many just can't get a handle on it.

Anyone who stands between kerry and bush and says "am i the only person that thinks that these are two good men" Is NOT centralizing the party.

Nor is Hillary's plause for Faith based initiatives and anti abortion.
This may appear to be "good political maneuvering" to some people, but it has, and will continue, to Destroy the party as a whole. It does serve her own purpose, however.

They should probably get a clue, and realize that the so called "base" of the party has a bit of intelligence, and has grown TIRED of this sort of pandering and politicking. I would also say that the general public isn't that stupid either.

As an Evangilical Christian Pro- lifer told Dean, "I support you because you have conviction". I'm sure Hillary is not going to sway that woman. Nor is she going to be able to move this country in a direction it has to take in order to survive.

[Freddie Stubbs]

328. If they are Republicans, why

did the Republicans work so hard for eight years to demonize them? :shrug:

[Solly Mack]

130. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Comments expressed by some democratic representatives may not reflect the views of this voter.

[Malva Zebrina]

147. Reading over this thread

I ask myself: How did we come to this point? Women battled their souls out, took great risks, did not back down and we a voice with one message--abortion should be available to ALL women who would make that choice.

How did we get to the point where we now blithly discuss what a woman should do and what women should do, and how they should run theri lives, and how no one wants abortion as if we are talking about a poplulation of faceless, nameless, but human women, nevertheless. Every woman is entitled to choose, according to the law, and no one is privvy to discuss her choices, especially not the state, and ambitious women with a run for a presidency in mind blurring that.

How did we come to this point, where people thought they and the state had a right to jerk the freedom of women around intheir coffee clatches, in their churches, in their meetings and in their speeches to possible voters.

I agree with the posters who think it is pandering to the right, once more. Religion took over, and weak women with no sense of the history of their sister's fight for their freedom and no sense of self esteem, marched like banshees in front of clinics (which btw, DID offer contraceptive counseling) injured workers in those clinics, set fires, and some assassinated doctors. They were applauded by their ministers, priests and "thought" they were doing the right thing. This needs to be "respected"? Does anyone really think these religious are going to stop their crusade to allow the state to take over the body and the lives of women? Who is behind the abstiinence only programs that leave out important health information re sex? These people will NOT stop their assault on women and will not stop forcing pregnancy on those women to save a "baby" which we now see being debated whether or not cells feel pain.

as for the proclamation in #129 post

all well and good. Sounds good.eh? That's proof Hillary is NOT tacitly approving of those fanatics eh?

Truth in Contraception. Government-funded abstinence-only programs are precluded from discussing contraception except to talk about failure rates. A recently study found these programs distort public health data and misrepresent the effectiveness of contraception. Our bill ensures that information provided about the use of contraception as part of any federally funded program is ...

The Catholic Church to this day, does not support contraception in any form. It is responsible for supporting the removal of funds for overseas women's health clinics, and responisble for witholding condoms as a means of contraception and health protection from those who may want to limit their family and may even have AIDS. The Catholic hospitals will NOT counsel women who have been raped, nor provide them with emergency treatment to prevent pregnancy, nor will they provide contraceptive counseling, nor will they hire doctors who do not agree, nor will they proveide surgical contraceptive approaches, such as vasectomy or tubal ligation. Women in need are forced to travel, in some areas, more than a hundred miles, or more, to seek the health care they need. And that goes for the other paragraphs in that bill , as well

How does "respecting" that help women? This speaking of the women who would be involved as if we owned them and as if they needed to be counseled is ridiculous. They should have unlimmited access to all and any clinic and all and any other services a clinic would provide re women's health--pap smears, breast exams etc. To speak of women as if they were a class that everyone needs to take part in analysing and deciding what is "best" for women is ridiculous. Leave them alone-we see no such discusion about men's reproductive lives anywhere--We should not even have to be discussing this at all

It is obviously political on the part of Senator Clinton

The people who have successfully convinced women that a blob of cells is a "baby" and all women should not "kill" their baby are NOT going to give up trying to kill Roe vs Wade. Moving toward the middle seems like such a good way to get elected, except when you read the history and recognize how much womena have lost so far since RVW It was such a noble victory for women and their health. Now those same women are being bandied about, victims of religion and politics. Leave them and their lives alone. Trust me, they know how to live their life without your help.

[CWebster]

152. The irony is the Clintons were swept into office

on the prochoice agenda.

Bill, with his sleazy behavior with an intern, made the women's movement out as hypocrites and idiots. Clinton tainted the office and damaged the credibility of the Democratic party. Now Hillary cheapens herself with her naked ambition to muddy the issues to her own perceived advantage, leaving the perception again of a a party without a clear purpose, shifting with manufactured consensus.

Even Dean at the helm,drumming up support, won't inspire me to support more of the same losing has-beens, seeking their own self-aggrandizement at the expense of all else.

[IndianaGreen]

154. We made a mistake in our blind support of Clinton on the Broderick case

Instead of withholding judgment until all the evidence was in, we knee jerked Juanita Broderick as a liar.

[CWebster]

157. And from what I understood, Paula Jones

went to the feminists and they mocked her and called her "trailer trash".

[Bono71]

176. What does that have to do with Hillary Clinton? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

277. CWebster's post 152 makes the connection to Hillary

and I will quote CWebster here:

Bill, with his sleazy behavior with an intern, made the women's movement out as hypocrites and idiots. Clinton tainted the office and damaged the credibility of the Democratic party. Now Hillary cheapens herself with her naked ambition to muddy the issues to her own perceived advantage, leaving the perception again of a a party without a clear purpose, shifting with manufactured consensus.

[KissMeKate]

284. not true

I read somewhere a NOW contingent offered to help her, but made the mistake of contacting her lawyer, not her directly. The lawyer (conservative) told NOW to fuck off. NOW thought that was Jones's view.

I believe if I am not mistaken, Anne Coulter was Paula Jones's lawyer.

NOW should have raised hell when we heard about Juanita Broderick.

[IndianaGreen]

288. Rutherford Institute and Gilbert Davis were Paula Jones's legal team

Anthrax Annie was not Paula Jones's lawyer.

[KissMeKate]

303. haha anthrax annie

but she was someones lawyer

ah I think it was that linda tripp!

[KissMeKate]

269. I agree- I believe Juanita Broderick.

I didnt know about her at the time- I was one of the NOW members who protested in front of the capital when the impeachment vote was going down. lol, I even gave an interview to the local news.


I was a yellow dog, thru and thru- and I hated republicans- (and still do)- but when the smoke cleared, and I stepped back, and looked at the situation, I realised, when a woman says she is raped, I usually believe her. I wish I knew of those allegations before I went up there on that bus with my fellow NOW members, who were just as clueless as I was about Juanita Broderick (sp). (I am sorry, Ms Broderick.)

I feel like I sold my feminist soul for Bill Clinton- and looking back at his policies, I sold it TOO CHEAPLY!

[noamnety]

148. Reframing, and making the same points we keep trying to make

Sounds like she was leading the anti-choicers gently to an understanding that democratic policies WORK to reduce the number of abortions.

Everyone here who has argued the point that abortions going down under Clinton, up under Bush, should get what she was saying.

The best way to reduce abortions is to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And the best way to do that is real education, not just "Don't have sex" but rather "Not having sex has advantages, but if you decide to have it, here are the options for birth control and how they work". And then make those options available and affordable.

She never said abortion shouldn't be a legal option, all she said was that democratic policies come closer to achieving the goals that abortion-foes appear to want: no abortions. Neither republicans nor democratics can or will achieve that goal. Republicans may make it illegal, but that won't eliminate it. Democrats will leave it legal, but reduce the causes. Neither eliminates it altogether, but democrats come closer, so perhaps the democrats should be talking to the antichoicers, and they should be listening.

[CWebster]

156. Garbage

She is seeking to impose a moral judgement around the issue where there should be NONE!

[noamnety]

160. What was the moral judgment she was imposing?

I guess I missed it.

Who was she passing judgment on?

[CWebster]

163. First paragraph:

Proposing NEW POLITICAL LANGUAGE about abortion rights for the Democratic Party, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "SAD, EVEN TRAGIC CHOICE FOR MANY, MANY WOMEN"

Right there she capitulates to the moral judgement. Let me tell you, I have escorted women at clinics to shield them from these very same yelled accusations from men clutching rosaries and I KNOW that these women suffered no anxiety or remorse and, if anything, were hostile towards those who would stand in their way.

[noamnety]

171. I'm still not seeing a moral judgment

If you can't concisely say who she was passing judgment on, and what the judgment is, it's a sign you're reading something into it that isn't there.

For many women it IS a sad choice. That's a reality. It makes many (NOT ALL, NOT MOST, but MANY) women sad. That's not saying it was a good choice or a bad choice; it's not saying they are good or bad women. It's not saying they regret it. It's not passing judgment. It's just acknowledging an emotion.

[Bono71]

173. Very true. n/t

[CWebster]

174. No, you are not seeing it

because you have been conditioned not to see it.

It isn't "tragic", or "sad" for many women as you claim to know as if it was the reality--THAT IS THE SPIN THE RIGHT DELIBERATELY presents it as. You know what most women experience? Relief. Relief is the emotion.

You know how they are always demanding that doctors who provide abortions should be jailed? Notice it is never the women who actually seek abortions. It is as if women are not even responsible for their own ability to make decisions--it is the doctor's fault.

Can you see where that, all so subtle bias lies at the heart of what we view as commonplace? Women are cast as controlled not as in control.

[noamnety]

181. Relief and sadness can go together

I was sad when I got divorced - and it was absolutely the right thing to do, and I was happy about it at the same time, and I had no regrets about it. Maybe that's too nuanced for some people, but it was all within the range of emotions I felt.

I'm sure there are a number of us who have either had abortions or had close friends who did, that have had that sadness within the emotions they experienced. You can be sad over things that never happened.

If you were a doctor counseling a woman who is sexually active and doesn't want to have a child, would you advise them to use birth control?

Or would you advise them to take their chances and have an abortion if they need one?

Most responsible doctors I know would advise the first choice. You make that sound like it's casting judgment to advise birth control over abortion. THAT'S the attitude I would fight against.

[Bono71]

182. No my friend...speaking from experience (anecdotal, I know)

at least some women experience mental anguish over the decision. Trust me. It is irresponsible (at best) to state abortion is immoral...it is equally irresponsible to state that some women don't feel anguish over the decision to have one....

[rodeodance]

199. Hil is not imposing a moral judgement on anyone (or on any group)

[Malva Zebrina]

166. If only women were educated

we could reduce the abortion rate. I don't think it anyone's business what the abortion rate is just as it is not their concern what the hysterectomy rate or the gall bladder rate is. For some reason, people, especially religious people, hang on that as if it is in an indication of how bright and pure or black and ugly women are. What does it indicate and what does it signify if the rate is high or if the rate is low? If high, does that mean that women are becoming amoral?(killing babies) If low, does that mean women are being educated and more moral, even the thirty five year old married woman who already has five children,and is educated, but made a mistake.

[noamnety]

178. It's pretty simple

You are right, it's nothing to do with morals.

It does, however, serve as an indicator of whether women are educated about birth control, have access to it, can afford it, and - if they want a child - that they can afford it.

I didn't see anywhere in the article where anyone was put down for having an abortion, or any references to bright or pure or black or ugly, I don't understand why you're dragging that into it.

[Malva Zebrina]

200. My view is that we do not need to be talking aobut it at all

:shrug: See my original post above. I wonder what makes this issue one which needs to be brought up at all. There are two reasons for the publicity re abortion--religion and politics and in this issue they blend and meld. It is considered a national disgrace or some sort of crisis, embarrassment etc. when abortion rates are high or are rising (we can do better) and it is a national accomplishment when they are lowered.(we have educated women, we are fighting this need for abortion etc) Why?

I apologize for my testy post. I could have made the point with more grace.

[Bono71]

236. I think it is a good thing when there are fewer abortions if it means

there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.

[JerseygirlCT]

216. I'm ardently pro-choice and I agree with your assessment

There's nothing wrong, IMHO, with working toward making abortion less necessary. The right has worked ONLY on making abortions less legal and accessible. Reaching toward common ground: better, more affordable and available birth control and sex education, better options for pre-natal and infant health care, better options for adoption... none of this impairs a woman's right to make a private medical decision herself.

So long as that right remains legally inviolate, I applaud anyone's attempts to lessen the need for abortions.

The choice side has often taken a strict, unyeilding position on the issue, fearful of a slippery slope leading toward the degradation of our rights. While I completely understand this, (when your back's up against the wall you don't feel like being accomodating), I think that we need a two-pronged approach: finding a way to insure the continued legality of abortion and shutting down the continuing legal challenges to both availablity and legality, and then finding ways to build bridges to the many sincere people on the "other side" of the issue who would be quite comfortable working toward lessening the need.

I don't have a problem with finding common ground -- in the long run, that's what's going to protect our rights.

[BiggJawn]

149. Stop teaching "Abstinence". and make contraception readily available

INCLUDING the "morning after" pills.

She must be drinking the same water Evan Bayh was drinking when he got to DC....

"Mrs. Clinton said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sexual relations,..."

Uh, I thought it might have something to do with them just not wanting to fuck? Or maybe fear of getting horse-whipped by their parents?

Hillary, I hardly know ye.....Where did all the DINOsaurs go? Why, the US Senate, of course....

[noamnety]

158. Go reread the article

That's what she's pushing for. Readily available contraception INCLUDING the morning after pill. That's what you want, that's what she's pushing.

There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching abstinence - in ADDITION to teaching about birth control and STD prevention. The problems come in when you focus the entire program on it, and then expect a majority of students to actually be abstinent - because it's not reality based (and even if it were, they would need the information anyway - for when they get married). Heck, we teach about the pill, but I don't think that's the ONLY option they should be exposed to.

For the life of me, I can't find any policies in that article that people here should be opposed to.

Just curious, are most of you that are upset about the article already opposed to Hillary?

[BiggJawn]

170. Maybe it's the MSM

" The problems come in when you focus the entire program on it, and then expect a majority of students to actually be abstinent "

Which is what the BFEE is pushing for, and my just-got-up-and-hadn't-had-coffee-yet brain gleaned from the article.

And you're right. On a more-awake re-read, it's fine.

It must be the MSM. I'm picking up a subtle movement to position not only Hillary, but the Big Dawg hisself as a coupla DINO's. I'm confused. Are they or aren't they?

In the case of Evan Bayh, though, there's no mistake. the man's drunk the Kool-Aid.

[athenap]

185. Probably accurate

""Mrs. Clinton said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sexual relations,...""

That's probably an accurate statement. But not quite relevant, due to not many students actually abstaining. Chess Club is the primary reason students play competitive chess--but how many kids are actually in the chess club? Jeebus may be the primary reason little Suzie signed an abstinence pledge, but if she's the only girl in school to have done so, that doesn't make the statement any more or less true than if every kid in school had done so. It's just not really relevant.

[CWebster]

155. Midwives burned at the stake as witches

More of the patriarchy's determination to control women by dominating women's choices on a fundamental level and imposing a morality on the biological functioning of their bodies.

Same as it's ever been.

Hillary is just trying to gain entrance into the good old boy's club if it means a step up for herself.

[Freddie Stubbs]

161. Sounds just like Bill's stance on this issue

How many women were denied an abortion due to his policies?

[Bono71]

169. Zero. n/t

[Gothic Sponge]

162. The Green Party looks better every day.

[Bono71]

168. Good lord people on this board either a) can't read or

b) are extremely knee-jerk...

The article clearly states she is for abortion rights. Please tell me, what is wrong with trying to find COMMON GROUND on the topic of UNWANTED PREGNANCIES???!!!??? Sheesh. It's not like she is preaching abstinence only or a ban on all abortion or even a 24 hour waiting period....

Give me a break. Unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. Let's try to reduce them...

[d.l.Green]

175. The problem is that this moves the argument closer to

where the rightwingnuts want it to go. I heard a very perceptive editorial this morning by a Democratic woman(who?) on NPR today that made this point and said that this would muddy the issue and assure that a bunch of white men who have no chance of being in a woman's position would decide their fate. No matter how you feel about this issue this point is extremely relevant. She also said that without a clear defense of abortion rights by any of our leaders that this would seal the direction this is going...

[Bono71]

179. Well, I disagree with her thoughts, but I appreciate the

tone and the point of view. I also understand the idea that in some instances (granted, not many), pro-life and pro-choice people can find common ground and accomplish a set of goals that would benefit women (reduction of unwanted pregnancies comes to mind).

It is irresponsible (at best) to state that abortion is immoral. It is equally irresponsible to pretend that an abortion is "no big deal" and does not cause a great deal of mental anguish to at least some of the women who choose to terminate their pregnancies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

177. People read what they want the word to say

Some will jump at any chance to bash a Democrat.

[Bono71]

183. I am starting to wonder if this is the DU or the GU (Green Underground) n/

[Southern Dem 2005]

187. Agreed

I'm not sure why anyone can't recognize that there is a ton of disagreement on this issue. Pro-life and pro-choicers spend too much time arguing about their respective positions instead of working towards a solution. I for one support, within limits (like no late-term or partial-birth) abortion rights but that doesn't mean I think they are a good thing. Everyone should work together to reduce the cause of abortions, which is usually unwanted pregnancies.

[JerseygirlCT]

217. I agree.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

184. Now that's funny

complaining about people who cast judgment on others ... by calling them a whore.

[JackieO]

190. whatever dude

Who's complaining? You must have me mixed up with someone else - I'm used to this crap from her and I'm laughing at it.

"complaining about people who cast judgment on others"

Hmmm... wtf are you talking about.

"calling them a whore"

Call 'em like I see 'em.

[CWebster]

229. "Dude" and don't you know it

Whaddaya want to bet they are dudes?

[noonwitch]

192. I agree with Hillary, abortion should be legal, but unwanted pregnancies

are the real issue here. There are good people on the other side of the abortion debate who do put their time and money into helping pregnant women who don't want to have abortions. The anti-abortion side has the right and responsibility to provide alternatives, as long as they are not trying to trick women with deceptive ads to get them in the door and then berate them for wanting an abortion.

Even if we disagree with them, we at least need to understand why they think abortion is wrong. There might be some who oppose abortion who are about keeping women "barefoot, pregnant and powerless", but that's not most of them. They oppose abortion because they think it's murder. Deomonizing them for their beliefs is not going to solve anything, and it does make the pro-choice side look bad when we do it.

My grandparents raised two handicapped children, both of whom were deaf from RH incompatibility and one who also had cerebral palsy, due to contracting a dysentary-like disease in the hospital nursery after he was born. They are anti-abortion because they loved their children and worked hard to give them good lives. They didn't have the option of abortion and reliable contraception, and Rho-gam hadn't been invented yet. I don't agree with them, but I understand why they feel the way they do.

I've lived my life in a way to ensure that I would never face a choice like that, because it can't be an easy decision to make. Even with that, I wouldn't hesitate to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, or if I discovered that the fetus had a serious deformity (not Downs, or blindness, deafness, etc.). I don't need the government making that decision for me.

[mamalone]

197. Thank you!

I am a pro-life Dem(I posted my views more fully above, post 189)..and I appreciate your tolerant understanding of the "other side":toast:

[progressivebydesign]

205. A wonderfully reasonable post in a sea of hyperbole. thanks!!! n/t

[FreeStateDemocrat]

193. Hillary is splitting the Democratic Party for shortsighted political gain.

[Bono71]

194. Looks to me like the party is already split. n/t

[hector459]

195. Believe me, opponents of Roe v Wade will not give an inch.

The opposition never gives an inch on any issue. This is why Dems will never win anything again in country. They don't know how to fight and they never stand on their own principles.

[Solly Mack]

196. Of course they never give an inch and any opening they view as a weakness

to exploit..and they will exploit it.

[mamalone]

198. Poppycock!

Surely some pro-lifers will...the radical fringe of the group. But there are many other pro-lifers who are more moderate and are yearning for "common ground"...myself being one of them! The only way we can solve this problem is to listen to each other and find areas of agreement. As long as you demonize those with the opposite view and refuse to dialog there will be no movement- no progress...especially when the other side is in power! I applaud Sen Clinton and I think she has taken the most progressive, most inclusive and tolerant view. She is not wavering on the right to choose, she made that clear..she is just saying let's find something we can agree on and work on that! Kudos to her for being willing to think outside of the box!

[Solly Mack]

204. So? I don't want dialog with people who can't state without exception

it's a woman's choice, period. There is no common ground unless that can be stated without exceptions.

You don't have to like it. I don't care.

And the Catholic church will fight contraceptions(it's a big No-No to the church)...are they this "fringe" group you speak of? :)

[Bono71]

207. With all due respect, that's rather narrow minded...

I'll never vote for an anti-choice candidate, but the two sides can at least work on coming up with ways to stop unwanted pregnancies (which is what Clinton was talking about). If there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, there will probably be fewer abortions...this is a good thing...

[Solly Mack]

208. What the fuck ever...with all due respect (see how that works?)

I've worked toward lowering pregnancies. Mainly among teenagers. It's a fight to get proper sex ed. in schools. It's a fight to make some groups understand contraceptions are the way to go. There are vocal groups out there that do NOT WANT women using contraception period. Not even the "morning after pill" when they are raped.

It's just one more fight that's part of the exact same fight.

It's not as if people aren't already fighting to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

It's the same fight.

[Bono71]

209. Your response is somewhat troubling in that

you paint with an extremely broad brush. There are plenty of pro-life people that are ok with contraception. True, some (maybe many) are not comfortable with it, and it may very well be impossible to work with those people...

But to summarily write-off a large portion of the population as totally irrelevant and impossible to work with, is at best, childish and short-sighted.

Oh, and nice profanity.

[Solly Mack]

210. There are some, yes...but those people aren't the ones I'm fighting

against.

You must know the vocal ones will fight contraceptions as a means to lower unwanted pregnancies tooth and nail...because they already do.


I've been too long at this fight to trust an offer of middle ground. Past experiences have shown me you give an inch, they take a mile.

Until evidence points in the other direction, I'll maintain a safe distance and push for a woman's complete freedom to abort, give birth, and screw to her heart's content.

See? I don't care if a woman has zero kids or 20 kids. I'm all about choice. Her womb is none of my business.

I'm also about educating women & men (all forms of education...not just sex ed)...which has the wonderful benefit of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

I don't see abortion as a "tragic" choice either...but rather a necessary choice that can cause sorrow. Subtle difference...but a very important one.

I'm leary after years and years of fighting. Surely you can understand that?

[Bono71]

214. Hell yeah I am leary of

the religious right...

But, I don't agree with people (men or women) screwing to their heart's content if they can't afford/don't want to 1) pay for an abortion or 2) raise children...which seems to be going on a lot in this country. I don't want a Taliban-style government that legislates what we do in the bedroom, but I'd like some of the adolescents out there to think before they fuck (I can use it to, baby) themselves into a potentially dangerous medical procedure or a child they do not want and can't pay for (because we all know who's gonna end up paying for it--you and me, in more ways than money).

I think both groups can work together to reduce some of the statistics (if they are truly for the benefit of women).

[Solly Mack]

218. I'd like responsibility in people but I'm not holding my breath either

As for teens...let me tell you....they tell themselves some amazing things. Part of the problem is their home environment....not poor and uneducated...just lacking in communication with their parents.

As I used to say about my students: "Your parent is showing"

I accept paying for the "ills" of society. Yes, I want to lower those "ills", but in the meantime, I'll fork over those tax dollars to ease the burden. Just wish tax dollars were spent more productively. :) Begins with education

I have no say whatsoever in a person's reproductive matters. If they wanna have children, fine...if they don't, fine...if they want to abort, fine...if they want to put up for adoption, fine...if they want to keep the child, fine.

I want women to be able to make the choice that's best for them.

I want teens to learn to love themselves first...self-love and self-respect go a long way in reducing teen pregnancy...

however, that won't stop all teens from having sex...and neither will sex ed, fear of poverty, moralizing,fear of STDS...or what have you. Limiting choices/options isn't the way to go either.

A good many teens will do the deed no matter what.

I want options in place for those teens...because not everyone will behave in their own best interests.

[VegasWolf]

220. Solly, well said. n/t

[KissMeKate]

266. who are you calling "baby"?

you said, "I can use it too, baby"

- who are yopu referring to? Are you calling another poster a baby?

[fortyfeetunder]

201. I will only respect the pro-life movement

When they suppress the bastards who harrass women entering clinics, put an end to the maiming and killing of health care professionals, and stop the vandalism at womens health care clinics.

I don't ever expect them to respect a woman's reproductive right.

[Bono71]

211. Do you really think a majority of pro-lifers want clinics to be

blown-up/vandalized and doctors murdered?

[progressivebydesign]

203. This thread illustrates, once again, why Democrats keep losing..

I have to laugh when I see threads like this, or else I'd cry. I suggest we rename the party "The Smart and the Clueless".

Let's just say I consider Hillary smart. VERY smart. For those of you who don't get it, you just keep standing your ground, and we'll never see another Democrat in power again. I'm shocked at how many people have no clue what is really going on right now...

[Bono71]

206. Count me in as part of the group that thinks

Hillary is smart. Let's see, two democrats have won election since 1968 (TWO!!)...both were pragmatists and both were comfortable with religion....

[VegasWolf]

215. And I will remain part of the crowd that doesn't equate smart

with cheap politicking.

[napi21]

223. I d call it cheap politics.

Several times in recent weeks, I've heard different Dems saying that we criticize the Pubs for refusing to accept different views in their party, and we say we include everyone. Why is it then that any time we hear of a Dem politician who says something like, I think abortion is wrong, or gay marriage is wrong, we slam their head into the floor, and call them not real Dems?

Every time I hear that, I question the same thing. I have the same views, but I also don't want to see Roe overturned, or anyone messing with the constitution for religious beliefs. I've voted for Dems all my life. Even when I don't necessarily like the Dem candidate, I look carefully at those running, and ALWAYS deciding that the Dem candidate is the best choice.

What's wrong with that philosophy?

[VegasWolf]

224. Nothing that I can see! n/t

[plasticsundance]

225. And during the 2008 Democrat primary debates

Someone from the MSM will pose the question to Hillary Clinton along the lines:

Senator Clinton, you're on record stating the following:

"The fact is, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

If that is your position Senator Clinton, you do realize that some in your party believe that minors should not have to ask for parental consent to have an abortion? Where do you stand on this issue? Since you're on record as saying education is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't the parents play a role in the education of their children, including counseling a child that might want to have an abortion?

The way she answers a question like this will be crucial for me in determining whether Hillary Clinton is a viable candidate. The problem as I see it, when one begins to reframe the issues in seeking a common ground, sooner or later, one trips themselves up with their own language. If she sounds the least bit evasive, she'll get clobbered in the MSM.

Incidentally, I'm a man and I'm very pro-choice. A woman's choice means a woman's choice. Period.

Abortion is not a simple issue, and couching the language as Clinton did in this particular article only further takes away from the complexity of the issues.

Consider that the Bush Administration is taking funding away from organizations working abroad that teach birth control to women in the developing world. Clinton should clobber the Republicans on this issue. Instead, she's preaching about "teen celibacy". Instead, she gives more fodder for those on the right.

[VegasWolf]

226. Well said. I can hear the "flip-flop" now. n/t

[w4rma]

228. You should realize Clinton's rhetoric on this issue mirrors Kucinich's

I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and child care and universal health care and a living wage. And because I know that the right to choose is under attack, we must make sure that only judges who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade are appointed to the Supreme Court.
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/rightsreproductive.php

Exact same rhetoric.

[CWebster]

230. Kucinich, in this circumstance, is not the best choice

to model oneself on Choice.

[w4rma]

231. I think Kucinich is right on target on this issue, also.

He didn't used to be when he was anti-choice, but he is now.

[plasticsundance]

238. What I find ironic

Are those DUers that are stating on this topic that Clinton has a right (no pun intended) to find a common ground, but they are some of the same DUers that are using the most nasty language against their fellow DUers.

It's not 2008. We have not only a right, but as voters we have an obligation to decide and educate ourselves as to who will be the best candidate. When the Democrat primaries for president get in full swing, I'll decide which candidate will offer the best and most viable platform for the party and the nation. Some might decide that another candidate best fits that bill, and that is their decision. I have no problem if someone thinks Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for 2008, but I'm not yet convinced Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in.

When I read fellow DU posters writing things like, "As a Clinton supporter I believe you are way out of line," I not only doubt the veracity of his/her position, but I'm also troubled by such an aggressive attitude.

I think this fear Democrats have of losing makes them think the best decision is to become an ox instead of a donkey.

In addition, from what I've heard or read thus far from Hillary Clinton, it doesn't sound like she's finding a common ground, as much as it sounds like appeasement.

According to the American Heritage College Dictionary one definition of the word appeasement I think fits for what it appears to me that Hillary Clinton is doing in some of her statements:

To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle

[Cocoa]

227. I agree

massive stupidity here, the abortion issue never fails to bring out the worst in people.

Of course, Hillary's completely right in wanting to find common ground on abortion. Duh!

[Psephos]

240. Amen n/t

[yellowcanine]

232. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that faith and organized

religion are the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sex. I suspect any careful study would show that church going teenagers are just as slutty as anyone else - maybe more so.

[Bono71]

233. I can't help but think of the Billy Joel song (dating myself, perhaps)

Only the Good Die Young...

"Catholic Girls Start much to Late..."

[CWebster]

234. Which is, of course, why

there is the highest percentage of out of wedlock pregnancies in the bible belt.

[Bono71]

235. I bet that is true...not a whole lot to do down there...and there

are some very attractive people...a powder keg for procreation...boredom + good looking people.

[Guaranteed]

237. I have to give Hillary a pass on this, as a Dean supporter,

only because Dean has said similar things recently about "opening a dialogue" with anti-abortionists.

However, I will say that it sounds much more believable to me when Dean says that he's not going to give actual ground to them- Hillary and Bill do not have my trust.

[emad]

241. Sen. Clinton Rips Bush on Family Planning

Guardian

Tuesday January 25, 2005 3:16 PM

By MARC HUMBERT

Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton complained the Bush administration was shortchanging family planning efforts and said that may be causing abortion rates to go up.

In a speech to about 1,000 fellow abortion rights supporters Monday, the New York Democrat said all sides on the issue should work together to reduce the number of abortions.

``Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion, and I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and minds that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available,' the former first lady said.

``There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate. We should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved,' she added.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4754790,00.html

[rodeodance]

242. this article has Hil. putting the problem on the WH polices--where it

should be--.

[Goldeneye]

243. She hasn't changed her position at all.

If anything, she is taking a stand. I think she is handling it very well.

[demnan]

244. Yes how ironic that Bush isn't for family planning

when Granddaddy Prescott Bush was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood.

[AlCzervik]

245. 41 used to be pro-choice too until the lunatic right

told him he was going no where in the gop until he became anti-choice.

[w4rma]

246. Right on target. (nt)

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

252. I've lost it for common ground and making nice with the other side

Where has it gotten us?

Look at the hostile MURDEROUS republicans. They won't bend.

We must stop bending to them.

We need to call them on their insanity and biggotry.

Hillary, wake up.

[Bono71]

254. What about pro-life independents (are they murderous too?) n/t

[superconnected]

260. if they're pro killing iraqis

[Bono71]

263. And that has what to do with abortion? n/t

[superconnected]

265. sorry, thought you could interpret it.

Ms. Clinton is trying to find common ground.

I'm saying that dems have been trying to find common ground and bend all along. It isn't helping. We have murderous republicans that won't bend.

what does it have to do with abortions... gee, that's your interpretation, I was talking about enough bending. Perhaps you should re-read. Or just consider some people have wider views,as opposed to narrow ones, on topics.

[Massachusetts]

253. Any Democrat that doesn't want to adhere to the Democratic philosophy

can go and join the "other" side.

[Bono71]

255. So now Hillary isn't a true dremocrat, simply because she states

that we can found common ground on preventing unwanted pregnancies? That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[superconnected]

261. actually his aren't the dumbest posts I'm reading

someone elses are...

[Sterling]

304. I agree.

nt

[EVDebs]

256. Legally it all comes down to when life begins. 24 weeks ?

is the curren legal standard. Then Pro-Lifers should have no problem with birth control. Already, the vast majority of Catholics (correct me if I am wrong) use some form of birth control here in the US (and I assume also in Europe). Pro-Lifers should therefore have no problem with "Plan B" a.k.a. "The Morning After Pill" since it is something that a woman can take after-the-fact within a few days if she hadn't used precautions.

This makes Pro-"Life" arguments difficult, since it is something that is completely up to the informed woman's choice. If she was wise enough to use b.c. before the act, it is something she can do for herself within a day or so without complete knowledge of whether or not a zygote fertilized egg had even indeed resulted.

Zygotes are not recognized as having rights, and in fact throughout history the viability of the fetus outside of the mother has been the determining factor in the law. 24 weeks it appears is now the standard ? see:

""Given this legal foundation, much of the ensuing debate has been in determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and thereby requiring protection of the state), or under the control of the mother. The advent of medical technology has enhanced the ability of a fetus to live outside the womb from 28 weeks old down towards 24 weeks making the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated"" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Post number 68 above regarding the Netherlands was most informative. Regarding PREVENTING abortions, you would think promoting ALL forms of birth control, even the Plan B, would be something Pro-Lifers could join with Pro-Choicers on, since nowhere near 24 weeks is involved.

You would think. I remember hearing back in the '80's that the Roman Catholic church owned a condom factory in Europe....I think this was in "In God's Name" by David Yallop.

There appears to be something else going on here. And if Pro-Lifers are attempting something besides actually helping women, who may be pregnant, make an INFORMED CHOICE, then they indeed are attempting the use of some form of force and coercion. No one appreciates such "help".

[IndianaGreen]

283. Life begins at conception, and that is Roe's greatest weakness!

Roe was premised on fetal liability, based on medical science at the time. Advances in medicine since then have made fetal liability a liability for Roe by making it possible to have a fetus become viable much earlier than Justice Blackmun ever imagined. We are not far from the day in which science will be able to nurture a fertilized egg all the way to full development and "birth."

Archibald Cox, who achieved fame as the first Watergate prosecutor, referred to Roe as "a set of hospital rules and regulations" whose validity will be destroyed with "new advances in providing for the separate existence of a fetus." Historically the unborn was recognized as a person based on the medical knowledge of each historical era.

One cannot ignore the possibility that further advances in neonatal care developments will continue to push viability closer to the point of conception. Since viability in Roe marks the earliest point at which the State can impose restrictions on abortion, it would be within the realm of possibility for a State to intervene on behalf of the unborn the moment a woman first finds out she is pregnant without violating what remains of the Roe construct.

A concern over the vulnerability of Roe has prompted many prochoicers to look for other arguments that could be used to preserve the right to choose. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the two attorneys that represented the plaintiffs in Roe, discussed using the gender discrimination argument when they were preparing for trial. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would violate her right to due process of law. The argument parallels the one used in racial discrimination cases. Weddington and Coffee did not emphasize the gender discrimination argument because there was a lack of precedent in 1971.

In a 1985 article written for the North Carolina Law Review, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for being based on the right to privacy rather than on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ginsburg argues that abortion prohibitions should have been linked to discrimination against women. The conflict, according to Ginsburg, is not "simply one between a fetus' interests and a woman's interests ...nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course" and "her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen."

Recommended Reading:

McDonnell, Kathleen. Not An Easy Choice: A Feminist Re-examines Abortion. Boston: South End Press, 1984.

Pojman, Louis, and Beckwith, Francis, eds. The Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe v. Wade. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998.

Weddington, Sarah. A Question of Choice. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

[superconnected]

264. and for some religious it's also the does it have a soul, question

What's great about being pro-choice is being able to choose not to have an abortion as well as to have one.

MS Clinton really needs to be stressing that.

I can't imagine what her common ground is, other than that. But she didn't state that so I'm upset with her.

Remember she's dealing with people who want to choose for everyone. Their choice is no abortion for anyone. She should have been far more direct with them.

[EVDebs]

268. Hmmm. Seems like 'pro-LIFE' is really 'anti-birth-control' when

you get right down to it !

[KissMeKate]

271. Do you really believe that?

Do you actually believe, when you think about people who want to preserve the right to abortion, that they OPPOSE birth control?

Do you actually think that?

[EVDebs]

282. Sorry, I meant "Pro Life" is really "Anti-Birth Control" mea culpa and

please read the Democratic agenda item on 'prevention'
http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

""S. 20: Putting Prevention First. Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage. We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health. We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.""

I'll go back and see if time has passed for edit on prior post !

[KissMeKate]

286. right on Dem platform- contraceptive coverage equity

every HMO/ insurance plan open to the public should be required to cover birth control- period.

[KissMeKate]

267. I have worked in an abortion clinic

Abortion is a surgical procedure- nothing more, nothing less.

For the women who have abortions (and you would be surprised how many have) the surgery means what they believe it to mean. Some women grieved, and I helped them with that. But most of the women whose
abortions I was proud to assist with were RELIEVED!

So Hillary boohooing about how "abortion is so sad" etc, doesnt help anyone but the pro birthers (if they were pro life they would oppose the war and the death penalty, and our support of world bank policies that privatise water, etc.)

Look, Hillary has the right to capitulate all she wants- but she doesnt speak for this feminist.

When one side fights to win, and one side fights to compromise, the side that fights to win, wins!

Its time for pro choice people to stand up- let the other side find common ground WITH US!


We KEEP LOOSING territory in the political debate AND elections because we keep trying to find common ground with people who are not interested in compromise, no matter how sweet we talk while we roll over.

[Runcible Spoon]

273. welcome to DU KissMeKate!

keep fighting the good fight-there are some on this board who would sell out everything Democrats stand for, just to win elections. And then what do you have? Joe Flippin' Lieberman for president.

[KissMeKate]

275. Thanks, FarceofNature!

I agree-. the Hillary Clintons and Joe Liebermans have their place in the party, but I dont have to agree with them, lol.

[Runcible Spoon]

278. "they have their place"...but if we let the DLC contingency have their way

they will BE the party. I don't hate Hillary per se. But it makes me squirm when ANY politician, especially a senator from my state whom I helped elect to represent my issues, starts hemming and hawing about "common ground". Common ground is just steeper descent down a slippery slope on issues like this. We let them have the "partial birth" abortion ban. We let them fund abstinence only programs...what will be let them do next?

[KissMeKate]

279. Hemming and hawing never helped anyone

youre right about that- we have values, and we need to be very clear about them.

And abstinence programs are totally divorced from accountability.

If abstinence only programs worked, I would be the first to support them.

But we dont even know if they work, because no one asks that these programs deliver for all the federal tax dollars they suck up.

Perhaps democrats with spine will step up to the plate and demand accountability with the abstinence only education money.

[peacebird]

323. bravo! well put KissMeKate!

"So Hillary boohooing about how "abortion is so sad" etc, doesnt help anyone but the pro birthers (if they were pro life they would oppose the war and the death penalty, and our support of world bank policies that privatise water, etc.)"

exactly. Pro-birthers instead of pro-life, very apropos.

[Plaid Adder]

270. Well, there is *some* common ground.

I have this much common ground with the pro-lifers: I figure the fewer abortions happen, the better off everyone is. So, we should promote birth control and sex education so people know what they're getting into when they...oh, whoops, I just left the common ground.

OK, I'll try this again. I have this much common ground with the pro-lifers: I think there are a lot of people out there having sex before they're emotionally ready for it because they don't understand what it's really going to mean to them, partly because our culture is obsessed with a particularly empty and shallow version of sexuality, and partly because they feel like there's something wrong with them if they're not sexually active by the time all their peers are. So we ought to try to educate people about the emotional and/or spiritual side of sexuality as well as the physical aspects of it, so that they will be in a better position to judge for themselves when they're ready to have it and with whom, and don't have to use some ridiculous litmus test like marriage...uh oh, now I'm off the common ground again.

Oh well, I tried,

The Plaid Adder

[KissMeKate]

272. sex consequences education- yes, common ground

thats reasonable, I think everyone wants kids (and adults) to know exactly what they are getting into, with sex.

[Robb]

274. This is old, old feminist language...

...the ex was a feminist ethics scholar. "Common ground" is where they were starting debates eons ago on this issue. Common ground: neither side wants unwanted children sitting on streetcorners. Go from there.

Non-story, IMO.

[KissMeKate]

276. lets hope

that the "common ground" rhetoric doesnt help us LOSE ground.

[VegasWolf]

280. Well said, the agreement over sex education goes almost without

saying. It's the next few steps that cause problems. This
is not new, dems have said all of what Hillary has said
well before the election, and look what happened. The opponents
are determined to end abortion and will give no quarter.

[TroglodyteScholar]

281. NO FUCKING COMMON GROUND (EOM)

[Freddie Stubbs]

301. What is wrong with preventing unwanted pregnancies?

:shrug:

[KissMeKate]

306. who is criticising preventing unwanted pregnancies?

eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

317. That is the common ground that Senator Clinton is talking about

Why would anyone object to that?

[IndianaGreen]

318. Dose of reality: Right-to-life opposes contraception

Just look at the Pope's staunch opposition to condoms as AIDS prevention because he is obsessed about contraception. There is no common ground with right-to-life for as long as they object to contraception, including morning after pill.

These people are even against abortion in cases of rape and incest!

[Freddie Stubbs]

320. Not all pro-lifers are Catholic

Many are Protestants, and most Protestants don't have a big problem with contraception.

[EVDebs]

285. Democrats 'agenda' shows S.20 and 'prevention'

"S. 20: Putting Prevention First. Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage. We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health. We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance." from
http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html

As my other posts on this abortion topic stress, if Plan B and birth control access and information were what they are in, say, the Netherlands, there wouldn't be this kind of lack of clarity and 'commonground'. Common sense would tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But some in the Pro "Life" camp are actually just "Anti-BirthControl" if I'm listening to them clearly enough.

Are Republicans going to join in and "reduce unintended pregnancies" by inproving ACCESS and FUNDING for family planning ? They defunded the UN's plans for just that. Dems are calling their bluff ! Plan B, the 'morning after pill', should be included in any of these programs and I'll betcha the Repubs will force STATES to do it on a case by case basis.

[KissMeKate]

287. will they seek THIS common ground?

lets hope the republicans can see in their hearts the way to reduce uninteded pregnancy- fully fund birth control!

Kudos to the Democratic party for that platform.

[CTyankee]

296. You are absolutely right

It is time for "put up or shut up" for the righties: either they say yes to emergency contraception and family planning or they explain why they are against abortion and ALSO against birth control. They can't have it both ways.

[VegasWolf]

289. Curious, we have another thread going where the Colorado

legislature has tried for two sessions to force, mostly
Catholic, hospitals to offer information about the morning
after pill in the case of rape. The bill has been rejected
twice by the repig lead assembly. Maybe this is the "common
ground" that some posters are so desperately seeking in this
old, but "re-framed" debate.

[EVDebs]

297. VegasWolf, looks like we might be able to beat the neocons at their game

SF talk show Dr. Dean Edell has been informing the public regularly about the Plan B "morning after pill". Since some repub states might not want to legislatively allow this, the procedure is relatively simple. Please read this article and see what I mean.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/health/edell/011905_he_morning_after.html

""Glenda Newell, M.D., Planned Parenthood OB-GYN: "Emergency contraception is the same hormone that is in the birth control pill and it is to prevent an unintended pregnancy."

Miller: "And so I took one pill and 12 hours later you take the other pill. And overall I had really no side effects." Yet many have never heard of emergency contraception.

And now the morning-after pill is being confused with safety warnings on RU-486, the abortion pill. But the chemicals and purposes are very different."" Also, the article states:

""But there have been no deaths linked to the morning-after pill and there are no warnings being issued by the FDA. In fact, many experts think the morning-after pill is safe enough to sell over-the-counter.""

This 'morning after pill' is apparently not yet available over-the-counter according to the article and six states already allow for it. The fearmongers are apparently using their allies 'confusion' and disinformation to run interference for them. This IS NOT the same thing as RU486 but this appears to be why they are doing the FDA hearings.

Please read the article and pass along to the sane media. We're lucky to have Dr. Dean Edell out there ! BTW, his TV station has webcast info at

http://abclocal-kgo.healthology.com/focus_index.asp?b=abclocal-kgo

on contraception and abortion information up the yingyang !

[BootinUp]

298. I kinda knew this thread would be a mess

But really she is making the right play to keep this party relevant. Its time some of you wake up and smell the coffee. Its also a position that can be defended on principle.

[mamalone]

299. Wow....

I am just amazed at the intolerance here..amazed and saddened. I thought the Democratic party was the party of tolerance:eyes:

[KissMeKate]

302. is disagreeing intolerance?

has anyone told you you should not be allowed to post here because you are against abortion?

Please, give us examples of this "intolerance".

If you mean, people refuse to compromise, thats NOT intolerance.

Thats called, sticking up for ones beliefs, not backing down.

Asking you to not post because you are against abortion is intolerance. Speaking our minds about our personal opinions is not.

[mamalone]

307. Certainly not!

But lumping all pro-life folks together into one group along with the radical fringe is..There have been many intolerant things said about pro-lifers in this thread...that we are *all* against birth control, that we aren't willing or interested in finding common ground, that we will *never* give an inch, on and on it goes..too many absurd statements for me to mention them all. You folks are getting your knickers all in a twist about supposedly being asked to compromise...I don't see anything in that article which asked for compromise from the pro-choice folks in any way. She was saying that those who believe in abortion rights and those who don't DO hold some values and views in common. Just like the divorced parents who put aside their own feelings of animosity and betrayal in order to allow their children a loving relationship with both parents. It's the mature, responsible thing to do.
I understand that you will not change your view, I would not ask you to...I hope you would not ask me to change mine. Just because you believe strongly in a woman's right to choose and I believe otherwise, does that mean we can have nothing in common? I hope not..I can't believe that to be true

[KissMeKate]

309. "you folks" indeed.

Ok, Ill bite.

what do we have in common? and what common ground are you interested in finding with me? What are you willing to compromise of your anti abortion belief that will help you find common ground? What inch are you willing to give, that you have not already given? (that is, if you already believed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape, what ELSE are you willing to put on the table?)

Yes, lumping people who agree with each other on a single issue can be distressing, but it happens all the time, on all sorts of issues.
I dont think thats intolerance, merely opinion, perhaps even cognitive distortion. Thats where you can say, hey, thats not true, we dont all think alike.

please point out to me the post that says (I quote your emphasis) *all* "pro life" people are against birth control?

yes, people have said that anti abortion people are not interested in finding common ground- that is an opinion, and yes, a generalisation. But is it intolerance?

Is it intolerance to say one doesnt think anti abortion people would give an inch?

I dont think so- it is a generalisation, probably backed up with anecdotal evidenceat best, but still, not intolerant.

"You folks are getting your knickers in a twist"- that implies pro choice people are upset- are you referring to me? Because I dont get upset with anti abortion people until they start to threaten my life, my family, or my access to safe and legal abortion.

Im not upset about being asked to compromise- dont confuse objecting and disagreeing with "getting my knickers in a twist"- it simply means we are standing up for our beliefs and refusing to let one senator speak for us.

I dont agree with your analogy that this situation is like divorced parents disagreeing and coming together for their love for their children. I think it is more like women being forced to be incubators for a growth they dont want to share their body with as a punishment for having their birth control fail. But lets agree to disagree on the analogies to use.

As far as trying to convince each other, well of course I
wont try to convince you (only because I dont think it would work one bit)- and youre welcome to try to convince me- (Im tolerant that way!)

in all, I dont think there has been much intolerance at all- this discussion has been mostly civil, no one has asked anyone to shut up, leave, "stop murdering babies", "stop oppressing women by opposing abortion" etc- I have heard intolerance in these sorts of discussions, and IMO, this aint it.

[mamalone]

310. Gosh, maybe you're right...

maybe we don't have anything in common after all:-(

[KissMeKate]

312. I dont want to be right.

and we do have things in common, if we are both posting on the same board. we are obviously democrats, or at least generally sympathetic to the democratic party.

But we are miles apart on this issue, maybe we should agree to disagree, and agree there is room in the party for both belief systems, and leave it at that.

I hate fighting with women over this issue. It leaves me feeling dispirited.

Im sorry that people make generalisations about people who are against abortion. Perhaps I was hasty in my generalisations as well.

Im sure you are a good person, and that you are not in any way supportive of radical or fringe antiabortion people who burn down clinics, or oppose birth control, etc, and I am equally sure that you care deeply and have devoted much thought to your position.

[mamalone]

314. Thank you..

...and I have no doubt that you are a very good person as well:pals:

[CTyankee]

326. I've watched this debate for 30 years

and we seem to be losing. Support for Roe has gone down and family planning programs abroad have been devastated by the global gag rule. We did have the triumph of Emergency Contraception during the Clinton years because he had an activist FDA chair who invited pharmaceutical companies to get EC out as a stand alone product. What a great day for women in this country! And the Clintons were behind that. So even if we don't like what Hillary just said, you have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, she has a strategy going that will save choice.

I used to work for Planned Parenthood and when we would take our message about prevention of unplanned pregnancy out to folks, some people would invariably say, "Why don't more people know that you are not just about abortion?" They were astonished to hear how "reasonable" PP sounded.

I am just as prochoice as anybody can be (I have 2 daughters and now 3 granddaughters so this is personal)but I am wondering about our strategy to date. It just seems to get boiled down to abortion rights only and not about how WE are trying to prevent abortion with greater access to birth control. The other side is doing just the opposite, for cryin out loud!

[mamalone]

300. Sorry, Jim4Wes..

My post wasn't in response to yours, actually, I agree exactly with what you said:) It was in response to some of the hysteria above...

[bpilgrim]

311. i think we got much bigger problems then dealing with this NON-ISSUE

right now, the some want to turn it into the crisis du jour :crazy:

the rest of them need to stay FOCUSED and OUTSPOKEN in defending our LIBERTY instead of endorsing them being TAKEN AWAY, IMHO.

and if we are gonna use the 'follow the right' strat... how many times did the chimp use LIBERTY and FREEDOM in his most recent 'HISTORIC' speech?

over 30 x , hello...

now THAT is a PLATFORM/POSITION i bet a LOT of AMERICANS can rally behind :bounce:

peace

[VegasWolf]

324. Absolutely! n/t

[Clarkie1]

305. Great speech

If anyone heard the Randi Rhodes discussion on Air America Radio today re: abortion, it was great as well. We do need to find common ground and shared values with the other side of the debate to reduce the tragedies of abortion and unwanted children. Once we frame the debate with that goal in mind, we win. We must respect the values of those who see abortion as murder and empathsize with them, framing the debate so they see that we value reducing abortions as well. It is only then that those who see abortion as murder might possibly be willing to reframe to incoporate choice, education, and prevention in their values as well.

[mamalone]

308. Very well said! nt

[jazzjunkysue]

329. Hillary's common ground: Now EVERYONE hates her!

Republican in Democrat's clothing. All hot air, just like the Monkey, himself.