Clark wants to clarify abortion comment

[ringmastery]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2004/02/05/clark_wants_to_clarify_abortion_comment/

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. -- Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark on Thursday sought to clarify his comments from a day earlier in which he told a Tennessee voter, "I don't believe in abortion."

"I would hope that it would be done only on rare occasions, but it's a woman's right to choose. It's a private matter and I support the Supreme Court. I support Roe v. Wade. And I support a woman's right to choose," Clark told reporters as he campaigned in the state.

The retired Army general created a stir in New Hampshire with a series of comments on abortion, telling a newspaper's editorial board that he was pro-choice and "life begins with a mother's decision."

Within days of those comments, Clark told reporters in New Hampshire that he supported a woman's right to have an abortion "as modified by" a 1992 court case that allows states to impose limited restrictions.

At the time, Kate Michelman, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she was satisfied that Clark will be a candidate who supports abortions rights and would make abortion an issue against President Bush in the general election. An aide later added that the organization was "good to go with any of the Democratic candidates."

[lastknowngood]

1. I don't like this he sure is be evasive on this question

I think he could easily go the wrong way if he were in power.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. No. He's always said he supports existing law

which is Roe v. Wade, as modified by Casey.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I don't share that concern at all

I know a lot of Pro Choice people who are personally very uncomfortable with Abortions, but strongly believe that it is a woman's right to choose. That has always been the bedrock core of Clark's belief. It is akin to his strong belief in the separation of Church and State. Clark is not a typical politician. He actually says what he believes. I am comfortable with his position.

[Nashyra]

4. He strongly agrees that it is a womans right to choose

that does not mean he has to be for it for his own family. Big misconception about this issue. It is not pro abortion, as how the RW tries to say that you are for baby killing nor is it pro life like the RW likes to say that they are aginst killing innocent babies. It is either pro choice or anti choice nobody is "for" killing anything the question should never be about pro abortion, it is about the right of the mother to make a personal decision whether she has an abortion or not without the interference of the gov't. It is all about choice, I am pro choice but could not or would not want to have an abortion, or to have my children experience one, however it is their choice, and I respect that.

[lurk_no_more]

21. Pretty cut and dry IMO

Women's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing are personal decisions, not political decisions. Wes Clark believes that it is wrong to make a choice that should be left between a woman and her doctor and her family into a political issue. He will protect women's privacy by:

Standing up for choice. Wes Clark is pro-choice. He believes that the government has no right to come between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal and private decision. Wes Clark will protect the fundamental principle at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship: that doctors and women should make medical decisions based on what's best for the individual given her unique circumstances. He believes that the courts have struck the right balance between women's privacy and the complex issues that arise as pregnancy progresses.

Nominating judges who will uphold the law. We as a nation have embraced several simple, important constitutional values, such as one-person, one-vote and the right to privacy that are settled law. Wes Clark is committed to appointing judges with the highest qualifications, from diverse backgrounds, who will uphold the law and enforce fundamental constitutional guarantees-- including the rights of privacy and equality.

Lift the ban on federal funding for abortion. Wes Clark would work to lift the ban on federal funding for abortions and eliminate the "domestic gag rule" which prohibits family planning centers that receive federal funds from providing abortion services, and counseling about abortion or referrals. Wes Clark opposes singling out abortion and excluding it from the medical care generally provided under Medicaid. And Wes Clark opposes preventing women who serve in the military from accessing abortion services.

Restore and protect funding for international family planning. Hundreds of thousands of women die from complications related to pregnancy worldwide. Many women lack equal access to health care. Millions of couples lack access to contraceptives - leaving them vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and other devastating sexually transmitted diseases. The United States has taken the lead in improving women's health and protecting women's rights worldwide. Wes Clark believes that we shouldn't back off our commitment to women's health. He would lift the "global gag rule" which forces foreign organizations to remain silent on the subject of abortion if they want to continue to receive funding for vital family planning services. He would increase funding for international family planning and work to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which funds family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[Demobrat]

5. Sure he'd follow the law of the land,

he has no choice, but would he fight for it? This a dealbreaker for me.

[anti-bush]

6. And furthermore

If he does not believe in abortion, will he appoint Supreme Court Justices who may have the ability to change the law of the land? He has been all over the map on this one, which leads me to an inherent distrust.

[Quixote1818]

9. Give me a break Clark is an Enlightenment thinker.

That position is the position of probably 75% of the population. Most people are uncomfortable with abortion but want it legal.

[Demobrat]

11. Yep, that's the point.

Like I said in the thread about why not vote for Clark, there's no law that says he has to appoint pro-choice judges. It's not just a matter of paying lip service, it's a matter of fighting for it. I don't trust Clark to do that. (Kucinich either, for that matter. Last minute conversions don't impress me).

[Phelan]

27. He is in the South

Here in the south our Thesarus is slightly different, "I support abortion in any shape or form" is just another way to say "don't vote for me", it would be stupid to say that in any southern state. No matter what his view, it would idiotic to tell people in the south that he himself is a strong 'abortionist'

[Qutzupalotl]

7. Absolutely.

I wish you could have seen him on CSPAN after this one rally. A pro-lifer grabbed his hand and wouldn't let go. She started saying things like, since you can quote scripture, shouldn't you protect the rights of the unborn? He was unapologetic, and said that altering current law would jeopardize the rights of the mother.

[MariaS]

8. More to the interview

Kate Michelman, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Clark's inconsistencies showed a lack of understanding of the issues regarding abortion. "My recommendation is that he simply say he is pro-choice and that he believes that only women can make these decisions, and that as president he will defend their right to do so,"Michelman said. "That's what he should say. Because I think that's what he believes."

If the head of NARAL believes Clark would do right by the Women and their right to choose why wouldn't we.

[Torgo4]

10. Clark DOES Evolve!

Unlike the current resident of the WH, Clark will change his position if he discovers what he believes is wrong.

The current "divinely inspired" Prez doesn't believe he can be wrong...hence...he/they simply change facts they don't like.

I actually got ~15 min talk time with Clark in Nov. I complimented his career and writings which reveal a progressive, enlightened mind.

I stifled my urge to say: "Hail Caeasr!"

:think:

[LandOLincoln]

13. Absolutely. The man is stand up all the way.

Look, he was willing to back his stance on "don't ask, don't tell" in the military (he thinks it's morally wrong & downright stupid and wants to adopt the British model instead) not just by giving the gay mag The Advocate an interview on the subject, but by appearing on the cover as well, thereby thumbing his elegant nose at the wingnut fundies and calling them out at the same time.

He also put his career on the line by standing with the White House and the State Department against the Pentagon re Kosovo--and look what it got him.

The man has some serious stones. He is firmly and irrevocably pro-choice (NO ONE in his/her right mind is "pro-abortion") and it's simply inconceivable that he would not fight with everything in his power to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

[Old and In the Way]

12. One can personally be against abortion, but strongly support the

right for women to make this choice. I see no conflict in his position. No one "likes" the act of abortion, but most normal people can accept that the right to choose should be the law of the land.

[Shanty Oilish]

14. Pandering

He says he's against abortion but it's the law and he has to defend the law. This implies that the law is regrettable.
Clark's regular position is that choice is not merely the law, it's a positive value he has upheld and defended throughout his career.
This is sheer pandering.
Earlier he said "you don't put the law in there," and now he's doing exactly that, pointing to the law in there.
In our history there have been some outstandingly wrong laws upheld by the Court, and it's disingenuous at best to say something's right because it's the law. Clark of all people knows better than that.

[LandOLincoln]

15. For the millionth time, There Is No Such Thing as "Partial

Birth Abortion."

This whole flap started when Clark got sandbagged by the wingnut editor of the wingnut Manchester (NH) Union Leader, who attempted to put words in his mouth by asking him if he supported abortion up to the moment of birth (meaning, of course, did he support so-called "Partial Birth Abortion.")

Clark simply repeated once again (and correctly) that abortion was a decision that should be left to the woman, her physician and her spiritual advisor, and that the law (i.e. the state, the government) had no business interfering.

So of course the Union Leader trumpeted the news that (gasp!) GENERAL CLARK SUPPORTS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!!!! or some such nonsense, and this "news" dominated a couple of news cycles last week, and is clearly still following him. Therefore his statement today that he doesn't believe in abortion himself but still absolutely supports a woman's right to choose.

Now, what most people don't know--General Clark included, obviously--is that there simply is no such thing as elective abortion up to the moment of birth, or the so-called "partial birth abortion." The entire issue is a strawman set up by the wingnuts so they can pander to their fundie base by enacting laws against a procedure that doesn't exist in the first place.

There is a procedure known as "Dilation and Extraction" which is performed only in such rare instances that the ob/gyns I've asked have not only never performed the procedure themselves, they've never known of anyone who has, and no wonder: a D&E is done only in the case of fatal fetal anomalies such as anencephaly (no brain) and hydrocephaly ("water on the brain") combined so that the abnormally large head of the nonviable fetus cannot be delivered vaginally, and emergency cesarean is not an option. THEN AND ONLY THEN is the D&E performed.

Now, I wrote a long letter to Clark last week explaining the true situation vis a vis "Partial Birth Abortion," and emailed to his New Mexico communications director in the hopes that it would make its way to the General before last Thursday's debate, in case Brokaw decided to make an issue of it. Fortunately Brokaw didn't, but it looks like the letter still has not made its way to Little Rock, let alone to Clark himself.

So, fellow Clark supporters, how do you think I should proceed? I'm assuming that the best thing to do would be to shorten & simplify the letter and post it to the blog, but I'm certainly open to other suggestions as well.

I'm sooooo damned sick of people cherry picking statements out of context and then accusing Clark of "waffling" on this and so many other issues.

The man's got a Master's in Philosophy, fer chrissake, and taught Philosophy (and Econ) at West Point. He neither thinks nor speaks in Soundbite.

[Shanty Oilish]

16. He supports Roe v. Wade as modified by Casey

Talk about cherry picking. Here's a quote from Center for Reproductive Rights, http://www.crlp.org/crt_roe_jbroe.html

"Although the Court said it was not overturning Roe's central premise that abortion is a fundamental right, the Casey decision replaced the original 'strict scrutiny' standard governing other fundamental rights for the weak and confusing undue burden standard. This opened the door to a host of state and federal criminal restrictions designed to steer women away from abortion and to promote the rights of the fetus throughout pregnancy."

"The Roe opinion was grounded on four constitutional pillars: (1) the decision to have an abortion was accorded the highest level of constitutional protection like any other fundamental constitutional right; (2) the government had to stay neutral; legislatures could not enact laws that pushed women to make one decision or another; (3) in the period before the fetus is viable, the government may restrict abortion only to protect a woman's health; (4) after viability, the government may prohibit abortion, but laws must make exceptions that permit abortion when necessary to protect a woman's health or life."

"Only two of the four Roe pillars remain today as a result of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. This decision is the culmination of a steady decline in constitutional protection for the right to privacy."

"Now the government is free to pass laws restricting abortion based on 'morality,' a code word for religious anti-abortion views. States are now permitted to disfavor abortion and punish women seeking abortions, even those who are young and sick, with harassing laws."

Clark said, "You don't put the law in there," and then said he supported Roe v Wade as modified by Casey. That puts plenty of law in there. Further, he has said he supports the "rights" of states to impose more law that "modifies" choice. So he understands the effect of Casey and he stands not for choice but choice as restricted by states as allowed by those 2 decisions.

[LandOLincoln]

19. Link please?

"Clark said, 'You don't put the law in there,' and then said he supported Roe v Wade as modified by Casey. That puts plenty of law in there. Further, he has said he supports the 'rights' of states to impose more law that 'modifies' choice."

[Shanty Oilish]

20. Widely quoted

Google the quote and his name, it's everywhere. Comes from his interview in Union Leader.

The Casey decision protects the rights of states to impose laws modifying choice. He has said he supports the existing law, Roe v. Wade, as modified by Casey.

Useful link (there are so many) is

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Abortion.htm

[LandOLincoln]

22. Exactly what don't you--or Paul Schwartzman of WaPo,

apparently--understand about

"This whole flap started when Clark got sandbagged by the wingnut editor of the wingnut Manchester (NH) Union Leader, who attempted to put words in his mouth by asking him if he supported abortion up to the moment of birth (meaning, of course, did he support so-called "Partial Birth Abortion.")


Or this:

"Now, what most people don't know--General Clark included, obviously--is that there simply is no such thing as elective abortion up to the moment of birth, or the so-called "partial birth abortion." The entire issue is a strawman set up by the wingnuts so they can pander to their fundie base by enacting laws against a procedure that doesn't exist in the first place.


It's interesting too how your "useful link" caption's DOCTOR Howard Dean's accurate statement re the "Partial Birth Abortion" nonsense:

Caption: "Partial birth abortion ok to protect the mother"

Dean: The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure used only to save the life or health of the mother. We have had no third trimester abortions in Vermont in the past four years.

(Emphases added.)

*******

Now, you'll pardon me if I'm not too impressed that you attempt to refute my accusation of cherry picking by citing the cherry picking of others.

[Shanty Oilish]

24. Did you even read what I wrote? Seems not.

There's nothing on the link I cited about Howard Dean, and we were discussing Mr. Clark.

Here's what I don't understand: I don't understand how the reputedly brilliant Wesley Clark is in any danger of being sandbagged by a wingnut. Surely you don't mean to suggest the wingnut succeeded in "putting words in his mouth."

Wesley Clark's statements are on record and if the record were false he'd be correcting it. His position on abortion obviously depends on his audience. But he has said plainly, many times, when pressed to be specific, that he supports Roe v Wade as modified by Casey, which is a clearly selective position, and logically contrary to his other position that it's between woman and doctor etc.

Anyone who can read can follow this and see he's inconsistent and illogical on the issue. Anyone who can read Roe v Wade and Casey understands that choice is restricted and modified by these decisions.

[LandOLincoln]

25. It's clear that no amount of logic or reason is going to

change your mind about General Clark, so I respectfully decline to waste any more time trying.

However, I can't let this one pass:

"There's nothing on the link I cited about Howard Dean, and we were discussing Mr. Clark."

Try scrolling down to the bottom of the page and clicking on "Gov. Howard Dean."

[Shanty Oilish]

26. Now that's just silly

I gave him a link to one page, not to the whole website. Why drag Dean into this? You want to bait & switch to another target?

[LandOLincoln]

28. For god's sake pay attention. I'm NOT "dragging Dean

into this," I'm pointing out how your "useful link" distorts Dean's position as well

Dean says clearly that "partial birth abortion" is "nonsense," am I right? Yet the caption reads, "Partial birth abortion ok to protect the mother."

Now, I wish Dean had gone on to explain what he meant by "nonsense," he could and should have pointed out, as I did, that there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion," i.e. elective late term abortion, but he's an internist, not an ob/gyn, and the ob/gyn rotation he would have done as a resident is probably a distant memory by now.

But still--there's that misleading caption hanging out there, still giving the impression that Howard Dean, MD, supports the killing of a HEALTHY, VIABLE BABY EVEN AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH if the mother decides her life is more important than her baby's.

Doesn't happen. Straw man, like I said.

Now do you get it?

(edited for clarity)

[Turkw]

18. It's not the law that's regetable, but any situation that puts a woman in

the place of having to choose, that is why it is so importaint for it to be HER choice. I have a lot more respect for someone who understands the difference between a public choice and a personal choice.

[janx]

17. He doesn't have to clarify it for me.

I knew what he meant, and I respect him for it.

[uconnyc]

23. As an Edwards supporter

I have no problems with Clark's stance on abortion.

I'm just not sure if he is sincere about it or if it is election year talk. I do however trust that Clark would uphold RvW as President.