How the Globe distorts Kerry's (and probably HRC's) position on abortion

[Mass]

This article published in the Boston Globe has NOTHING to do with Kerry. It describes how pro-lifer in Nebraska are getting some traction and how Democrats over there (line Ben Nelson and Kerrey) are sensitive to that in their positions. However, at the very end of the article, Rick Klein tries to extend his argument to something relevant to NE, and add this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/23/push_in_nebraska_highlights_new_abortion_dynamic/

Push in Nebraska highlights new abortion dynamic
Opponents flex growing influence

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 23, 2006

...
Kerrey said Democrats need to work to reduce the number of abortions, and accept some limits to abortion access such as spousal and parental notification requirements. It is a position some in the party who are considering 2008 presidential bids, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, have begun to move toward as well.

Except that Kerry has to my knowledge never moved toward spousal notification requirements and that his position on parental notification has been the same for a very long time: OK as long as there is a mechanism for those kids who cannot notify their parents. As for reducing the number of abortions, this is something that NARAL endorsed.

After that, the article goes on about Nebraska again.

So the issue is: why was Kerry (or Hillary, for the matter) included in this article? How is this relevant? Sloppy reporting at best.

[wisteria]

1. OMG, I would hope he wouldn't 'move towards" spousal

notification. That is invasive and dangerous and implies that wives are the property of their husbands. It goes to far. The Globe should be offering a clarification on their statement or Kerry should say something.

[ginnyinWI]

2. I would support it only if

there were a way to appeal to a judge about a special situation-- like a history of parental or spousal abuse--which would make it dangerous to have to inform them. That was JK's objection to the parental notification part, if I recall the third debate correctly.

[wisteria]

3. Are you suggesting that you think it is ok for a husband to

overrule a woman's decision to not carry a pregnancy to term if there isn't abuse involved?

[ginnyinWI]

5. no I wouldn't go that far.

I still think the final decision is hers. I just think that it's reasonable to let the partner know. But then-- that begs an obvious question: if the relationship is healthy, notification requirements probably wouldn't be necessary, because they would be talking. So it's a sticky issue. Requiring notification somehow implies that the woman doesn't want to do it freely. If it's only a restriction designed to be a political issue but isn't really necessary, then it wouldn't be a good idea, would it.

[Mass]

4. What bothers me more is that it is a bold-face lie from the writer.

Kerry does not hold these positions (particularly concerning spousal notification). So why is the writer implying that?

[beachmom]

6. Can we get a response from the Senate office? This is important.

I strongly oppose spousal notification. In a healthy marriage, the husband and wife should be open and honest with each other, stay faithful, etc. However, I sure as hell don't want a law outlawing lying, adultery, or omitting certain facts within a marriage. This is why I am only mildly excited about derailing Santorum -- Casey's father put a law in PA requiring spousal notification for abortions, and I vehemently oppose this. Yes, I think the wife SHOULD tell her husband, but not because the Religious Right will deny her an abortion, but because it's the right thing to do. Putting in exceptions still puts all of the burden on the woman, and unlike in the parental notification case, she is a legal adult.

Please God, let this not be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TayTay]

7. This is simply not true.

Remember, this is the guy with the lifetime 100% NARAL rating. What he did say, at the NARAL convention in late 2004, after the loss, was that Dems have to start to think about letting pro-life Dems run. We already know Sen. Kerry is raising cash for Bob Casey in PA.

There is a world of difference between saying that some states will no elect pro-choice candidates and that we might have to rethinkg the strategy and saying that Kerry himself is now less pro-choice than he was before. There is a distinct possibility that with pro-life Dems in power there would be less onerous legislation crafted in the first place and a much greater attention (and maybe funding) can be put on prevention methods. (Rethugs oppose both abortion rights and the prevention funding that might actually reduce the number of abortions. They won't fund condom distribution, sex Ed that isn't abstinence based and so forth.) This is a political compromise, yes, but based on the reality that the RW has successfully sold abortion as a left wing extremist position. We are losing on this issue and the cause of reproductive rights for women is going backwards. Sigh, maybe we need to rethink our strategy, because if it keeps going as it is, bye-bye Roe. (Which might happen anyway. The RW won the last election. They get to choose.)

[karynnj]

8. Maybe the Globe is confused by the similar names?

:) I've heard neither move in that direction.

In one of the debates, with no prompting by the question, Kerry explained that parental notification (without sufficent overrides) is bad as you can't ask a 15 year old incest victim to get parental approval. I serious doubt he would agree to spousal approval.

[Mass]

9. On the partly subject, have you read Tom Tomorrow's cartoon today.

[ProSense]

10. Damn it! Who's with me, I ready to arm myself

with some whiteout and resources and storm their offices for an in-your-face truth session and demand the information be instantly corrected and a retraction printed.

Seriously, are these people writing articles from rumor? No one who has done any research could possibly write something so distant from fact.

[TayTay]

11. Were you here last year when the Globe implied that

Kerry was against Gay Rights? The guy who put the first gay rights bill before the Senate. The guy who voted against DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) in 1996, a year in which he faced a tough re-election contest in MA. And people fell for it. Sigh!

[ProSense]

12. I remember the

brouhaha. It was classic. Browsing these forums is not the same as being in the trenches posting. I didn't understand how the confusion escalated in the way it did, but I know now that it has to do with how people get whipped into a frenzy by the forces that are out to whip people into a frenzy. A little research and anyone can quickly learn about Kerry's position on these issues.