$30.00
Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
41 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Clinton's defense of Roe v. Wade rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eloquent, forceful and passionate:
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Family Research Council’s Dominionist Agenda For A President Trump’s First 100 Days: Roll Back LGBT And Reproductive Rights


> Excerpts from the September 12, 2016 Right Wing Watch news story by Miranda Blue entitled:

The Family Research Council’s Dominionist Agenda For A President Trump’s First 100 Days: Roll Back LGBT And Reproductive Rights


At a panel at this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, activists representing the event’s organizer, the Family Research Council, and other conservative groups laid out what they will press Republican lawmakers to do in the first 100 days of the next presidency.

Under a Hillary Clinton administration, the conservative activists said that Republicans in the Senate should do as much as they can to obstruct her nominees to the judicial and executive branch. If Donald Trump is elected, they had a wish list of priorities for his administration, focusing on rolling back advances to LGBT and reproductive rights that have taken place during the Obama administration.



Mandi Ancalle, the Family Research Council’s general counsel for government affairs, reminded the audience that the Family Research Council had helped to shape the Republican Party’s ultraconservative platform at the GOP convention in Cleveland and was hopeful that a Republican President — i.e. Trump — would help to make much of it law.

Ancalle said that the Family Research Council is “working to generate a comprehensive list” for the Trump administration of executive orders, executive guidance and administrative regulations that a President Trump should rescind soon after taking office, and of Bush-era policies that he should reinstate. She said that the group was working with contacts on Trump’s transition team to get their wish list into the GOP nominee’s hands.

Among the priorities that she said that in the first 100 days of a Trump administration, the Family Research Council would be pushing for:

Rescind the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s guidance assuring that federally funded emergency shelters house transgender people according to the sex with which they identify.

Reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which bars U.S. foreign aid from going to groups that provide abortion-related services or advocate for abortion rights abroad, even when those services are not paid for by U.S. government funding. This so-called “global gag rule” was rescinded by President Obama.

Reinstate a rule instituted by President George W. Bush that provided broad “conscience protections” for health care workers refusing to participate in care for religious reasons. According to the Washington Post, the rule “was widely interpreted as shielding workers who refuse to participate in a range of medical services, such as providing birth control pills, caring for gay men with AIDS and performing in-vitro fertilization for lesbians or single women.” In 2011, the Obama administration rescinded much of the Bush-era regulation but maintained conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to perform abortions. Ancalle noted that the FRC wants to make sure that new regulations allow physicians not to care for transgender patients by providing hormone therapy and other treatment.

Reinstate Bush’s ban on federal funding going to embryonic stem cell research.

Rescind President Obama’s executive order banning federal contractors from engaging in anti-LGBT discrimination.


Although Ancalle did not explicitly name them among the Family Research Council’s first-100-days priorities, she also criticized the Department of Education’s guidance on access for transgender students in public schools; the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraception mandate; the “completely lawless” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance on access for transgender people in the workplace; and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

She also indicated that the Family Research Council would urge a President Trump to undo the Obama administration’s work pushing LGBT and reproductive rights abroad, saying that the administration has “in some ways become a lobbying organization” and that “ambassadors that are appointed and sent overseas to represent American values have not only kind of flipped on their head what Americans stand for, what you and I stand for, but have really begun to lobby governments in attempting to accept same-sex marriage, in attempting to accept this gender identity dysphoria and attempting to push abortion acceptance and pro-abortion legislation in those different governments.”

She reminded the activists in the room that executive branch nominees — including nominees for ambassador — can be confirmed or blocked by the Senate, and urged the Senate to broadly exercise its power to block these nominees, whoever becomes president.

Mandi Ancalle wrote:


It’s important that as we maintain a majority in the Senate that we’re encouraging our senators to not defer to what the President — honestly, whether it’s a Trump or a Hillary Clinton Presidency — not to just defer to the President. We’ve heard some senators say, "Elections have consequences" and just put their stamp of approval on any secretary, on any nominee, and it’s really important that senators are out here in Washington, D.C., representing you all as you’re back at home, and representing your views on who those heads of these very authoritative departments and agencies are.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
Trump's views on abortion are another key indicator of his complete lack of any principles:

He was pro-choice and just fine with partial-birth abortion when he wasn't pandering to Republicans.

Then he pivots to being pro-life.

Then this year he pivots to jailing women who receive abortions.

Then he gets backlash, so he pivots again and says he would jail the doctors, not the women, and also says he would punt it back to the states.

Then he still gets flak from the mainstream, so he softens further & says abortion is settled law, and declares "the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way."

Then he gets blowback from his base, so he flipflops again and says he will appoint activist judges in order to roll back abortion rights.

This is your Republican candidate for president, ladies & gentlemen. With his finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing that day.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
Trump's views on abortion are another key indicator of his complete lack of any principles:

He was pro-choice and just fine with partial-birth abortion when he wasn't pandering to Republicans.

Then he pivots to being pro-life.

Then this year he pivots to jailing women who receive abortions.

Then he gets backlash, so he pivots again and says he would jail the doctors, not the women, and also says he would punt it back to the states.

Then he still gets flak from the mainstream, so he softens further & says abortion is settled law, and declares "the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way."

Then he gets blowback from his base, so he flipflops again and says he will appoint activist judges in order to roll back abortion rights.

This is your Republican candidate for president, ladies & gentlemen. With his finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing that day.


Aww you're being generous. I don't think his finger's up in the air.

That said there is a real truth to the statement that there's no conservative candidate this year. The Republicans didn't nominate one.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.
Which in itself is fairly damning, that she waited until 20 days from the election to finally display some sense of sincerity that didn't feel like a coldly calculated & rehearsed talking point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


I wouldn't say "the" high point but definitely "a" high point. Simply speaking, to have a position on abortion that is moral, it must allow for medical decision making in moments of health crisis that threaten both fetus and mother. Taking that decision away from the mother is monstrous, and there is no pro-life position that can be moral without that exception. She put that out there, and Trump's responses showed a thoughtless position born of political strategy.

Fitting perhaps that so many evangelicals have pinned all their hopes on Trump, and in doing so abandoned any principles they might claim to have. Speaking as a pro-choice individual, perhaps this can move the pro-life movement out of the hands of the sex-negative religious right, and into the hands of young millenial women who can be passionate about the cause and give us real debate and progress, instead of political grandstanding and deceptive laws microregulating abortion providing facilities.
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.
6 
 Thumb up
5.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
chrisnd wrote:
We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.
Not that this will change anyone's view on anything, but your characterization of "murdered innocent babies" is (obviously intentionally) incorrect. Scientifically speaking:

The prenatal form is a zygote.
In the second week, it's a blastocyst.
If the blastocyst implants, then from week 3 to 6, it's an embryo.
From eight weeks to term, it's a fetus.

So using the loaded phrase "murdered innocent babies" is a political maneuver designed to award more weight to your decision than there is scientific merit for. There are no roving hordes of bloodthirsty "liberals" slitting the throats of actually-born babies.
29 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
surprise "...in the 9th month ...THAT 'sucker' is PAST 'bringing out'! ya think?"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Outside of sociopaths, I can't imagine anyone who would be fine with a healthy baby a week from its birth would be aborted.

Thankfully, this kind of thing doesn't happen. Late-term abortions are 99.999% because of health issues. They are exceptionally, exceptionally rare. Yet that's what Trump was hammering at, instead of the actual issue. But cheer up pro-lifers, if Trump gets elected, your daughters and granddaughters can still get their abortions in some cheap motel from some person who hasn't cleaned their finger nails in weeks. Serves them right for being little sluts.

I thought Clinton's defense of Roe v. Wade was the best thing she did, and I entirely agree. For all you people who talk about overreaching government policies, I can't think of anything more insidious than governments regulating reproductive choices.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.
Which in itself is fairly damning, that she waited until 20 days from the election to finally display some sense of sincerity that didn't feel like a coldly calculated & rehearsed talking point.

To be fair, it can be very dangerous for a woman to show any sort of emotion lest it immediately bring accusations of being hysterical, or of just acting on emotions instead of logic.

Whereas a big whiny baby of a man can scream and rant and make grade-school insults without much risk of that.

Quote:
She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Most late term (EDIT: Drew has a good point; "late term" is more general and applies to abortions past 20 weeks or so, not just "shortly before birth" as we are discussing here. I'm not sure what the correct term for that is)* abortions are due to complications that will result in the death of the baby or the baby and the mother. In places where doctors will not perform abortions, there have been many instances of watching both mother and baby die rather than abort. In other cases, a women are forced to endure hours of agonizing pain and possibly permanent physical damage to watch her child choke to death after being born.

We have decades and decades of data from many countries about abortions. Making abortions illegal mostly results in illegal, dangerous abortions or richer women leaving the country to get them. On the other hand, the more reproductive freedom women have - the ability to get an abortion if needed, better access to birth control, etc - the fewer abortions happen.

When the main groups opposing abortion also oppose birth control, oppose good sex education, oppose health-care support that would assist pregnant women, oppose maternity and paternity leave, have prominent leaders from companies that not only don't provide maternity leave but actively fire women that get pregnant and regularly support "slut-shaming" women for having unapproved sex (increasing the need to have an abortion to hide it), it is abundantly clear that their prime concern is not for life, but for controlling women and controlling sex.

* EDIT NOTE: For just "late term abortions" (past 20 weeks, not specifically shortly before birth), one of the big reasons for waiting that long (at around 48% of the cases or so) is that the woman was unable to find abortion services earlier. So all those people who complain that late term abortion is especially unacceptable, while at the same time closing down places that provide abortions so women can't get to them earlier...
32 
 Thumb up
6.40
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


It seems odd to keep focusing on "this country". Let's keep the government out of this. There's no government solution that directly helps.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


It does, thanks. I self IDed earlier as pro-choice, so it's not surprising that we differ but I think the medical exemption piece is an important point. I find the medical exemption piece is sort of a litmus test. Whether you firmly allow the exemption or struggle with the issue, it at least shows consideration. And where consideration exists, communication and discussion are possible, even though consensus may be not.

I can't honestly say that I think it's worth communicating when people rule out medical exceptions of necessity. It's certainly not pro-life at that part, and I don't feel like I'm speaking to another person, I might as well just be reading a party platform at that point.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


I think Hillary did a bad job in that portion of the debate personally. Because I do not think that she articulated her actual position well at all. Her position appears to actually support regulations banning late term abortions unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. I think she sort of hinted around that, but didn't articulate it at all well.

So, Chris, I do not think she actually IS fine with babies being aborted a week or two before birth.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-...
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron E.
United States
Nebraska
flag msg tools
badge
This is fine!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:


I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far.


I, too, have conflicting opinions about abortion. Growing up Catholic, certain beliefs were instilled in me regarding abortion that are currently hard to shake. I've grown more liberal in time, but still feel shaky with Hillary on her strong stance to avoid any further regulation.

But I sharply disagree with your phrasing of your belief that abortion is murder. Taking an issue as complicated as abortion and conflating it with murder does not advance discourse on the matter.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


I think Hillary did a bad job in that portion of the debate personally. Because I do not think that she articulated her actual position well at all. Her position appears to actually support regulations banning late term abortions unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. I think she sort of hinted around that, but didn't articulate it at all well.

So, Chris, I do not think she actually IS fine with babies being aborted a week or two before birth.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-...


I'm not sure she was articulating her position there, I thought she was explaining the specifics of the Roe v Wade decision.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


I recognize how difficult this issue and your sincerity.

But consider these cases.

a) Carrying the baby to term will kill the mother, the baby will live.

b) Carrying the baby to term will almost certainly kill both the baby and the mother.

c) Carrying the baby to term will probably either kill both or kill one.

d) Carrying the baby to term might (low odds) kill the mother and the baby will certainly die within hours of being born.

Do you feel it is proper for the state to force a mother to carry the baby to term in these cases?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
StormKnight wrote:
Most late term abortions are due to complications that will result in the death of the baby or the baby and the mother.


Not true. I'll find the figures if you like, but abortionists themselves have testified that about 80% of them are still situations where they are ending normal pregnancies at the choice of the mother.


I tried to find something but what looked like a promising site had misleadingly set "late term" abortion at 20 weeks - about 4 months and 20 days. I think it should be using 22 weeks (but from the wiki graph below, perhaps 20 weeks is correct and some data is simply dated using older 22 week figures- anyone care to clarify on this?). Even that isn't talking about 3rd trimester abortions tho.

So you are probably going to have to find a government site that actually means third trimester abortions. (about 28 to 29 weeks)

http://healthresearchfunding.org/21-compelling-third-trimest...
Quote:
Once a fetus enters into the third trimester, many medical professionals deem it to be a viable life and so an abortion is often not recommended. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that there are some late term pregnancies that may be discovered to be not as viable as originally predicted. For a mother to discover that her child won’t survive long past birth and suffer from pain, seizures, or unknown birth defects is about the worst news that can be received.
Statistics On Third Trimester Abortions

1. The number of doctors in the United States that openly practice third trimester abortions: 4.
2. In a December 2012 Gallup poll, only 14% of people believe that third trimester abortions should be legal.
3. The number of states that have enacted laws that make it illegal to have an abortion after 20 weeks: 11.
4. Arizona passed a law, although it has been blocked from enforcement, that would make abortions after 18 weeks illegal.
5. Although it is a woman’s choice whether to have an abortion, a doctor ultimately must agree to do the procedure.
6. It is estimated that just 1% of all abortions in the United States are third trimester abortions.
7. If the estimates are correct, then the total number of third trimester abortions would be 9,000 per year.
8. George Tiller, who was assassinated for performing third trimester abortions, once stated that only 800 fetal anomalies were discovered out of 10,000 patients, or 8% of total cases.
9. Half of all the pregnancies that occur in the United States are unintended.
10. The percentage of unintended pregnancies that will end in an abortion: 40%.
11. Over 90% of the unintended pregnancies that are aborted will be done during the first trimester.
12. Unintended pregnancy increased 55% among poor women, while it decreased 24% among higher-income women.
13. Between 2000 and 2008, the abortion rate increased 18% among poor women, while it decreased 28% among higher-income women.
14. 61% of the women who choose to have an abortion have at least one child already.
15. 3 out 4 women who have an abortion report a religious affiliation to their doctor or practitioner.
16. Protestants are twice as likely to get an abortion when compared to Catholics.
17. Each year, about 2% of all women aged 15-44 have an abortion.
18. By age 45, one third of American women will have had at least one abortion.
19. Black women are five times more likely to abort than white women.
20. 69% of pregnancies among Blacks are unintended, while that number is 54% among Hispanics and 40% of pregnancies among Whites.
21. In 2009, for the first time, more people called themselves pro-life in a Gallup poll than pro-choice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Doc Mage wrote:
she2 wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


I think Hillary did a bad job in that portion of the debate personally. Because I do not think that she articulated her actual position well at all. Her position appears to actually support regulations banning late term abortions unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. I think she sort of hinted around that, but didn't articulate it at all well.

So, Chris, I do not think she actually IS fine with babies being aborted a week or two before birth.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-...


I'm not sure she was articulating her position there, I thought she was explaining the specifics of the Roe v Wade decision.


I disagree. Once Trump started going on about babies being ripped from the womb right before birth, she should have been crystal clear about her position on partial birth abortion. She also should have pointed out all the states where it's illegal except for risk of health of the mother. Including many blue states.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Insights Into The Issue Of Late-Term ("Partial-Birth") Abortions


Drew1365 wrote:
StormKnight wrote:
Most late-term abortions are due to complications that will result in the death of the baby or the baby and the mother.

Not true. I'll find the figures if you like, but abortionists themselves have testified that about 80% of them are still situations where they are ending normal pregnancies at the choice of the mother.

Wrong! As proof to the contrary, I present the following, my own transcription of a segment from a June 1996 segment of CBS' "60 Minutes" which is just as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.


Insights into the Issue of
LATE-TERM ("PARTIAL-BIRTH") ABORTIONS
A transcription of the June 2, 1996 "60 Minutes" segment, "'Partial-Birth Abortion'" by correspondents Ed Bradley & Leslie Stahl



Of the 1,500,000 abortions performed every year [as per 1996 statistics], only a tiny percentage, between 600 to 1000 (4/100 to 6/100 of 1%), are performed during the third trimester of pregnancy and only a handful of doctors perform them.

Yet, voters are going to hear a lot more about abortion during the presidential campaign and about something called "partial-birth abortion." Bob Dole deplores it and supported a bill to ban it. Bill Clinton cited medical considerations for the life and health of the mother and vetoed the bill.

According to the bill outlawing it, the one President Clinton vetoed, a "partial-birth abortion" is an abortion in which a living fetus is delivered before it is killed. And it is that image of a partially-born, partially-aborted child that is morally indefensible to people like Helen Alvare who runs the Pro-Life office for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C.



Helen Alvare

"There simply is no other procedure from a human rights perspective that is quite as horrible as the partial-birth procedure," said Helen Alvare, "because in that case the child is literally seconds from taking its first breath. Criminal charges should be brought against doctors who perform partial-birth abortions because as a society, we regularly apply criminal charges to things like homicide, infanticide, etc. of a born person and the fact that the child is two inches from birth shouldn't persuade us that the life isn't worth protecting. That would be a terrible comment on society. Once the surgeon has everything but the head out, he grasps the child by the shoulders, sticks a pair of scissors in the base of the child's skull,forces them open, introduces a suction catheter, sucks out the contents of the head, then the head is collapsed and the child is delivered."




Dr. Warren Hearne

The image of late-term abortions that Alavare describes is "the image that the politicians want to present and it's a horrible image," said Dr. Warren Hearn, who wrote the standard medical text on abortion procedures and runs an abortion clinic in Boulder, Colorado. "I'm not really sure I know what a 'partial-birth abortion' is. There's no such thing in the medical literature. Most doctors would not know of any such medical term. It's a propaganda term that has no medical meaning."


So where did the term "partial-birth abortion" come from?

During the Sept. 13-14, 1992 Risk Management Seminar for Abortion Practice Management held by the National Abortion Federation in Dallas Texas, Dr. Martin Haskell started the controversy when he gave a talk on a new procedure for late-term abortions that he called "Dialation and Extraction," or "D & X." A few months later, the anti-abortion magazine "Life Advocate" issued a cover story entitled "Abortion's Older Victims: D & X -- A New Killing Technique." Inside were graphics describing Haskell's new procedure -- graphics which were later sent by anti-abortion activists to the desk of Florida Republican congressman Charles Canady.



U.S. Senator Charles Canady

"The difference between the partial-birth abortion procedure and homicide is a mere three inches," Canady said. With help from the National Right to Life Committee, Canady invented the term "partial-birth abortion" and then held hearings to ban it.


What would prompt a woman to consider a D&X (Dilation and Extraction) Procedure?

Back in March 1995, Tammy Watts was 7 months pregnant with her first child and had never heard of "partial-birth abortions" before. She only learned about it after going with her husband to her doctor for a routine ultra-sound examination.



"The doctor started the ultrasound and he just kept sighing in exasperation over and over and over again," said Tammy Watts. "I looked over at my husband who had tears rolling down his face. And then I looked over at the doctor and asked, 'Is this bad?' He said, yes. I said, 'Is it getting worse?' And he said, yes. And that's when I lost control of my emotions. He said, 'I'm sorry, your child is not going to live.' The baby had no eyes and her skull hadn't formed fully, leaving a butterfly-shaped gaping hole in the back of it. She was missing chambers in her heart. Her liver and kidneys were failing and were about five times the size they should have been. My husband and I decided then upon a late-term abortion. We made an appointment to have the procedure performed the next morning."

[For more about Tammy Watts' story, read the 2004 follow-up news story entitled "Late-Term Abortion Saved These Women's Lives" at: http://womensenews.org/story/campaign-trail/041028/late-term... }

Vicky Wilson, a pediatric nurse and mother of two children, was eight months pregnant with her third child when in April 1994, she learned from her doctor that her baby's brain was growing outside its head.

"When I saw [on the ultra-sound X-ray] that the size of the baby's brain was actually bigger than the baby's head itself, I literally fell to my knees," Wilson said. "After the doctor gave me my options, immediately my response was, 'Let's do a C-Section and get her out.' But the doctor said, 'Vicky, we do C-Sections to save babies. There's no way your baby will survive outside the womb. I can't justify doing a C-Section because that would compromise any future pregnancies and there's really no reason to do that.'"

Like Tammy Watts, Vicky Wilson decided to have a late-term abortion. "After the abortion, I chose to hold the baby and spend time with her," Wilson said. "With the top part of the baby's head covered by a blanket, we passed her from family member to family member. [Note: Wilson shared photos with "60 Minutes" showing her herself, her husband, son and daughter holding the dead infant.] We held her little hands and were able to have the tangibility of her existence because she did exist. It was just our way of saying goodbye to her.... I first learned about the attempt to outlaw late-term abortions when my doctor, Dr. McMann, called me to inform me that there was a bill being introduced to Congress," Wilson said. "He asked me if I would be willing to go to Washington, D.C. before Congress and tell my story."


Both Tammy Watts and Vicky Wilson went to Washington, D.C. in June 1995 to testify before Congress.

"My immediate thought when I was asked to testify before Congress was, 'No problem,'" said Tammy Watts. "I'm going to go there and tell them what happened in my case and they're going to realize that they don't know what the heck is really going on. That's how naive I was! Instead, I was subject to name-calling like you absolutely wouldn't have believed by people who are running our country and making the decisions over our lives. The chairman himself, Rep. Henry Hyde, called me 'an exterminator.' An 'exterminator'!"

Nurse Vicky Wilson said, "I remember Bob Eastman of North Carolina continually saying to us that we were 'not living in reality'; that we were 'not living in the real world' and that perhaps we were 'part of a perverted cult, one of whose rituals was to kill our unborn children'!"



U.S. Representative Henry Hyde

Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is also in charge of the platform for this year's Republican Committee. That worries Vicky Wilson who says the congressional debate over the so-called "partial-birth abortion bill" has been full of misinformation.

"In terms of misinformation, the biggest lie has been that there are thousands and thousands of those third-trimester abortions on healthy mother carrying normal babies," Vicky Wilson said. "If that were the case, where are they?" (Note: There are only a handful of doctors who specialize in late-term abortions.)

Director Helen Alavare of the Pro-Life office for the National Conferenceof Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C. can't tell where all those supposed later term abortions are happening either, but she insists that they're happening nonetheless. Alvare, however, considers the cases of Tammy Watts and Vicky Wilson as exceptions and that most women who allegedly havethird-trimester abortions don't do it for medical reasons. [Note: The partial-birth abortion ban bill makes no exceptions for medical reasons.] Alvare cites Dr. Martin Haskell who uses the D & X procedure to bolster her argument.

Said Alvare: "Dr. Martin Haskell said publicly that 80% of his D & X abortions are purely elective, which means that it's optional. I believe The American Medical News magazine interview with Haskell that I cite is important because from the mouth of the primary practioner himself we have the best evidence out there as to the nature of the procedure, why they're performed and when they're performed."


Dr. Martin Haskell did say in an 1993 interview with The American Medical News magazine that 80% of the D & X abortions he performs are elective -- but Dr. Haskell says he himself doesn't perform any abortions after the second trimester.



Katherine Kolbert

Katherine Kolbert, vice president of the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy in New York, said, "The Supreme Court of the United States has said that states are not free to ban any method of abortion through the first or second trimester of pregnancy. I've gone before the Supreme Court two times myself to argue that point, first in 1986 and later in 1992."

In 1986 and 1992, the Supreme Court upheld Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case which says a woman has the constitutional right to have an abortion up until the point the child she carries is able to survive on its own outside the womb. After that, the Court ruled states could restrict abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother is protected.

"In my opinion, the 'partial-birth abortion' ban is unconstitutional in the second trimester," said Kolbert. "The effort to ban them is not only just the first step but also a very calculated political move to ban all abortions."


"We've never made a secret of the fact that we oppose abortion -- period," said Helen Alvare. "But at the same time, as citizens in a democracy where Roe vs. Wade is the current law, we have to face the fact that that are limits to what the Supreme Court and Congress will allow us to accomplish. Banning the 'partial-birth abortion' procedure is constitutional because the fetus is not entirely inside the mother when it is killed. This is not truly abortion as the Supreme Court addressed the issue in Roe vs. Wade. A partial-birth abortion is nothing other than killing the child in the process of delivery. Doctors may call it 'abortion,' but others may call it infanticide."

"The fact is that during an abortion, having a living fetus after the pregnancy is over is not the objective," said Dr. Warren Hearn. "As far as I know, there are no women who go through third-trimester abortions for frivolous reasons. They don't go through late-term abortions just because they're feeling fat, depressed or suddenly decide they don't want a baby. I don't know of any doctors in this country who would perform the D & X procedure on a healthy baby in the third trimester."

Said Helen Alvare, "As to the cases of Tammy Watts and Vicky Wilson, both who said that carrying their babies to term would have endangered their health and their fertility, the medical community has already responded to that. As Dr. Warren Hearne himself has said, 'I would dispute that the D & X procedure was the safest one to use in any situation.'"

"Horse puckey!" countered Dr. Hearne. "She misquoted me. That is not what I said. What I said is that the medical community has not determined the safest way to perform late-term abortions."

"If I myself faced the same situations as Tammy Watts and Vicky Wilson with my pregnancy," Helen Alvare said, "I would probably surround myself with prayer, family and friends; carry that child as long as I could; and know that I would be emotionally devestated by this for a very long time."

"The first thing I would say to those anti-late-term-abortion activists," said Tammy Watts, "and I hope to God it never happens to any one of them -- the first thing I would say to them is, 'You haven't walked in my shoes.' It wasn't like I did this just because somebody said my daughter was going to have green eyes instead of blue ones, or six fingers instead of five.' It wasn't like that at all. It's not like they are portraying it."


Since this story originally aired, Republicans in the House of Representatives have repeatedly tried to override President Clinton's prior vetoes of the "partial-birth" abortion bill. (Florida Republican U.S. Rep. Charles Canady* led the 1996 effort.) Repeatedly, in vetoing those bills, President Clinton said quite clearly that he was vetoing the bills because they contained no exceptions whatsoever for women with medically dangerous pregnancies like the women in the "60 Minutes" segment had.

For this 1996 report, Congressman Canady, Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole and the National Right to Life Committee all declined repeated requests to be interviewed for the "60 Minutes" report. Citing litigation in Ohio, Dr. Martin Haskell did the same.






> Excerpt from Molly Ivins' Commentary About Late-Term/"Partial-Birth" Abortions from the June 2, 1996 "Point/Countpoint" segment of CBS' "60 Minutes":



Kansas Republican U.S. Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP-Nominated Candidate for President


"This was an easy call," said Bob Dole about late-term abortions.

Excuse me??? "EASY"?!?!?! I'm hard pressed to think of a more difficult call. Does he think women have no moral sense?

No woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, "Oh darn! I knew there was something I'd been meaning to get around to!"

These are women who want their babies but something has gone horribly wrong. Either the child is going to die; the mother is going to die -- or both are. Has Dole ever talked to a woman who's been through that?

A woman whose doctor who tells her either her baby has to die or her health will be wrecked for the rest of her life and she'll be never be able to have another child: What if she has older children who'll be left with an invalid mother? What's "easy" about that?

These late-term abortions are incredibly rare. The only two I know of involved babies whose brain stems developed but then something went wrong and they literally had no brain. What would you do? Is that "an easy call"?

If your doctor tells you that you have to have an abortion to save your life or your health or your ability to ever have a child -- well, I know you'd want a second opinion.

But if I were you, I WOULDN'T ask for a second opinion from Senator Bob Dole.



-- Molly Ivins








___________________________

*During the 20 years since this CBS "60 Minutes" report, Florida Republican Congressman Charles Canady eventually left Congress, became a lobbyist for the for-profit prison industry, and later became a Florida Supreme Court judge.


Canady is one of the judges whom Donald Trump recently listed as examples of the judges he would consider nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court. Canady was the Congressman who in 1996 called one of the women testifying before Congress about late-term abortion a "monster".


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
Eloquent, forceful and passionate:


How anyone can be passionate about ending a life as it is forming is beyond me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
she2 wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
I think this was the high point of the debate for Hillary, for once I was convinced that she really felt something about the issue and wasn't just paying lip service. This was a moment of sincerity from her that I didn't expect.


And please bear in mind that it is not because of her sincerity (which I think was genuine), but because of her actual viewpoint, that I refuse to vote for Hillary.

She thinks it is okay for a woman to have an abortion up until any point that the baby is still unborn. And she has passion about that, calling it "a woman's right".

Where, then, is the baby's "right to life?" It's lost, and that saddens me. I, therefore, cannot vote for Hillary. She solidified my choice to not vote for her during last night's debate, and her response forced me to end watching the remainder of the broadcast.

We have legally murdered innocent babies on a regular and consistent basis in this country for the past 44 years. It has to stop, and until it does, I cannot support a politician or a politician's stance that continues to allow it to happen with impunity.


Chris, may I ask about your views specifically as they relate to medical crises that threaten the life of the mother, in which abortion has a possible medical use?


I, honestly, struggle with finding an "answer" for that. My wife and I were talking about that very thing last night, and how difficult it must be for anyone to have to make that decision. We actually are very good friends with a woman that went through that very exact scenario - and she, despite the advice of her doctor, gave birth to the baby, who died within minutes of being born. She knew the baby was 99.99% likely to not live more than a few minutes, but she could not, and would not, actively contribute to her daughter's death. It was very difficult for her.

We also have a former member of our church that was raped by her boyfriend and became pregnant, but refused to have an abortion. It was amazing to see the love and support that our church showered on this young teenager. My understanding is that her son is now a bright, joyful young eight-year old boy.

Knowing that REAL stuff happens to REAL people still doesn't change my outlook that the so few and rare instances that abortion would be used IN THIS MANNER should translate into "abortion on demand" as a form of birth control. Those situations are distinctly different, and this country allows abortions for whatever reason necessary. Hell, girls under the age of 18 need their parent's at the dentist office before a teeth cleaning, but can get an abortion at any clinic in most states without even parental knowledge, let along consent. It's sad.

I honestly find it very difficult to reconcile my believe that abortion is murder with the belief that sometimes a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion becomes a medical necessity of the last possible resort. I hope that it never makes it that far. But that situation never will affect my utter disdain for abortion as a means of birth control because someone made a mistake. The woman that spoke at the DNC about her pregnancy being "inconvenient" made me sick, and THAT'S the kind of shit that I hate when it comes to this issue.

I hope that answers your question.


I think Hillary did a bad job in that portion of the debate personally. Because I do not think that she articulated her actual position well at all. Her position appears to actually support regulations banning late term abortions unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. I think she sort of hinted around that, but didn't articulate it at all well.

So, Chris, I do not think she actually IS fine with babies being aborted a week or two before birth.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-...


I'm not sure she was articulating her position there, I thought she was explaining the specifics of the Roe v Wade decision.


I disagree. Once Trump started going on about babies being ripped from the womb right before birth, she should have been crystal clear about her position on partial birth abortion. She also should have pointed out all the states where it's illegal except for risk of health of the mother. Including many blue states.

Isn't it illegal in every state due to a federal law?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.