Clinton on Planned Parenthood

[Anonymous]

It sure sounds like partial concession to me...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sure sounds like partial concession to me...

That's what I thought. I was hoping someone could convince me that she will never bend on abortion but I don't think there is any proof that she wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

And of course she waits until AFTER she has their endorsement to weaken her position, so that she can still go back and bamboozle the pro-choice folks by touting that as well. Sheesh, talk about two faced.

[Anonymous]

This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

[Anonymous]

I don't see this as compromising. I think she will stand firm. Don't forget, when a mothers life is threatened late in pregnancy, most often the baby is delivered preterm and treated in the NICU. It's not an abortion, it's a preterm delivery that tries to save both the mother and baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

I thought about that but I was hoping to avoid random right wing loonies if possible. I didn't want abortion in the title. I know PP does a lot more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see this as compromising. I think she will stand firm. Don't forget, when a mothers life is threatened late in pregnancy, most often the baby is delivered preterm and treated in the NICU. It's not an abortion, it's a preterm delivery that tries to save both the mother and baby.

I am aware that there are many grey areas here and that is precisely what made me uncomfortable about her discussing possible further restrictions in the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

I thought about that but I was hoping to avoid random right wing loonies if possible. I didn't want abortion in the title. I know PP does a lot more than that.

I don’t understand your hesitation to use the word, “abortion,” when that is what this thread is about.
It’s almost as if you believe abortion is a dirty word.

[Anonymous]

This post is such a red herring.

She is talking about a constitutional amendment allowing abortion, which would be huge. For that to happen, yes, you have to compromise. The compromise banning late term abortion, except for health reasons for the mother and fetus, is quite reasonable. The grey areas are not quite this grey as you make them out to be in the day and age when we have such extensive in-utero testing ability.

But of course, I guess it's better to worry about Roe v. Wade at every turn rather than have something set in stone via constitutional amendment, right?

In either case, all of this is moot, because Republicans will never let a constitutional amendment pass.

And all it shows is that HRC can think longterm and pragmatically, whereas some of you are more preoccupied with faux concerns about her consistency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This post is such a red herring.

She is talking about a constitutional amendment allowing abortion, which would be huge. For that to happen, yes, you have to compromise. The compromise banning late term abortion, except for health reasons for the mother and fetus, is quite reasonable. The grey areas are not quite this grey as you make them out to be in the day and age when we have such extensive in-utero testing ability.

But of course, I guess it's better to worry about Roe v. Wade at every turn rather than have something set in stone via constitutional amendment, right?

In either case, all of this is moot, because Republicans will never let a constitutional amendment pass.

And all it shows is that HRC can think longterm and pragmatically, whereas some of you are more preoccupied with faux concerns about her consistency.

This. Can you imagine if we didn't have to defend Roe from death by a thousand hate group cuts? Since literally NO WOMAN is changing her mind in the third trimester, if we got abortion, free and clear with normal regulations like every other health care provider has (instead of this hospital operating theater nonsense), fine. So long as women who have health problems and fetuses with catastrophic problems (as defined by doctors, not anti-choice goobers), golden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

I thought about that but I was hoping to avoid random right wing loonies if possible. I didn't want abortion in the title. I know PP does a lot more than that.

I don’t understand your hesitation to use the word, “abortion,” when that is what this thread is about.
It’s almost as if you believe abortion is a dirty word.

Of course not. Have you ever been involved in a thread when anti-abortion people hijack? It can get really ugly and I wanted to talk about this with people who are not insane. Some people choose topics from "recent topics" and if the title said abortion, I thought they might be all over it. It could have been a miscalculation on my part but it was what I thought was best in order to have a reasonable discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This post is such a red herring.

She is talking about a constitutional amendment allowing abortion, which would be huge. For that to happen, yes, you have to compromise. The compromise banning late term abortion, except for health reasons for the mother and fetus, is quite reasonable. The grey areas are not quite this grey as you make them out to be in the day and age when we have such extensive in-utero testing ability.

But of course, I guess it's better to worry about Roe v. Wade at every turn rather than have something set in stone via constitutional amendment, right?

In either case, all of this is moot, because Republicans will never let a constitutional amendment pass.

And all it shows is that HRC can think longterm and pragmatically, whereas some of you are more preoccupied with faux concerns about her consistency.

Do you know where I can find more information on what she would want a constitutional amendment to include? I was concerned about her loose wording in this interview and would like to know more about how that would work. It was only a piece of the interview and that section might have been chosen to manipulate pro- choice people into thinking she was saying something she wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

I thought about that but I was hoping to avoid random right wing loonies if possible. I didn't want abortion in the title. I know PP does a lot more than that.

I don’t understand your hesitation to use the word, “abortion,” when that is what this thread is about.
It’s almost as if you believe abortion is a dirty word.

Of course not. Have you ever been involved in a thread when anti-abortion people hijack? It can get really ugly and I wanted to talk about this with people who are not insane. Some people choose topics from "recent topics" and if the title said abortion, I thought they might be all over it. It could have been a miscalculation on my part but it was what I thought was best in order to have a reasonable discussion.

Ha. And, you think a title with “Planned Parenthood” won’t attract people opposed to abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be called “Clinton on abortion.”
Unless, of course, abortion is the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood, contrary to what many of you have been saying all along.

I thought about that but I was hoping to avoid random right wing loonies if possible. I didn't want abortion in the title. I know PP does a lot more than that.

I don’t understand your hesitation to use the word, “abortion,” when that is what this thread is about.
It’s almost as if you believe abortion is a dirty word.

Of course not. Have you ever been involved in a thread when anti-abortion people hijack? It can get really ugly and I wanted to talk about this with people who are not insane. Some people choose topics from "recent topics" and if the title said abortion, I thought they might be all over it. It could have been a miscalculation on my part but it was what I thought was best in order to have a reasonable discussion.

Ha. And, you think a title with “Planned Parenthood” won’t attract people opposed to abortion?

It hasn't so far. Is there anything else you would like to criticize me on?

[takoma]

I did not hear anything in her comments about amending the Constitution. She was talking about being willing to consider a Republican bill IF it were consistent with Roe v Wade and took into account the mother's health. So she still opposes a total ban on late-term abortions, but accepts the idea that a state can limit them provided there are reasonable exceptions such as the mother's health. That is perfectly in line with Roe v Wade as I understand it.