Clinton on Planned Parenthood

[Anonymous]

I am not sure what to make of this. I have always thought that one thing we could count on Clinton for is her stance on reproductive rights but this clip from MSNBC concerns me. She says that she would be willing to consider changing the laws on late term abortion if there is a way to structure a constitutional restriction that would take into account the health of the mother. The reason this concerns me is that there are so many grey areas when it comes to the mother's health, that I believe it would be impossible to take into account all possibilities. It is far too complicated. I am also concerned about the flexibility we have seen in the past from Clinton on some of the issues. I wanted to hear what others think of this.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[Anonymous]

I see nothing wrong with that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with that

Well, it is complicated but if the laws are very restrictive, and there are grey areas regarding the mother's health or the survival chances of the fetus, then there could be situations in which women are forced to carry babies to term when they will have to risk their lives to do it. I am just not sure about this. I have heard too many horror stories. It is already very difficult to get a late term abortion but there is some discretion left up to doctors and women. It is already very rare and has gotten to the point where some women are being forced to carry already deceased fetuses for weeks until they are able to get the medical care they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with that

Well, it is complicated but if the laws are very restrictive, and there are grey areas regarding the mother's health or the survival chances of the fetus, then there could be situations in which women are forced to carry babies to term when they will have to risk their lives to do it. I am just not sure about this. I have heard too many horror stories. It is already very difficult to get a late term abortion but there is some discretion left up to doctors and women. It is already very rare and has gotten to the point where some women are being forced to carry already deceased fetuses for weeks until they are able to get the medical care they need.

Source?

[jsteele]

Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation. He would move to the center and distance himself from the left knowing that the left had no place to go. Hillary is going to try to do the same thing. She wants to pull in the disaffected moderate Republicans who can't stomach Trump and Cruz. So, she softens on abortion and Bill takes a swipe at BLM. Just a traditional pivot from the Clintons and why I agued that she is not a true progressive. There is a fly in her ointment by the name of Sanders so the pivot won't be quite as easy as she would have hoped.

[Anonymous]

I'm about as pro-choice as they come and I don't think this is something we should legislate. But, I really don't think Clinton is going to do a bait-and-switch on abortion to an extreme degree. There are anti-abortion people out there who think women and babies need to be protected from the 36 week pregnant woman waltzing into a clinic and on a whim grabbing an abortion. It's offensive, as it doesn't happen, but if the compromise is that we have to have a law that has some vague restrictions on abortion in the third trimester with no evidence of an abnormality or risk to the mom, okay.

I think Clinton is trying to say she has thought about the issue and has met with women in difficult situations, etc. I don't think she is saying she will step into office and support abortion restrictions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation. He would move to the center and distance himself from the left knowing that the left had no place to go. Hillary is going to try to do the same thing. She wants to pull in the disaffected moderate Republicans who can't stomach Trump and Cruz. So, she softens on abortion and Bill takes a swipe at BLM. Just a traditional pivot from the Clintons and why I agued that she is not a true progressive. There is a fly in her ointment by the name of Sanders so the pivot won't be quite as easy as she would have hoped.

I just posted pretty much the opposite opinion. But if you think Clinton is seriously going to soften on abortion....well I guess we just disagree. I don't see this as softening her position. And again, I'm someone who couldn't be more passionate about reproductive rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with that

Well, it is complicated but if the laws are very restrictive, and there are grey areas regarding the mother's health or the survival chances of the fetus, then there could be situations in which women are forced to carry babies to term when they will have to risk their lives to do it. I am just not sure about this. I have heard too many horror stories. It is already very difficult to get a late term abortion but there is some discretion left up to doctors and women. It is already very rare and has gotten to the point where some women are being forced to carry already deceased fetuses for weeks until they are able to get the medical care they need.

Source?

Source on what? Grey areas in the mother's health? The health of fetuses? The rareness of late term abortion? Women having to carry dead fetuses because it is difficult to obtain the procedure? I covered a lot of things here and it is very complicated. This is a field I have studied quite a bit and I can look for specific sources at some point but I was just trying to give the basics on some of the grey areas and the reasons this is concerning.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation. He would move to the center and distance himself from the left knowing that the left had no place to go. Hillary is going to try to do the same thing. She wants to pull in the disaffected moderate Republicans who can't stomach Trump and Cruz. So, she softens on abortion and Bill takes a swipe at BLM. Just a traditional pivot from the Clintons and why I agued that she is not a true progressive. There is a fly in her ointment by the name of Sanders so the pivot won't be quite as easy as she would have hoped.

That is exactly what concerned me. I was pretty sure she would not bend the rules on this one and now I am not so sure.

[Anonymous]

Isn't this current law? I thought late term abortions were already banned except in cases where the mother is in danger. That said, I don't think this should be an amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with that

Well, it is complicated but if the laws are very restrictive, and there are grey areas regarding the mother's health or the survival chances of the fetus, then there could be situations in which women are forced to carry babies to term when they will have to risk their lives to do it. I am just not sure about this. I have heard too many horror stories. It is already very difficult to get a late term abortion but there is some discretion left up to doctors and women. It is already very rare and has gotten to the point where some women are being forced to carry already deceased fetuses for weeks until they are able to get the medical care they need.

Source?

Source on what? Grey areas in the mother's health? The health of fetuses? The rareness of late term abortion? Women having to carry dead fetuses because it is difficult to obtain the procedure? I covered a lot of things here and it is very complicated. This is a field I have studied quite a bit and I can look for specific sources at some point but I was just trying to give the basics on some of the grey areas and the reasons this is concerning.

I'd like to see some sort of official stats regarding when during the pregnancy each US abortion occurs. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this current law? I thought late term abortions were already banned except in cases where the mother is in danger. That said, I don't think this should be an amendment.

Yes, they are very difficult to obtain. That is why I am concerned about the possibility that Clinton might be willing to change this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation. He would move to the center and distance himself from the left knowing that the left had no place to go. Hillary is going to try to do the same thing. She wants to pull in the disaffected moderate Republicans who can't stomach Trump and Cruz. So, she softens on abortion and Bill takes a swipe at BLM. Just a traditional pivot from the Clintons and why I agued that she is not a true progressive. There is a fly in her ointment by the name of Sanders so the pivot won't be quite as easy as she would have hoped.

You are actually exactly right about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this current law? I thought late term abortions were already banned except in cases where the mother is in danger. That said, I don't think this should be an amendment.

Depends on what state you live in. Roe v Wade only finds for the constitutionality of abortion up to 24w. Beyond that it's up to the states to make the determination. The so-called "Partial-Birth Abortion Act" is a Federal law that bans one type of procedure and was upheld by SCOTUS. Late term abortions are still allowed under Federal law, though the alternative procedures are more difficult to perform and I believe carry more safety risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this current law? I thought late term abortions were already banned except in cases where the mother is in danger. That said, I don't think this should be an amendment.

Yes, they are very difficult to obtain. That is why I am concerned about the possibility that Clinton might be willing to change this.

Yes they are difficult to obtain. Unfortunately in many instances they are grouped together with instances in which a baby dies in utero, and the mother has surgery to get the baby out. That is in some cases considered a late term abortion, which to me is ridiculous. The baby is already dead. Why anyone would think it is a good idea to require a mom to carry a dead baby around is - it is inhumane. But it happens. Actually happened recently to a couple in Kasich's great state of Ohio. Congrats John.

Anyway, the stat I saw a couple months ago when I looked up late term abortions was 3,000 a year, and that includes the scenario I described of aborting a baby who has died in utero.

One challenge with abortion is people don't think a lot about it. You poll people, and they put an arbitrary number - 12 weeks, 10 weeks whatever. But when people spend more time with the question they change their answer. They don't consider the couple who find out about a serious health issue with the baby later on, at 16 or 20 weeks. They don't think about the couple referenced above in Ohio who were forced to walk around with a dead baby. Often they are willing to go later when they hear or are confronted with a scenario. And if you are republican politician who is REALLY against abortion but you knock up your mistress, well then you are okay with abortion in that circumstance: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/05/18/3659910/abortion-vote-desjarlais/

I am trying to give HRC the benefit of the doubt because she's been very clear about abortion to now. I'm not quite ready to freak out yet.