Clinton on Planned Parenthood

[Anonymous]

Here is some clarification on the differences between Sanders and Clinton on choice. He doesn't want to touch Roe v Wade. She seems flexible about further restrictions on late term abortions. Remember, they are already very restricted and so difficult to obtain that some women are forced to carry dead fetuses until they can get the procedure. I read about a woman in Baltimore who had to wait two weeks after the fetus died to have the procedure. I cannot even imagine.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

[Anonymous]

I'm sure you mean well, but I really prefer to take NARAL and PPAF at their word, and Clinton too. The mother's health certainly includes her mental health.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe anyone would seriously think that HRC would consider a constitutional ban on abortion for the sake of compromise. Just wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe anyone would seriously think that HRC would consider a constitutional ban on abortion for the sake of compromise. Just wow.

OP trying hard, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe anyone would seriously think that HRC would consider a constitutional ban on abortion for the sake of compromise. Just wow.

OP trying hard, though.

I really wasn't trying to discredit her on this. This is the one thing I have trusted Hillary on and I was hoping someone could show that she will not increase restrictions on abortion. I am no longer confident that she won't and no one has shown anything to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, yeah. Dollars to donuts you're the same person who's always asking people to post positive things about Hillary so you can feel better about voting for her November, and then you shoot them down.

If NARAL and Planned Parenthood feel confident about endorsing Hillary, that's enough for me. But my all means, keep it up. I wonder why Real Clear Politics would post such a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, yeah. Dollars to donuts you're the same person who's always asking people to post positive things about Hillary so you can feel better about voting for her November, and then you shoot them down.

If NARAL and Planned Parenthood feel confident about endorsing Hillary, that's enough for me. But my all means, keep it up. I wonder why Real Clear Politics would post such a thing?

That is because they know which side their bread is buttered on. She is using some very shaky language here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, yeah. Dollars to donuts you're the same person who's always asking people to post positive things about Hillary so you can feel better about voting for her November, and then you shoot them down.

If NARAL and Planned Parenthood feel confident about endorsing Hillary, that's enough for me. But my all means, keep it up. I wonder why Real Clear Politics would post such a thing?

That is because they know which side their bread is buttered on. She is using some very shaky language here.

When is that video from, OP?

They had absolutely no need to endorse her in the primary. PPAF has never done that before. I know it burns you, but they did it because they believe in her very passionately. Cecile ought to hit this thread and school you good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote: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.

What do you think this means?

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. "

Sound to me like she's in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw (restrict) abortions with exception of the mother's health.
That runs counter to Planned Parenthood's stance.

No, that's is not what she said. She further said this " But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action." I don't think Republicans would not be willing to restrict abortion

I think you are seeing what you want to see. It seems there is at least an implication that she is willing to change the laws.

I think it's pretty clear that this is not something she favors, but if a bill were placed in front of her (that she would not have asked for or endorsed) that had passed both houses of Congress...she would consider one that provided some exceptions before outright vetoing. I'm sincerely doubtful that such a bill will ever make it across her desk if she were POTUS, but that's what she's saying.

[Anonymous]

Again. When is the video from? What is it from? What did she say before and after this excerpt?

OP is acting like a sleuth who has found some kind of smoking gun posted on a right-leaning site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again. When is the video from? What is it from? What did she say before and after this excerpt?

OP is acting like a sleuth who has found some kind of smoking gun posted on a right-leaning site.

I was not able to figure out where or when. I was hoping for some help figuring that out instead of just snarky remarks. Believe it or not, I am interested in the truth about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. When is the video from? What is it from? What did she say before and after this excerpt?

OP is acting like a sleuth who has found some kind of smoking gun posted on a right-leaning site.

I was not able to figure out where or when. I was hoping for some help figuring that out instead of just snarky remarks. Believe it or not, I am interested in the truth about this.

I posted a link with where she stood on abortion since the 70s. Why would you not believe that more than a random video with a context even you are uncertain of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. When is the video from? What is it from? What did she say before and after this excerpt?

OP is acting like a sleuth who has found some kind of smoking gun posted on a right-leaning site.

I was not able to figure out where or when. I was hoping for some help figuring that out instead of just snarky remarks. Believe it or not, I am interested in the truth about this.

I posted a link with where she stood on abortion since the 70s. Why would you not believe that more than a random video with a context even you are uncertain of?

A random snippet of video posted on that particular website, with no date. Seems totally legit!

This is a recognizable pattern. Post something "negative," pretend to want reassurance, and then shoot down every counterfactual offered. It puts oppo out there and keeps the thread active while drawing in Clinton supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. When is the video from? What is it from? What did she say before and after this excerpt?

OP is acting like a sleuth who has found some kind of smoking gun posted on a right-leaning site.

I was not able to figure out where or when. I was hoping for some help figuring that out instead of just snarky remarks. Believe it or not, I am interested in the truth about this.

I posted a link with where she stood on abortion since the 70s. Why would you not believe that more than a random video with a context even you are uncertain of?

Clinton has flip flopped on NAFTA and TPP, gay rights, gun control, no child left behind, the Iraq war, immigration, mass incarceration, clean coal, and the Keystone XL pipeline as far as I know. I have trusted her on reproductive rights so far but there is no way to know what she will decide next. So I was asking if anyone knew more about this interview and no one seems to know. I said, earlier in this thread that I do not think she will flip flop on this. I would just like to know more if anyone can find information on the interview itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Clinton has flip flopped on NAFTA and TPP, gay rights, gun control, no child left behind, the Iraq war, immigration, mass incarceration, clean coal, and the Keystone XL pipeline as far as I know. I have trusted her on reproductive rights so far but there is no way to know what she will decide next. So I was asking if anyone knew more about this interview and no one seems to know. I said, earlier in this thread that I do not think she will flip flop on this. I would just like to know more if anyone can find information on the interview itself.

With the possible exception of TPP, I would not call the fact that Clinton has either admitted to making a mistake or would support a different policy 20 years later a flip flop. Dogmatic consistency is not always healthy.