Anonymous wrote:It seems like a shift from some of her previous positions, especially #2 and #9 below.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/01/10-times-hillary-clinton-revealed-how-extreme-she-is-on-abortion
1) “Religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to expand abortion.
2) Clinton attacks bill to protect unborn babies from painful late abortions.
3) Clinton denies the science of fetal pain.
4) Clinton Gets “Hero’s Welcome” at Pro-Abortion EMILY’s List Gala
5) Planned Parenthood Employees Pour Cash to Clinton
6) Clinton defends Planned Parenthood after videos expose the organization’s trafficking of aborted baby body parts.
7) She even released a video message in support of Planned Parenthood.
8) StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer has endorsed Clinton for president.
9) Clinton attacked state-level efforts to enact commonsense protections for unborn children and their mothers.
10) Clinton likened pro-life Americans to terrorists

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure. Then why say Republicans would be unwilling to do that? They would love that.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It's hard to say. That's why I was hoping someone could point me to more information about this. The interview clip could really go either way. The language is pretty vague and you can almost read whatever you want to into it. She might have done that on purpose so that people who would like to see more restrictions will agree with her as well as those who already believe she will defend reproductive rights.

There's nothing else on this from my search. However, she was very consistent (for a long time) on this issue, so I am not at all worried about her wanting to restrict abortions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

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.

It's hard to say. That's why I was hoping someone could point me to more information about this. The interview clip could really go either way. The language is pretty vague and you can almost read whatever you want to into it. She might have done that on purpose so that people who would like to see more restrictions will agree with her as well as those who already believe she will defend reproductive rights.

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.

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. "

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with that

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.

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.