Abortion

Dems Urge Debate Moderators to Ask Clinton and Sanders About Abortion

Both are broadly pro-choice, but Democrats want more specifics about their views and policy proposals.

|

schoeband/Flickr

A number of reproductive-rights groups and prominent feminists are pushing for Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders to be questioned about abortion during the Democrats' televised presidential debate Wednesday. While Republican candidates have been questioned about abortion several times during their debates, none of the seven Democratic debates so far have featured an abortion question. 

"Yes, we have two pro-choice candidates in this primary," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a March 7 statement. "And voters want to hear more than principles—we want to hear a plan to address the obstacles real women face every day in determining what's best for our families. And the place to vet those plans is on a debate stage." 

Clinton and Sanders were finally asked directly about abortion during a Democratic town hall Monday. Their "differing answers … showed why it's important to ask candidates about the issue, even pro-choice Democrats," suggests Emily Crockett at Vox.

Here's how Sanders responded when asked by Fox News anchor Bret Baier whether he could "name a single circumstance at any point in a pregnancy in which [he] would be OK with abortion being illegal?" 

SANDERS: It's not a question of me being okay. This will – thank you for the question, but I happen to believe — and let me be very clear about it. I know not everybody here will agree with me. I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

I think, I believe, and I understand there are honest people. I mean, I have a lot of friends, some supporters, some disagree. They hold a different point of view, and I respect that. But that is my view.

And I'll tell you something which I don't like in this debate. There are a whole lot of people out there who tell me the government is terrible, government is awful, get government off our backs. My Republican friends want to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare – Medicaid, education.  But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.

BAIER: I guess the genesis of the question is that there are some Democrats who say after five months, with the exception of the life of the mother or the health of the baby, that perhaps that's something to look at. You're saying no.

SANDERS: I Am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That's my view. 

Similar questions were later posed to Clinton; here's how she responded:

CLINTON: Well, again, let me put this in context, because it's an important question. Right now the Supreme Court is considering a decision that would shut down a lot of the options for women in Texas, and there have been other legislatures that have taken similar steps to try to restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution, women have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor. It's not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

So I think we have to continue to stand up for a woman's right to make these decisions, and to defend Planned Parenthood, which does an enormous amount of good work across our country.

BAIER: Just to be clear, there's no — without any exceptions?

CLINTON: No — I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.

BAIER: Fetal malformities and…

CLINTON: And threats to the woman's health.

BAIER: Sure.

CLINTON: And so I think it is — under Roe v. Wade, it is appropriate to say, in these circumstances, so long as there's an exception for the life and health of the mother. 

As with many subjects, "Sanders came across as more unwavering and moralistic, but also less specific," notes Crockett. "Clinton came across as more cautious and equivocal, but also more interested in nuance and policy." 

Interestingly, Sanders seemed to oppose a 20-week abortion ban of any sort, while Clinton seemed to indicate that she would be OK with one as long as there's an exception for the life and the health of the mother. But when questioned after the town hall by Vox, the Clinton campaign replied that "Clinton is on record and continues to oppose 20-week abortion bans, which are a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and therefore unconstitutional." 

Clinton "also recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman," the email continued.  

Under Roe v Wade, the government cannot ban abortion until the point of fetal viability (that is, when the fetus can survive on its own outside of the womb). Medical consensus previously held that this was around 24-25 weeks, but scientific advances are upping the chances that babies born even earlier can survive. This has led for calls among anti-abortion activists and legislators to start banning all abortions after 20 weeks pregnancy. Twelve U.S. states have already passed 20-week bans. In places where these laws have been challenged, courts have repeatedly found them unconstitutional

NEXT: Giancarlo Ibarguen, R.I.P.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Moderator: Ms Clinton/Sen Sanders: Do you believe that a woman has sole control over her body, and therefore her reproductive rights?

    Sanders: Yes.

    Clinton: Of course!

    Moderator: Then, obviously, you would support the availability of the “morning after” pill, if a woman would want to choose that path?

    Sanders: Yes, a woman’s body is her own!

    Clinton: Yes, no one should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

    Moderator: Well, then, may I assume that you are in favor of legalizing all drugs, since a woman has sovereignty over her own body, and it is her right to put into it what she wants?

    CRICKETS…………………..

    1. Sanders: Let me clarify, we’re talking about one, and only one morning after pill?

  2. Wow, Hillary really is running to the right. Interesting.

    1. Did you expect her to try to move left on Sanders? The only room there as far as I can tell is in gun control.

      1. Not in general, no, but I didn’t expect her to be to his right on abortion specifically.

        1. I see, but again I don’t think there’s much room to the left of Sanders on abortion. Plus, I think Ms. Clinton is probably running for president at this point, not for the nomination.

          1. I don’t see why she needs to differentiate herself from him on abortion. But I assume the answer is your second sentence.

    2. People in the Dem party will see it as her being disingenuous if she does makes any obvious moves leftward. The challenge for her is to change people’s perceptions of her being dishonest, so she has to be extra careful about blatantly shifting left to try to get Sanders’ supporters.

    3. Do you think she would sign off on a 20 month ban once elected president?

      There is no room to the left with Hillary and abortion as far as I can tell.

      1. I don’t really think she would, but I also didn’t think she’d say anything to make me think she was less than 100% pro-choice.

        1. Her husband was famous for “the third way”.

        2. Kinda splitting hairs though isn’t it? She was trying to make herself sound different from Bernie but there is about as much room between the two on abortion as the room between the blocks of the Great Pyramids.

          1. Except now as far as I’m concerned Hillary would allow restrictions after 20 weeks, which is a huge difference.

            1. Its very european of her. Which I thought was Bernie’s schtick.

            2. I think she screwed up at the debate in answering the question when in reality she wouldn’t oppose full abortion rights at ANY point of gestation.

      2. If she doesn’t she’s a monster. Most people in this country are against the murder of 11 month old children.

    4. “Look, I love abortion, okay? I am an abortionado. But I would go pro-life in a fetal fucking heartbeat if it meant winning.”

    5. Wow, Hillary really is running to the right.

      Figuratively really, like when I say, “I really will be your right-hand man.” and then step to your left and go do whatever the hell I please whether you like it or not.

      1. running to the right.
        Yeah. She moved all way from 2 to 3 on a scale of 10.

    6. Hillary really is running to the right. Interesting.

      Well, she was the Secretary of State, traveled thousands of miles around the globe. Perhaps she figured out that from the point of view of civilized European countries the current legal regime in the US with respect to abortion is extremist.

  3. [I]Sanders: …I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.[/I]

    But people’s wallets are fair game.

    1. God damn tags… Sanders: …I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    2. The other natural follow up is

      “Mr. Sanders, if your position is that the government shouldn’t be telling a woman what to do with her body, are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?”

      1. Abortion is a singular issue of choice held in a pure vacuum. After abortion, everything else is negotiable.

        1. I assume, by negotiable, you mean fytw

      2. the government shouldn’t be telling a woman what to do with her body

        People use their bodies to pay taxes and buy health insurance, right?

    3. Men’s Non-pregnant persons’ bodies are fair game.

      Pregnancy is apparently, the ‘get out of socialism free’ card.

  4. “Clinton is on record and continues to oppose 20-week abortion bans, which are a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and therefore unconstitutional.”

    Roe specifically allows for abortion bans after viability. Here’s the summary from the case:

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-…..0/113.html

    She’s actually right that a no-exceptions ban on abortion after viability is not consistent with Roe v Wade. It would be nice if she were to say “with no exceptions”, but her stated position on post-viability bans with exceptions is actually pretty much where I am.

  5. As with many subjects, “Sanders came across as more unwavering and moralistic, but also less specific,” notes Crockett. “Clinton came across as more cautious and equivocal, but also more interested in nuance and policy.”

    That’s how I read it. Clinton seemed to address the real question here, which was the barriers to abortion being erected in various localities. I suspect that pro-choice voters liked Clinton’s answer more.

    I have to add:

    And I’ll tell you something which I don’t like in this debate. There are a whole lot of people out there who tell me the government is terrible, government is awful, get government off our backs. My Republican friends want to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ? Medicaid, education. But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.

    You’re right, Bernie. Now if only there was a position that saw the problem with keeping the government involved in every personal decision except abortion, and why when you justify the former, you’re always in danger of getting the latter.

    1. I suspect that pro-choice voters liked Clinton’s answer more.

      Well, I’m probably not a voter, but not me.

      1. I re-read her statement a couple more times and I’m now dithering. I think it depends what traditional pro-choice democratic voters want to hear. The first part of her statement seemed to directly address the Republican attacks on access to abortion– that’s the part that I heard the loudest. Then the muddled and nuanced followup didn’t seem to take a clear position.

        Unfortunately, I can’t predict what the electorate for whom abortion is a key issue will latch onto.

        1. Neither can I, as some of them have shifted to “access” meaning “pay for it.”

          But for myself…yeah, the stuff she said about R attacks was okay, but I basically need to hear someone say no ban at any time, period. Anything with “exceptions for the life/health” isn’t really cutting it for me. Especially for a fucking Democrat, considering this is their only selling point.

          1. considering this is their only selling point.

            What’s ass sex, chopped liver?

          2. I basically need to hear someone say no ban at any time, period.

            So, abortions on demand up until the baby crowns? Draws it first breath? The umbilical cord is cut?

            1. Are you asking what an acceptable position for a politician is, or my own?

                1. I believe it is a woman’s moral responsibility to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus can suffer.

                  1. “I believe it is a woman’s moral responsibility to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus can suffer.”

                    Is suffer an objective term here? As it seems like it’s suffering as soon as it comes into existence.

                    1. As it seems like it’s suffering as soon as it comes into existence.

                      Not before it’s sentient.

                    2. “Not before it’s sentient.”

                      Yikes, I think we’ve just gone further away from any idea of objectivity here.

                    3. Considering objectivity, if it exists, is totally inaccessible, that doesn’t seem like a problem.

                    4. “Considering objectivity, if it exists, is totally inaccessible, that doesn’t seem like a problem.”

                      No, it doesn’t. We’d still have to meet at some level if we’re to communicate and that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. A concept like “sentience” let alone “suffering” might just be too difficult.

                    5. Well, you can never really tell if someone or something else is sentient, can you? You can’t even tell if they’re real. You just have to take a gamble with your conscience on that.

                    6. “Well, you can never really tell if someone or something else is sentient, can you? You can’t even tell if they’re real. You just have to take a gamble with your conscience on that.”

                      Yes exactly. I’m taking what (I think) is the safest bet and gambling on “always suffering” here. Knowing full well that “suffering” has multiple meanings and there are zero stakes.

                  2. I’m with you on the moral responsibility.

                    Should it ever be banned? Your statement above about bans makes it seem like abortion on demand until some point during, I guess, the delivery process. I’m just curious at what point?

                    And, why that point? Abortion on demand until delivery seems to be based entirely on the mother’s ownership of her body, and doesn’t seem to me to take personhood of the fetus into account (unless you believe personhood is conferred during the birth process?), so I’m just poking at the underlying reasoning, is all.

                    1. Sorry, RC, but you misunderstand me. I believe abortion is the moral choice.

                      And it seems like you are asking me about laws, but if you want to understand my views, laws are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is everyone’s own personal conscience?what else is there? It’s all just individuals making their own moral choices.

                    2. Sorry, Nikki. I didn’t quite catch that you believe that its a moral obligation to terminate every pregnancy, just so you do it before the fetus can suffer.

                      The only relevant thing is everyone’s own personal conscience?what else is there?

                      OK. Got it.

                      Do you think its immoral to kill a person?

                      If so, at what point would it be immoral to kill a baby or fetus?

                  3. I was going to make a mocking post with that as your view, but you made it first seriously.

                    That is a view held only by insane environuts and you.

                    1. I am not the only non-environut anti-natalist.

                    2. How awesome would it be if you lived the courage of your convictions and fucking killed yourself? God you’re an insufferable cunt. You’re like every high school freshman reading babby’s first nihilism.

                    3. “It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.”

                    4. “That is a view held only by insane environuts and you.”

                      I don’t think Jim Crawford is an environut. I can think of quite a few who at least haven’t expressed an environmental argument.

                  4. So giving birth is immoral?

                    1. Oh wow I thought I was making a joke about a sloppily worded statement that women should abort, if they are going to, before the fetus is sentient. You actually think women should always abort?

                      I had been feeling sorry for you when the other commentators made nasty comments.

                      I apologize to the rest of you. Nikki is in fact the worst.

                    2. When I first started coming here, I thought the “Nikki is the worst” comments were a running joke referencing something I never saw. I did not know until reading this story’s comments that it was in fact, extremely serious. I’m not sure I have words to express what I just read from her.

            2. For Nikki extremism in the defense of abortion is no vice! But what would you expect from the worst?!

              1. “For Nikki extremism in the defense of abortion is no vice! But what would you expect from the worst?!”

                You can go further, libertarians – well, one famous one – have defended infanticide in the past.

                1. At the end of the day, it’s just your preference, what you call morals. Whether a society would survive, given the adoption of a given set, is another question. But don’t pretend there’s some universal standard written somewhere, because there isn’t — even those who believe there is, well, their particular standard is only one of many they could’ve chosen.

                  1. at the end of the day, it’s just your preference

                    I’m with this guy.

            3. Algebra. Always go full pkd when the opportunity arrives.

          3. Where can I get a Gosnell 2016 bumper sticker?

            Relax, I’m only half joking.

            1. Well, yeah–the other half is in a jar in the fridge.

  6. I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.

    At first, I thought I missed a vote on an abortion bill. Because even Walker’s notoriously onerous 20 week law made exceptions for difficult medical situations. Then I remembered the universe we live in and that HRC is lying out of her ass.

      1. You mean the one that literally reads;

        Prohibits an abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions;

        Is it not some other bill?

        1. I mean, the literal first sentence makes exceptions that HRC says it doesn’t make.

          1. Yeah, but she claims it doesn’t, and that’s enough for the media.

        2. My bad! I don’t know if there is another bill, but GOPers do talk about them all the time.

          1. I don’t fault you. As I said, I forgot the “She is most probably lying.” axiom for a moment as well.

            1. I will say, though, that this isn’t much of an exception from my POV:

              (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions

              What if her life isn’t in danger, only her health? This is why Hillary should not be up for this shit.

              1. What if her life isn’t in danger, only her health?

                I think things would get excessively onerous if we pin it all down to the handful of pregnancies/abortions that happen every year that threaten health but not life. Especially considering the 99.999% of us who aren’t pregnant/aborting and/or under the given conditions in the first place. Not to mention the fact that having kids is generally documented as being detrimental to your health while prolonging lifespan.

                “Corner cases make bad law/policy”, as it were.

                1. 2 sigma rule.

                  Decide principles based on middle 95%. Worry about exceptions later.

                2. Yeah, unfortunately if you are one of those corner cases, that’s going to be all you care about.

      2. That bill also includes exceptions if the mothers life is at risk due to medical complications:

        “The bill, passed by a 242-to-184 vote, would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks?approximately halfway through a pregnancy?with exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk.”

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/05…..-20-weeks/

        1. You’d think that a victim of rape or incest would know before 20 weeks.

      3. That bill also includes exceptions if the mothers life is at risk due to medical complications:

        “The bill, passed by a 242-to-184 vote, would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks?approximately halfway through a pregnancy?with exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk.”

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/05…..-20-weeks/

  7. The Democrats’ official position of abortion at anytime until birth is just as extreme as the Republicans’. The vast majority of people, including women, are in a middle ground, believing that abortion is morally abhorrent but sometimes necessary, and also that it should be illegal after 20 weeks. The left dropped “rare” from their platform and instead has been trying to present abortion as something to be celebrated. That attitude turns moderates off just as much as the righties who are against rape victim abortions.

    1. They are definitely a bridge-too-far on this issue – why they don’t want to discuss it.

    2. Their insistence on taxpayer funding probably turns off some people as well. The vast majority of people are basically “live and let abort”, but plenty of them also don’t want to pay for it.

  8. SANDERS: I Am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That’s my view.

    So, then, greeting with a power drill a full term whatever as it’s crowning is acceptable? Which is more ludicrous? Arbitrary (if someone science-informed) time frames for viability or rigid until-it’s-all-the-way-out stances?

    1. Which is more ludicrous? Arbitrary (if someone science-informed) time frames for viability or rigid until-it’s-all-the-way-out stances?

      I thought the new line was when the cord is literally and figuratively cut, around the 104th trimester?

    2. her physician

      Abortion is specifically forbidden by the Hippocratic Oath. And I don’t mean some modern version of it, either. Anyone who performs abortion is not a physician.

      1. Interesting, I just read the original and modern versions of the oath and did not see the word “abortion”. Do you have a double super-secret version?

        1. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

          Hippocratic Oath, Wikipedia

          Maybe scanning an ancient text for a modern word is not the best strategy to read for comprehension, no?

          1. So you linked to a page that you didn’t fully read? Well done.

            Maybe scroll down a little to the “Abortion and the Hippocratic Oath” section.

            1. Hooray, you’ve graduated to the sophistry stage. Yes, if you intentionally modify the document to remove parts you don’t like, then it doesn’t contain those parts.

              1. So do you believe that anywhere in the world anyone is still using the original oath? You’re sticking with the “No True Physician” argument?

                I didn’t modify the document at all so I’m not sure how I’m a sophist. Which is a pretty silly charge from someone who calls atheism a religion.

                Do you also call public schools prisons and claim that parents with children in public schools should be charged with child abuse? Because that’s a cute argument too.

                1. Do you want to have a discussion about the merits, or do you want to fling unrelated shit around?

                2. More on point:

                  The original oath said no abortion. Modern medical cultists changed the oath because they didn’t like that part. Most people use the new oath because they’re intellectually lazy and/or they agree with the revisions. In a practical sense, the Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant anyway since medical doctors do what gets them paid, not what some Greek guy who lived millenia ago said they should. But a physician is an adherent of the oath, judged not by the title on their business card or the license some state issued them, but by their actions.

  9. I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    What if she wants to sell a kidney to the highest bidder? What then, Bernie?

    1. It’s already known that he makes an exception for the fruits of whatever labor she chooses to use her body to enact.

      1. Never even mind the $$, let’s take that out of the equation. I’m pretty sure he’s into a more “fair” solution of centrally-managed waiting lists, and that nobody can farm out their own organs as they please. Like, he would probably be opposed to my saying “I don’t want the #1 recipient on the waiting list to get my kidney, and instead I’d like to to go to the first person on the list named Balthasar.”

        So, he only believes in “my body, my choice” when it comes to uteruses. Other organs need not apply.

    2. I don’t think it’s right when there are children going hungry in this country for people to have a choice of a right or left kidney.

      1. I made SURE I gave my left one…If it would have been a testicle, instead of a kidney, I would have said “right”…I would want to be able to still say “I’d give my left nut to…”

        1. I laughed. Also, your propensity to give away organs is the sole reason I try to stay on your good side.

        2. Don’t think about it so hard…

          Even if you gave away your left nut, you’d still only have one nut left.
          Therefore, one left nut to give.

    3. Money is changing hands. No can do.

      1. No, DRP, get with the times. The government reserves the right to regulate a product even for your own consumption. So, if money could have changed hands it’s still regulatory fair game.

        Regulatory socialism for the win.

      2. So, no more selling fetus parts?

  10. Do Republicans ever urge their party to discuss specific policy proposals? “Yes, I understand that you want to bomb brown people, Mr. Republican – everyone here agrees with you – but what kind of bombs would you use?”

    1. The carpet-bombin’ kind of bombs.

    2. Did you miss the first few debates where there was a literal comparison to see who had the biggest warboner?

    3. Do Republicans ever urge their party to discuss specific policy proposals?

      We haven’t talked about Trump enough. Whether you love him or hate him, when there’s an article about HRC and Bernie Sanders, we all really should be thinking about how we can talk about Trump some more. I think it’s pretty apparent that if the Republican debates started taking suggestions, for the leading candidate Donald Trump anyway, policy proposals would be at the bottom of the list. However, I’m sure in his discussion of all things Trump which bombs Trump would use on which brown people and where would be implicitly, if not explicitly covered.

      1. But which Brown people. Jerry? James? Ron? or go for old moldering John?

  11. Is there any issue democrats are pro-choice on besides abortion?

    1. Ass sex.

      1. Not when it involves a slut with a mattress.

        1. I’m pretty sure sluts are allowed to choose ass sex.

          1. Apparently they are allowed to call it rape the next werk too.

            1. I werk too hard myself.

              *starts twerking*

      2. Ass sex.

        In the context of ‘yes means yes’ compulsory speech, er, yes.

    2. They’re *not* prochoice on abortion, they want to subsidize it.

      1. with tax dollars, that is.

        Not much choice there.

      2. Yeah, we’re only allowed to subsidize one side of the abortion question, for fairness.

    3. Which public bathroom you can use.`

      1. And *every* bathroom is a public bathroom.

  12. Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution,

    Weird that she feels like she has to say that.

    1. It is in Article XVIII, Section 13!

  13. I think there’s a reason the Democratic candidates don’t want many abortion questions.

    Democrats do best when they avoid discussing abortion, or fold it into a discussion of contraception or free mammograms.

    They don’t do so well when explaining to people outside their bubble why they want legal late-term abortions – with a “health exception” so wide you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through it.

  14. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family.

    Oh? “Family” gets a say do they?

    1. I think in this one narrow case, “family” may be a rabid pack of NARAL activists.

    2. Well, like a GOP controlled Senate gets a says on a Democrat President’s Supreme Court nominations. Just rubber stamp it.

    3. family = village, i.e. It takes a village to abort a fetus

  15. Under Roe v. Wade The Second Amendment, which is rooted in the Constitution, women people have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor gun dealer. It’s not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

    A man can dream, can’t he?

    1. Staple that to every politician’s mother fucking forehead.

  16. Everyone is getting concerned about topics being avoided in the debates.

    21 mayors in Florida cities have begged the moderators of the next Republican debate to finally ask eac participant about climate change. Their concern being real life of course because of sea level rise.

    “It would be unconscionable for these issues of grave concern for the people of Florida to not be addressed in the upcoming debate you will be hosting in the state.”

    Oh, and there are Republican mayors who signed the letters. It seems they just don’t find it satisfactory for the 2 GOP leaders to consider climate change as a hoax, or pseudoscience. Not when it impacts them in such a harmful way.

    1. What harmful impacts has Florida suffered as a result of “climate change”?

      Given the ongoing lull in major hurricanes coming ashore, I see Florida reaping some real benefits, but I’m fuzzy on the harms.

      1. From Florida’s Dept. of State

        “Even at today’s rate, sea-level rise is causing dis- cernable effects in natural coastal ecosystems around Florida and presents everyday chal- lenges to those responsible for maintaining drainage systems, recreational beaches, coastal highways, and emergency preparations. Stresses caused by today’s rate of sea-level rise are more pronounced in southern Florida than in the Panhandle; but as the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, nearly all of the state’s coastal ecosystems and infrastructure will be challenged as never before.”

        You see benefits? Those mayors don’t.

        1. Stresses caused by today’s rate of sea-level rise are more pronounced in southern Florida than in the Panhandle;

          SCIENCE!

        2. but as the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, nearly all of the state’s coastal ecosystems and infrastructure will be challenged as never before.”

          I need a date on that. Barring that, a decade. Barring that, a century.

          1. You might need an exact date on that. Those Florida mayors don’t.

            1. Of course they don’t. There’s no way they’d tie federal funding to actual results.

              1. It’s just a question they want asked, as it has meaning to their constituency. No harm in that. Solutions are being implemented right now…those candidates may want to say they aren’t prepared to support any. Maybe such an answer will resonate with Florida residents, no?

                1. What are these solutions being implemented now?

                  1. If there are none, you have nothing to worry about. Keep ignoring.

                    1. Well you said there were solutions being implemented now. Curious to what those are? Since you made the claim should be easy for you to say and how have you assessed the impact of those solutions?

        3. How much is the sea level rise and how did you determine it was due to AGW? How much will it rise…what is challenged as never before?

          1. How goes it today, Tornado?

            1. Can’t you answer the question?

              1. No interest. How goes it?

                1. No interest

                  You have no interest in discussion the topic that you brought up because “somebody had to do it”.

                  Do you know what the definition of intellectual dishonesty is?

                  1. Exactly. Tor asks me every time to prove AGW, or now future sea level rise, in the Reason comments thread. Once I pointed him to an AAAS explanation, and that’s not good enough. So far be it from me to try.

                    No interest. It’s just tedious. How goes it for you, kbo?

                    1. It’s just tedious.

                      Obviously not. You are more than happy to engage in a long threaded discussion about it.

                      The part you find tedious is actually the part that matters, namely of proving or at least substantiating your claims and defending them from criticism.

                2. So why do you post things like that? You really aren’t doing a good job of convincing people. Perhaps you are a troll?

                  1. I could not care less if you are ever convinced.

                    1. I could not care less if you are ever convinced.

                      Then STFU and go away.

                    2. Nope. But here is a solution for you and Tor. If my comments are so off base, don’t read them. Problem solved!

                      Heaven knows unless you are responding to me, I don’t read either yours or Tor’s.

                    3. Heaven knows unless you are responding to me, I don’t read either yours or Tor’s.

                      All the more reason for you to fuck off.

                    4. So you got nothing…got it.

                    5. Good!

                    6. Never change jack never change. You have convinced me to embrace climate change fo sure

        4. This isn’t really all that specific. Challenges to those maintaining things? What are those challenges?

          1. JACK???

        5. Even at today’s rate, sea-level rise is causing discernable effects in natural coastal ecosystems around Florida

          Discernable effects are not necessarily harm.

          everyday chal- lenges to those responsible for maintaining drainage systems, recreational beaches, coastal highways, and emergency preparations.

          I have a really hard time believing that an increase in the sea level of a few inches is, as we speak today, wrecking drainage systems, beaches, etc.

          Its funny, when you look into it, that the alarmists like to point to a rise of several inches over the last few hundred years. Apparently, the sea level was rising before AGW could have possibly been a factor, raising the question of how much is due to AGW, no?

          More recent data is this:

          According to one study of measurements available from 1950 to 2009, these measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 millimetres (0.067 in) ? 0.3 millimetres (0.012 in) per year during this period, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 millimetres (0.13 in) ? 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) per year from 1993 to 2009.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

          Doing the math, the sea level increased by 100 mm from 1950 to 2009, or a grand total of less than 4 inches. And I’m supposed to believe that 4 iches over sixty years is fucking drainage and beaches and stuff?

          Puh – lease.

          1. Especially considering how pre construction, barrier islands were transient at best.

          2. It’s a concern to those mayors.

            1. It’s a concern to those mayors.

              So? The question is, should it be?

              1. Of course. But it’s up to them. And they made their concerns known.

            2. not all concerns are warranted.

              1. Whose the judge of that?

                1. reality

                2. Whose the judge of that?

                  Each of us. Unless we abrogate our responsibility to Top. Men.

                  1. Unless we abrogate our responsibility to Top. Men.

                    But which Top Men?

                    At some point, you must either admit you don’t know and thus stop arguing altogether, or else you must admit that you think yourself as smart as the Top Men you are citing, but can’t be bothered to demonstrate as much.

                    You can’t say “Bob’s right because he’s smart” unless you are as smart as Bob and can independently verify what Bob says. In which case, why do you even need to cite Bob in the first place?

                  2. Correct! And if it’s up to the mayors, they want the question asked!

                    1. … when somebody points out that appeal to authority is a fallacy, your response is to appeal to an appeal to authority.

                      If arguing with one degree of separation from any understanding of the underlying issues is bad, then how is arguing with two degrees of separation better?

          3. Doing the math, the sea level increased by 100 mm from 1950 to 2009, or a grand total of less than 4 inches.

            Right, but it rose further closer to Florida’s urethra than it did closer to the scrotum, because global warming.

        1. An American was killed by Palestinian terror recently.

          That adds to the reasons to wage thermonuclear war on Gaza.

          And we all know how thermonuclear war affects the climate…

    2. They should probably sell their houses to some suckers and move to high ground.
      THAT is the rational action if they believe in the Warmining.

    3. Wow. 21 whole mayors out of the 3rd most populous state in the union. That’s unprecedented. I’m really concerned now.

    4. I think Jackand Ace is suggesting that, to balance for asking the Democrats embarrassing questions about abortion, we should ask the Republicans some embarrassing questions about climate change.

      He seems to be aware that asking about abortion would be awkward for Dems and benefit Republicans, so he would like to counteract it.

      1. Oh no. I hope they are asked. Everything on the table.

  17. “No one needs 27 different colors of infants.”

  18. I have a new rule that I am not to read abortion threads for the sake of my sanity. Is this abortion thread up to H&R’s usual insane standards or is it safe to read?

    1. It’s OK, Jackand Ace started a discussion of global warming.

      1. Someone had to do it.

        1. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        2. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        3. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        4. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        5. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        6. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        7. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        8. In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

            1. How many squirrelz would it take to nuke Florida?

              1. 2. One to push the button and one to hold his nuts while he does it.

              2. How many squirrelz would it take to nuke Florida?

                Pakistani squirrelz? Or Russian squirrelz?

        9. [citation needed]

      2. Well, it makes sense Joe would be really concerned about global warming since if sea levels rise more than half an inch he’ll be completely underwater.

    2. Spoiler Alert: Bernie’s an ideologically inconsistent socialist and Hillary’s hard to pin down because she lies.

      1. Wait, I thought that was the point of the other—….oh, I see what you did there.

      2. and Nikki is the worst

      1. Yeah, go ahead and read the thread, you know you want to!

        1. I read it. It has devolved into too much of a shit show, yet.

            1. [citation needed]

              1. Oh, there’s been much worse.

              2. C’mon X, you’ve seen waaaaay worse than this, surely!

      2. Meaning, it’s much less fun.

  19. happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    Just what to do with her money. And with whom she may associate or choose not to associate. Or when and how she can speak on political issues. Also, what to do with her body in non-abortion contexts.

    1. Every time a politician says she supports whatever a woman chooses to do with her body, the follow-up should be ‘so you support full prostitution decriminalization, correct?’

      1. Only if the next follow-up is “so you support full legal access to heroin, correct?”

        1. And plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.

    2. Or sell your labor at a price that is acceptable to you (if that price is less than $15 or hour).

  20. *peeks at the comments section*

    Ah, the inevitable shitstorm that is an abortion thread. I’ll take the over on at least 400 posts before everyone wears themselves out. Carry on.

    *respectfully bows out*

  21. I think abortion should be illegal during pregnancy but completely legal until a child is 7 years old.

    Discuss.

    1. I think 7 is the age you should be able to rent out your genitals.

      1. I will give you $17 dollars to rent my genitals.

        1. Like as a finder to fee, to find someone who wants to use your genitals?

            1. Do you commit to allow the use? *goes looking for a rabid wombat

      2. Just rent or is selling off also an option?

        1. I guess you could sell them, but like they say “you can shear a sheep many times, you can slaughter it only once.”.

  22. Only Fox News asked these two about abortion? Nice job.

  23. As Jackand Ace underlined with his “but what about climate change?” posts, pressing the Dems about abortion would be awkward.

    To the NARAL people, of course, it’s vital that the public know about the urgent necessity of protecting the right to abortion throughout pregnancy.

    But Dem candidates know that they have to be more careful speaking to the public at large than if they were just sending a fundraising email to committed prochoice advocates.

    To the advocates, of course it seems oppressive that Republicans want to ban late-term abortions. That’s just one more bullet point in a list of War On Women measures the other side is adopting.

    But bear in mind that the general public isn’t quite as advanced as this. While large numbers of poll respondents say they want abortion legal in certain cases, the idea of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason still doesn’t have majority support.

    That’s why non-insane Democrats – those who want to win elections outside of New York and California – steer clear of the kind of questions NARAL wants asked, and focus on things like pregnancies resulting from rape, or birth control, or how Planned Parenthood gives women mammograms and free puppies.

  24. The democrats are only pro-choice about abortion.

    Everything else – only Central Committee knows what’s best for you – a mere serf.

  25. But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.

    Well, you know, they sort of think that’s because that fetus is a person and it’s murder to abort.

    I can understand people not sharing that opinion (hell, I about 85% don’t), and thinking they’re wrong about it, and arguing for different policy, stridently.

    I’m pretty sick of people who ought to know better pretending that that’s not the reason for their position, though.

    Does Sanders really not know that almost all abortion opponents are so because they think abortion is immoral because of fetal personhood beliefs, or does he just pretend to be ignorant because he thinks so little of the Democratic base and their ability to accept being told that about the opposition?

    1. But how would that whip progtards into a frenzy over TEH WOR ON WOMYNZ?

  26. I have to say, this has been the most civilized abortion thread I can remember.

    1. Shut up!

      1. Sorry had to

  27. One more reminder of how atrocious Ron and Rand Paul are on individual liberty.
    And equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.
    And the Constitution.

    1. Aha!

      The elusive Hihnflower sprouts amid the feti

      1. Still stalking.
        Yet more aggression.
        By a cyber-bully

      2. The elusive Hihnflower sprouts amid the feti With actual thoughts and substantive content. Try it.

  28. Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution,

    lol

    1. Careless seems to have a problem with the 9th and 14th Amendments, plus the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. If you check the definition of unalienable, you’ll learn that a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. Thomas Jefferson was quite literate, and the Declaration’s unalienable rights are enshrined in the 9th Amendment.

      In high school, we learn about conflicting rights.
      – No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
      – Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose,
      You really don’t recall those?

      Since you may believe that a woman loses a God-given right by becoming pregnant, are there any other “temporary” rights endowed by God? And on what authority do you make such a claim?

      1. No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

        Here’s my shocked face that Michael Hihn is in favor of jailing draft protestors.

        1. Bullies hate to be publicly humiliated so they go ape shit, making even bigger asses of themselves (snicker)

          No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

          Here’s my shocked face that Michael Hihn is in favor of jailing draft protestors.

          Dumbass has egg on his shocked face, Wait for it …. I was arrested as a draft dodger. TWICE So I support my own jail time! (Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa) But bullshitters …. bullshit … and bully.

          He freaks out over a Supreme Court decision we learned in high school (laughing)
          For any other morons, a fundamental premise of natural law is that no fundamental rights are absolute, because they can conflict with each other, also taught in high school. Jefferson stated that in the Declaration (unalienable) and the Founders enshrined it in the Ninth Amendment … over a century before the court ruling … which authoritarian thugs MUST shout down. As we see here.

          Why did the asshole throw a hissy fit? Because the FACTS refute all his bullshit on abortion earlier on the page. We know extreme socons are authoritarian thugs of the state, so he sunk to abusive aggression, bullying and lies, (as the Christian Taliban always does, while Christ weeps in silent shame)

          Will the thug continue his aggression and stalking? Probably. They’re literally out of control.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.