Leading democrat contenders want to make it easier to kill babies

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Democrats pledge support for wide access to abortion

WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

Edwards was joined by Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the group's political organizing conference in addressing issues at the core of the political clash between cultural liberals and conservatives, including abortion rights, access to contraception and sex education.

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" has increased anxieties among reproductive-rights advocates over the future of constitutional protections for abortion rights. All three of the Democratic campaigns used the forum to signal their determination to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would uphold the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

Obama, who earlier gained the endorsement of Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, offered the group a vision of equal opportunity for women, tying a call for improved access to contraceptives for low-income women with a call for an "updated social contract" that includes paid maternity leave and expanded school hours.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal. She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

She criticized cuts in contraception services for low-income women, lengthy delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill and redirection of sex education funds to abstinence-only programs that do not include information on contraceptive use or condoms toto prevent the spread of AIDS.

It's here

[Tigermike 3,053]

Next week Edwards will be in Atlanta speaking to a large contingent of Southern Baptist evangelicals where he plans to unveil his anti abortion stance.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Democrats pledge support for wide access to abortion

WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

Edwards was joined by Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the group's political organizing conference in addressing issues at the core of the political clash between cultural liberals and conservatives, including abortion rights, access to contraception and sex education.

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" has increased anxieties among reproductive-rights advocates over the future of constitutional protections for abortion rights. All three of the Democratic campaigns used the forum to signal their determination to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would uphold the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

Obama, who earlier gained the endorsement of Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, offered the group a vision of equal opportunity for women, tying a call for improved access to contraceptives for low-income women with a call for an "updated social contract" that includes paid maternity leave and expanded school hours.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal. She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

She criticized cuts in contraception services for low-income women, lengthy delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill and redirection of sex education funds to abstinence-only programs that do not include information on contraceptive use or condoms toto prevent the spread of AIDS.

It's here

You act surprised that a Democrat would not want to repeal Roe v Wade. Here's Obama's full stance:

Barack Obama on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

Source: South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill

State Senator Barack Obama today called for passage of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act (HB 3589), which will permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. The bill, formerly known as the Stem Cell Research Act, was recently renamed to honor the memory of former President Ronald Reagan.

The Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act specifically permits embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. Today, more than 100 million Americans are afflicted by medical problems [which could be affected by this research]. Obama says, "This bill affects diseases that attack Americans - regardless of their gender, age, economic status, ethnicity, race or political affiliation. This is about a commitment to medical research, under strict federal guidelines. I call on leaders in Illinois and President Bush in Washington to stop playing politics on this critical issue and expand the current policy on embryonic stem cell research so that we can begin finding the cures of tomorrow today."

Source: Press Release, "Stem Cell Research Bill" Jun 16, 2004

Protect a woman's right to choose

For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman's right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities.

Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

Supports Roe v. Wade

Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:

Increase funding and access to family planning services

Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans

Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

link

[AUman43 5]

What would you Repubics have to rant about if it were not for the abortion issue? I agree that RoeVWade should beovereturned but give me a break......we've had GHWB and GWB and neither of them have done a damn thing....so forget more Republican promises IF they are elected again. Oh yes, you can add prayer in schools to that failed list as well.

[autiger4life 3]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

No, it's called "leading democrat contenders want to make it easier to kill babies"

If abortion isn't killing babies, what is it then?

[bojack34 2]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Democrats care more about animal rights than they do human rights.

[RunInRed 16,487]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Democrats care more about animal rights than they do human rights.

I thought Republicans' did not want the government telling them what they can or can not do....oh how the hypocrisy lives

[TitanTiger 20,510]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Democrats care more about animal rights than they do human rights.

I thought Republicans' did not want the government telling them what they can or can not do....oh how the hypocrisy lives

That's where you're wrong. I fully approve of the government telling people they can't kill other people, especially with taxpayer money.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's abortion, not baby killing barbaric human sacrifice at the altar of convenience and sex with no consequences.

Fixed that for ya.

[BamaGrad03 0]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Democrats care more about animal rights than they do human rights.

I thought Republicans' did not want the government telling them what they can or can not do....oh how the hypocrisy lives

Wow. Stupid comment of the day. Gee...I guess no one wants the government to step in and say it's not OK for someone to murder someone, or to steal a car, or to smoke crack.

[autiger4life 3]

I think everyone here agrees that it is okay for the government to say don't murder babies, I think I'm trying to say that I don't think abortion is murder because I don't consider a 1 month fetus a human. I think unless it is viable on its own(before you say a one year old cannot gather food, that is not what viable means, it means that it has the basic ability to do normal biological processes necessary to life) then it is not a human. I think as medicene increases then the time would change when the baby is viable. But I don't think its a human before then....now let the yelling begin.

[bojack34 2]

I think everyone here agrees that it is okay for the government to say don't murder babies, I think I'm trying to say that I don't think abortion is murder because I don't consider a 1 month fetus a human. I think unless it is viable on its own(before you say a one year old cannot gather food, that is not what viable means, it means that it has the basic ability to do normal biological processes necessary to life) then it is not a human. I think as medicene increases then the time would change when the baby is viable. But I don't think its a human before then....now let the yelling begin.

Basically what you are saying is it's okay to take the life of something that cannot live on it's on. You are one sick dude. If you had a clue to what modern medicine (not spelled medicene) was you would'nt be making such dumbfounded statements. Go do some research and come back when you have completed 3rd grade.

[RunInRed 16,487]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Democrats care more about animal rights than they do human rights.

I thought Republicans' did not want the government telling them what they can or can not do....oh how the hypocrisy lives

Wow. Stupid comment of the day. Gee...I guess no one wants the government to step in and say it's not OK for someone to murder someone, or to steal a car, or to smoke crack.

A bunch of grown men arguing about a woman's right to determine her own health care. As I said, the hypocrisy lives. I think we all agree abortions are not ideal but for just the sole fact alone of unintended consequences, I believe they should be rare, safe and legal. I'm sure you all think I'm going to hell. Agh...only in America.

Again, well said by Barack:

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

[MDM4AU 336]

This forum is called democrats murdering babies. Its abortion, not baby killing. That is the most ridiculous part about this post.

Abortion = baby killing

JMHO

[TitanTiger 20,510]

A bunch of grown men arguing about a woman's right to determine her own health care.

Bulls**t. No one is telling a woman what doctor to see, whether or not to get her tubes tied, seek fertility treatments, whether or not to get cosmetic surgery, have a hysterectomy or any number of hundreds of health care decisions. We're telling her there's more than one life in this equation and your "right" not to be inconvenienced doesn't trump the right to live. Either get off the damn worn out, scripted Planned Parenthood talking points or don't waste our time.

As I said, the hypocrisy lives. I think we all agree abortions are not ideal but for just the sole fact alone of unintended consequences, I believe they should be rare, safe and legal. I'm sure you all think I'm going to hell. Agh...only in America.

Not going to hell. I don't and can't know such a thing. Just wrong. And barbaric. I've got a great cure for unintended consequences: Don't have sex if you're not prepared for the possibility of having a child. If you're not mature enough or ready for that possibility, you're not mature enough or ready to have sex. But if you do go ahead and have sex and get pregnant, don't take your bad decision out on the innocent. And if you're the father that pressed for sex and weren't prepared to be a dad, keep your dick in your pants instead of pressuring the girl to kill it.

Again, well said by Barack:

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

I will take reductions in abortions any way I can get them. But that doesn't mean we don't need to come to terms with what this is in reality...the termination of another being's life.

[RunInRed 16,487]

TitanTiger - I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you on this - I respect your opinions but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

However, I can't help but notice the ironly in your strong stance on this position and some headlines recently about your boy Fred; i.e. possibly lobbying for a pro-choice organization,and his answer to a 1994 Senate debate to a question about supporting or opposing laws permitting abortion on demand, where he stated "I do not believe that he federal government ought to be involved in that process"

[TitanTiger 20,510]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

Additionally, on June 10, The Tennessean reported that it had found documents in Thompson's Senate archive at the University of Tennessee indicating "he has previously taken positions that could be viewed as tolerating abortion." The Tennessean reported that Thompson included "a handwritten clarification" on a 1996 Christian Coalition survey that said, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people." The Tennessean also reported:

In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A."

As Media Matters noted, The New York Sun's Latest Politics Blog reported on May 7 that Thompson indicated in a 1994 Project Vote Smart questionnaire that he believed "[a]bortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy" (while also indicating his support for numerous restrictions).

His voting record indicated support for restrictions, meaning he wouldn't please NARAL, but his total record on the issue indicates that he wasn't "pro life" either.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science

On the issue of abortion Thompson was unequivocal: "Prolife." Asked if he supported overturning Roe v. Wade, Thompson was equally unequivocal: "I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years... That's what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong."

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.143-144 Jun 3, 2007

Appoint strict constructionist judges

As President, Thompson would appoint strict constructionist judges like the man he helped through the confirmation process to the position of Chief Justice, John Roberts.

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.162 Jun 3, 2007

Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports

Some news reports from Thompson's 1994 campaign classified him as pro-choice. Thompson confesses to being perplexed over the confusion about his position on the issue: "I have read these accounts [about me being pro-choice] and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them, although I don't remember it."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate." Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an "F" rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.

Ultimately, however, Thompson is motivated on the issue from a personal level, not just a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. He has said the issue "means more'' to him now because he has had two children in recent years. "I have seen the sonograms of my babies.''

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.159-160 Jun 3, 2007

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.

Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.

Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.

This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].

Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3

Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999

Voted YES on banning human cloning.

This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].

Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4

He's never been anything close to pro-choice. Quotes from 13 years ago, which are still far from pro-choice are a bit too little to make final judgments upon.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

He's never been anything close to pro-choice. Quotes from 13 years ago, which are still far from pro-choice are a bit too little to make final judgments upon.

Sorry, but your wrong. In 1994 he indicated he supported abortion rights in the first trimester, but he also indicated that he supported restrictions consistent with those he later voted on. If he has further toughened his position since then, it may be sincere, it may be political, but it would definitely be a change.

Congressional Election 1994 National Political Awareness Test

Abortion

(Back to top)

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

Other

http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003

[BamaGrad03 0]

While we can argue all day about aborting a child that is 1 month old...this discussion and original article is about PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

Anyone who defends a woman's right to have one of those whenever she wants should be imprisoned IMO.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

While we can argue all day about aborting a child that is 1 month old...this discussion and original article is about PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

Anyone who defends a woman's right to have one of those whenever she wants should be imprisoned IMO.

Thank you!

Maybe we can come back from 13 years ago and talk about where folks are on this today.

[AU_tiger_2000 0]

I think unless it is viable on its own(before you say a one year old cannot gather food, that is not what viable means, I think everyit means that it has the basic ability to do normal biological processes necessary to life) then it is not a human.

It's not human until the age of viability? At this point with science there are children born during the second trimester that survive ( I know, because I recently visited my friend's child in the hospital, all 1lbs 10oz of him). According to your theory he would not be able to be considered "human" because he was on a respirator and having to have his body temperature artificially regulated, ergo he was not able to do the normal biological processes necessary to life on his own.

At one time a child born at 30 weeks was a goner, that would put it squarely in that third trimester that would lead to a partial birth abortion.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Here's the question I have...if it is NOT murder to abort a 3 month old baby...why do people get charged for murder when they stab a pregnant woman in the stomach? Why not just get charged for assault?