Klobuchar says she supports allowing abortion restrictions in late pregnancy

[Polybius]

Source: CNN

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Sunday she supports allowing limitations on abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy wading into the thorny political debate of abortion procedure time frames.

“I support allowing for limitations in the third trimester that do not interfere with the life or health of the women,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” while also reaffirming her support for codifying Roe v. Wade.

The third trimester in a pregnancy begins at 27 weeks. Less than 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, according to a 2020 report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Abortion has become an especially potent political topic in the year since the monumental US Supreme Court decision one year ago to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion nationwide. More than a dozen US states have banned or severely restricted access to the procedure since the ruling.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/25/politics/klobuchar-cnntv/index.html

[Walleye]

1. Dammit senator it's between the woman and her doctor. It's nobody else's business

[pnwmom]

3. She's merely echoing Roe v wade, which also allowed some restrictions in the third trimester.

The R's want to pretend that under Roe v wade, some women were aborting healthy babies for no reason up through the 9th month, but that's never been true.

[Walleye]

5. Nobody aborts healthy babies in the last trimester without a medical reason.

I kind of think that’s just advancing a republican talking point

[pnwmom]

8. No, it's the opposite. She's confirming the REAL position of Roe v. Wade.

The false Republican talking point is that Roe v wade allowed abortions for any reason for all 9 months.

The real Roe V Wade took a position like Amy's.

[Walleye]

14. OK I'll buy that, but did Roe v. Wade prevent women from medically necessary abortions?

In the last trimester

[Ocelot II]

19. No. Abortions were still permitted to protect the woman's life or health.

[pnwmom]

77. No, it did not. And she doesn't believe it should have. This is what she said:

“What I support – and I will be very clear about this – is Roe v. Wade, which does allow for limitations, but it also protects the life of the woman and the health of the woman,” Klobuchar said Sunday.

[Polybius]

20. If nobody does it without medical reasons, then the restrictions won't matter

It's very rare, but I wouldn't say "nobody" does it.

[pnwmom]

78. Which means that the R's have been lying when they say Roe v Wade

allows abortion on demand through the 9th month. Why would you rather hand them that weapon against Roe v Wade?

[karynnj]

27. That is where life or health of the mother come in. This is what Roe vs Wade said as well

She is supporting codifying Roe vs Wade into law. As such, she would follow its compromise that gave 100% of the choice to a woman early in the pregnancy and as the pregnancy progressed continued to give women the right to abortion if their health or life were at risk.

The statistics sited PROVE that abortion is very rare beyond 21 weeks - and she is calling for restrictions (still guaranteeing abortion if the life or health of the woman were at risk). It should be noted that something like this was the LIBERAL position at the turn of this century. (There was a bill banning partial birth abortions in October 2003. Many Democrats - including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton had to defend their nos and both spoke of the inadequate exception for the health of the woman. Obama was not in the Senate in 2003 - Edwards did not vote. )

[Tumbulu]

31. That is how Row V Wade ruled

Because before the third trimester the risk to the life of the mother was higher producing the child versus an abortion. But after the third trimester an abortion puts the mother’s risk of death higher than giving birth. So, the justices ruled that it must be medically necessary to allow that risk, and that governments have the obligation to regulate something that puts the mother’s life at higher risk.

This is the position of everyone, except the crazy right wing nuts who have been claiming, falsely, that women have been having elective abortions in the third trimester.

[mzmolly]

2. Most would agree with Amy K on this.

eom

[pnwmom]

4. Roe v Wade agreed with her on this. Abortions on demand till 26 weeks,

after that there could be restrictions as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.

[cilla4progress]

6. Important point

[mzmolly]

12. Exactly.

The notion that it's an unusual, is absurd.

[shrike3]

98. Yes n/t

[NickB79]

80. Exactly. She's saying what the majority of Americans believe

According to hundreds of polls conducted for decades.

It's a majority opinion held by both Republicans AND Democrats.

[Warpy]

81. MOST women would rather trust their doctors to practice good medicine

and their significant others and families for support.

MOST women don't want politicians ANYWHERE in their medical care.

[mzmolly]

87. Politicians make laws

impacting health care.

I'll let the polls speak to my commentary above.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans

[Warpy]

91. They are not qualified to micromanage medicine

The laws that govern who might practice medicine, education and licensing requirements, and safe places in which to practice it, are valid. I don't want some asshole politician telling my doctor what she can and can't do for me.

Maybe they need to micromanage other things. They don't belong in medicine.

[DarthDem]

7. Why

Would she engage in this sort of triangulation? Trying to differentiate herself from other future Democratic presidential aspirants? I like her but her political instincts are sometimes off. I wonder if she'll receive some blowback on this. Could be a trial balloon.

[Ocelot II]

9. It's exactly the holding in Roe v. Wade.

[DarthDem]

15. Fair.

[pnwmom]

11. She's just restating Roe v Wade, which is what almost all Democrats support. nt

[DarthDem]

18. Fair point.

I think what I meant was: why does she feel the need to make an announcement like this?

[karynnj]

30. I suspect to help define an acceptable Democratic position for herself

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2023, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Consider that Trump and others have made the ludicrous statement that Democrats support abortion even after birth.

One question I have that someone with real medical knowledge could answer is whether beyond 27 weeks an abortion would be necessary to end the pregnancy. After 27 weeks, if the baby were viable, rather than an abortion, could doctors induce a premature birth. Some 27 plus week old babies can survive? If the mother has serious problems, her health and life should be the top priority, Would a natural birth or C Section be more dangerous than an abortion?

[DarthDem]

106. I can't answer the medical questions, but

Your political take makes sense. Thanks for providing it.

[pnwmom]

37. She didn't "make an announcement." She answered the question Dana Bash asked her in an interview.

[DarthDem]

105. Okay

That's . . . making an announcement. But even if you want to quibble with semantics, I was still looking for a substantive answer. Another poster provided it.

[pnwmom]

107. Her answer was that she supported Roe v Wade, same as always.

An announcement would imply that she was making news. Keeping the same position isn't news.

[PatrickforB]

10. Like pretty much all nationally elected politicians, Klobuchar

has staffers who carefully look at national polls and then based on that information, tell her how to phrase positions so they are 'safe.'

However, I'd like to point out that trying to appease the christofacist anti-abortion fanatics is useless. They won't ever vote for Klobuchar. Ever.

How about Democrats create a plank for the party platform that says:

"Abortion is a private decision for a woman. Under no circumstances should the government attempt to legislate restrictions. Women need to be able to access full reproductive service, period. This applies to all women, but particularly to women or underage girls who have been raped and become pregnant, and to women who need to undergo abortion because their doctor deems it medically necessary in order to preserve the life and health of the woman."

How about that? No need to waffle.

Now, I'm not saying people cannot choose not to get abortions. If they personally do not wish to do this, then fine.

My position is merely that it is NOT the government's role to restrict abortions or abortion access.

[pnwmom]

13. Read Roe v. Wade. She's just supporting Roe v Wade, which worked well for 50 years.

It allowed abortion on demand till 26 weeks; but after that states could restrict abortions as long as they protected the life and health of the mother.

[Walleye]

17. I agree with you completely. How about this:

Congress shall make no law restricting a woman’s right to medical privacy.

[PatrickforB]

79. You said it better! Thanks!

[Grins]

102. YES!!!!!

Been saying that since the “debates“ about the ACA!!

Democrats are narrowly focused only on abortion as a political issue. They react with a knee jerk “solution” and miss the bigger question: “What’s the problem?”

And you hit it on the head: Universal Doctor-patient confidentiality.

[BarbD]

16. No one, No body owns my body but me.

Says this 85 year old great grandmother.

[hamsterjill]

36. +1000

Yes ma’am!!!

There is no sense starting this crap. Dems need to NOT start trying to appease. Full stop.

[prodigitalson]

21. that's probably a pretty popular position

it's basically Roe v. Wade, which is what we all thought the country had agreed upon

[Polybius]

22. Polls show the popular position is even less than 27 weeks

Even Roe allowed restrictions after 20 weeks.

[Hekate]

23. Gradations of gestation were always the case under Roe. Always. Late termination is dangerous.

Klobuchar is our friend — she’s not trying to hurt us. She knows the issues and I’m sure she knows the medicine equally well.

[Sky Jewels]

29. Late termination is usually done in emergency/urgent medical situations --

For the health/life of the mother and when fetuses are unviable, etc. Why the FUCK does she feel the need to step into medical decisions and placate the far right?! Does she really think women are carrying fetuses for 8 or 9 month and then terminating for funsies?!

[pnwmom]

39. Why the hell do you think she's doing anything other than supporting Roe v Wade,

which is exactly what she's describing here?

Despite what some R's want us to think, Roe only supported abortion on demand till viability, or about week 26. After that, legislatures could limit abortions to those needed to preserve the life or health of the mother.

[paleotn]

42. Thus, after 6 months a woman's life is up to the whims of hicks and hacks in state legislatures?

Fabulous. In short, the situation we have presently.

If she's going to wade into this minefield, she needs to chose her words very, very carefully. If she can't or won't, stay the fuck out of the minefield.

[pnwmom]

44. No, Roe v Wade worked very well for 50 years, and was nothing like

our current situation.

When Roe v Wade was in effect, doctors in the red states were performing abortions as needed. No woman gets that far into a pregnancy unless it's wanted, but sometimes abortions are the best for the mother.

[paleotn]

41. This! + 10,000,000!!!!

[paleotn]

40. Her statement is idiotic on it's face.

Late terminations are done in the case of significant birth defects and / or to preserve the life of the mother. It's a woman's choice, goddamnit, from start to fucking finish.

[Hekate]

43. Late terminations are dangerous -- they amount to childbirth, which is itself dangerous

Cussing me out simply demonstrates that you don’t know me or my views at all. I have a lifetime’s support for Planned Parenthood, and I have not been shy at DU about my experiences and opinions.

Likewise Amy Klobuchar. You have not been paying attention to her or the rest of our allies.

[Rebl2]

70. I agree

To preserve the life a woman or severe deformities of unborn.
I knew a woman many, many years ago who carried a pregnancy knowing the fetus would die moments after it was born. It had no kidneys and partial brain. She was very religious and very attached to this child. She and her husband decided to go through with it so they could hold the baby and say to the child how much it was loved. I know some may think this odd, but knowing her back then, it made sense to me.

[truthisfreedom]

24. She could have been clearer by simply supporting

Roe v Wade as originally authored.

[PlutosHeart]

35. Yes she could have but

I have noticed her failure in communication at times.

It would have been good to be more careful since she is BlueDog No-Namer/centrist wolf/bat/small farmer hater. Just saying.

[pnwmom]

45. She simply stated what Roe v Wade calls for. Apparently some DUers weren't familiar with the ruling.

[pnwmom]

74. This is what she said, and she's being very clear.

The reporter and title-writer somehow managed to make this sound controversial.

“What I support – and I will be very clear about this – is Roe v. Wade, which does allow for limitations, but it also protects the life of the woman and the health of the woman,” Klobuchar said Sunday.

[Hope22]

90. Agree...

Or state her position and follow it with …as stated in Roe v Wade.

[Snackshack]

25. Stop

Trying to appease these idiot right wing fundamentalists phuck heads. Your statement should have read “I support whatever decisions are made between a Dr. and their patient and it none of my or your phucking business what those decisions are.”


I have no doubts that the 1st Democratic member to step up with some intestinal fortitude and tell these people to “live their lives and let others live theirs and stay the phuck out of it” would find a groundswell of unending support.

[pnwmom]

75. Stop insisting she did anything other than support Roe v Wade.

“What I support – and I will be very clear about this – is Roe v. Wade, which does allow for limitations, but it also protects the life of the woman and the health of the woman,” Klobuchar said Sunday.

[Midnight Writer]

26. The sticking point is "Who determines what interferes with the life or health of the women?"

A politician?

A judge?

A jury?

A doctor or hospital practicing their religious faith?

Will a woman experiencing complications have to hire an attorney, go to court, provide evidence to convince a (possibly anti-abortion) judge that her situation affects her health? Will attorney's hired by anti-abortion groups be able to present their "counter-evidence", perhaps based on religious doctrine?

[Sky Jewels]

28. WTF?!?!

This is infuriating and SO UNNECCESSARY. Way to play into the Republican-Taliban's hands, Klobuchar.

[Tumbulu]

32. It is what Roe V Wade ruled, before picking on

anyone, read Roe V Wade. It is all about minimizing the risk of death. Abortion at that point is more dangerous and the justices ruled that regulation by the medical community was acceptable.

[mysteryowl]

33. Senator, one-sided, unsolicited compromise and negotiations is ridiculous

The repukes don't compromise and negotiate with dems in the media!

Nothing is being voted on or debated in the senate for her to do this.

[pnwmom]

46. It wasn't a compromise on Klobuchar's part and it wasn't unsolicited.

Dana Bash ASKED a question, and Klobuchar answered by laying out the position of Roe v. Wade, which she supports.

Despite what the R's claim, Roe v. Wade only allowed abortion on demand till viability; after that states could pass restrictions, as long as they allowed abortions to preserve the life and health of the mother.

[Merlot]

34. No. Just No.

[paleotn]

38. RRRRRR!!!

Repeat after me. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARRY A CHILD FOR 6 MONTHS, GOING THROUGH THE HELL OF PREGNANCY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE THEIR MIND. That does not happen. Klobuchar, a woman who should fucking know better no less, should be ashamed. 3rd trimester abortions are done due to significant birth defects and / or to preserve the life of the mother. And that is the realm of a woman, her doctors, her family and her god. Period. End of fucking memo! I'm so tired of this bullshit I could scream!!!!

[pnwmom]

48. Repeat after me. Klobuchar merely explained Roe v. Wade. As a lawyer, she probably read

the actual decision, unlike many here.

[paleotn]

58. "I support allowing for limitations in the third trimester

“....that do not interfere with the life or health of the women,” Her words. Who gets to choose what does and doesn't interfere with the life and health of the woman? Hicks and hacks in state legislatures? What about fetuses with massive birth defects and families that can't possibly afford to take care of them? Roe got us down the path to reproductive freedom but is in no way, shape or form the destination. If she thinks Roe is enough, she's dead wrong. She's advocating for limitations on something that rarely if ever happens and are really none of her damn business or your damn business.

[pnwmom]

60. What do you think Roe v Wade said? That's what it says, and it worked well.

Do you think any woman wants to get a 7 month abortion on a whim, or that any doctors would kill a healthy 8 month fetus just because a mother asked him to?

Why are people flipping out that she supports exactly what Roe v Wade laid out?

[paleotn]

63. Did your actually read my post? Apparently not.

Roe got us some ways down the road to women's reproductive freedom, but it is NOT the end of the road. If she thinks Roe is good enough, she's dead wrong. Roe simply put some limitations on the fuckery of jackasses in red states.

[pnwmom]

64. The vast majority of us support Roe v Wade AS WRITTEN. And you're not going to find

doctors who are willing to kill healthy, viable fetuses for no serious reason.

[paleotn]

66. Again, you just don't get it. Read for comprehension please.

Infanticide is so rare for all practical purposes it doesn't fucking happen. Jebus! No woman will go through months of pregnancy and then just change her mind on a whim just for kicks. I stated that to begin with. Roe sets a limitation on a situation that is so extremely rare that it's ridiculous. Just like transgender people somehow, someway are a threat to children when all they really want to do is take a leak, so Repukes author "bathroom bills". Another limitation Repukes throw out there for situations that don't happen just to rile up the rubes. Same with the 3rd trimester limitation in Roe. A bone thrown to stupid conservatives and religo-nuts who don't understand how the world actually works.

[pnwmom]

67. I agree, it doesn't happen. And that's why Roe v Wade worked well.

It recognized the reality that late term abortions were very rare, but sometimes medically necessary. And allowing the states to regulate that hurt no one. As it was, very late term abortions didn't happen in some states simply because there were no doctors willing to perform them.

[paleotn]

68. In that we can agree. In my mind Roe served one very important purpose.

It kept Republican fuckery in red states to manageable minimum. Don't get me wrong, I fully support it and always will. I just think we've got miles left to go in regard to reproductive freedom and shedding Republican talking points.

[dlk]

47. Who doesn't love a politician practicing medicine without a license...?

Why is it her or anyone else's business what a doctor and a patient decide?

[pnwmom]

49. She's a smart lawyer who can read Roe v Wade and summarize what it says.

Unlike those who are criticizing her here.

[dlk]

51. No one is disputing Klobuchar's credentials or disputing the language of Roe v. Wade

You missed the entire point of my post.

[pnwmom]

53. So you oppose Roe v Wade then? I think it worked well for 50 years,

and we would never have a court approve the abortion-on-demand-till-birth bill that some R's accuse D's of supporting.

But I'm only know realizing some D's think that should be the law.

[Bev54]

50. This is the problem with Americans, willing to compromise on the issue instead of getting it

out of the fucking criminal system and treating it as a medical issue, period and where politicians do not have a say over doctors.

[pnwmom]

57. Or maybe the problem is that some editors write titles merely to get attention.

Klobuchar said nothing new. She just restated Roe v Wade, which the vast majority of Democrats and Independents support.

[Bev54]

65. Well they should support getting it out of the criminal justice system altogether.

It is a medical issue not a political or criminal issue.

[erronis]

71. I've wanted to give you kudos on every post in this thread. Thanks for trying!!!

This one seemed particularly appropriate. The OP appeared to want some clicks. (Not sure what prizes that gives.)

You've often been the voice of sanity in many conversations. Much appreciated!

[pnwmom]

83. Well, I try. Thank you for noticing. And this is such an important topic.

We shouldn't let the media turn us against each other by twisting headlines.

[Warpy]

52. Uh, Amy? There already are restrictions in the stnadard of care

There have to be some pretty compelling reasons to terminate late in the second trimester or at any time in the third due to the increasing risk of such a procedure and the potential viability of a healthy fetus.

Klobuchar needs to find a doctor or nurse to talk to about this stuff, maybe she won't sound so witless about medical practice. And physicians who have a habit of violating the standards of care soon find their licenses pulled, they're a menace to their patients.

(Sorry, I'm just sick of Democrats pandering to antiabortion people like this and through medical ignorance of their own. Codifying this stuff without medical input is just more unqualified politicians grandstanding and trying to practice medicine.)

For the record, i generally like Klobuchar. This is constructive criticism, identifying a problem and its solution.

[pnwmom]

54. Amy knows that. She's merely repeating Roe v Wade in response to Dana Bash's question.

She doesn't sound witless at all, but some people here do.

[CTyankee]

55. She's got a pretty good shot at a future nomination as our party's candidate so this may be part

of a careful plan: get this out there, on the record, and move on with a campaign to restore abortion rights to women as part of her future run. I have always thought she'd be a good candidate for us. She's mid-west, popular, really smart -- Yale undergrad, U. of Chicago Law School.

[maliaSmith]

99. possible nominaton

I doubt that very much. I think the next nominee for Democratic president in 2028 will be Gavin Newsom. He has the charisma and experience running a huge successful state that is Democratically run. She is a senator, but her executive experience is lacking, and she would do better in the Senate. The only woman I could see winning, if she ran, is Michelle Obama.

[CTyankee]

100. Interesting take. My son agrees with you about Michelle Obama and he is a prosecutor in Brooklyn.

I love Newsom, too. I have family in CA and a transgendered granddaughter whose life is GOOD because of the state's welcoming and nurturing stance on her rights and quality of life.

I don't know which candidate would enrage the RW nuts more: a progressive midwestern woman or a male California governor who respects women's rights (and all people's rights).

I agree with you on our needing her in the Senate. But we are woefully OVERDUE for a woman president!

[pnwmom]

56. I could almost think CNN deliberately wrote this story to stir up disagreements among Democrats.

First there is the title: Klobuchar says she supports allowing abortion restrictions in late pregnancy -- AS IF THAT'S NEWS. All she's doing is repeating Roe v Wade.


“I support allowing for limitations in the third trimester that do not interfere with the life or health of the women,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” while also reaffirming her support for codifying Roe v. Wade.

That little word "while" is carrying a lot of weight in this sentence. There is nothing inconsistent about the two parts of the sentence. She wants to codify Roe v. Wade, WHICH ALREADY allows for limitations in the third trimester to protect the life or health of the mother.

She didn't use the word "while" -- that was inserted by the writer, in an effort to make it seem she'd said something new.

[paleotn]

61. She echoing Repuke talking points.

She supports limitations on something that never happens outside of the twisted minds of Republicans. It's akin to supporting keeping transgender folks out of certain bathrooms to protect...GASP!....the children. It's horse shit.

[pnwmom]

62. No, she wasn't. The Republican talking point is that Roe v Wade allowed abortion on demand all 9 mos

Like you and others seem to be supporting here. It never did.

[Kaleva]

84. She's following Roe v. Wade

Which apparently some here don't support.

[SunSeeker]

59. I disagree. I oppose forced birth at any stage of a pregnancy.

This was my problem with Roe as well, it allowed restrictions based on age of fetus. But 99% of abortions happen outside the 3rd trimester, so Roe was still a huge win for women.

I realize mine is a minority opinion, and so I understand why Klobuchar said that.

[Novara]

69. What the fuck is wrong with her?

[erronis]

72. WTF is wrong with you? Don't jump to your conclusions based on the OP/CNN.

Understand the law and restrictions within the original Roe v. Wade decision.

Take the time to read Sen. Klobuchar's statement. Point out the the differences that you seem so objectionable.

....


Waiting.

[pnwmom]

73. What is wrong with some Democrats? All she's doing is restating Roe v Wade.

“What I support – and I will be very clear about this – is Roe v. Wade, which does allow for limitations, but it also protects the life of the woman and the health of the woman,” Klobuchar said Sunday.

[Elessar Zappa]

82. She just reiterating the law when Roe V Wade stood.

No problem with this.

[slightlv]

85. IOW, as I see it,

she's is laying out the worst case scenario and abandoning these women. I stopped having a lot of respect for her, other than being a Democratic senator, since her help with pushing out Al Franken. I'm glad I don't have to vote for her. She may be echoing RvW as it originally was, but this is nonsense and not going to help her among democratic women, AFAIK.

We're working to get restrictions OFF abortion and make it only between a woman and her doctor (and whoever else she wants to involve). We don't need the government... males or females... making that independent choice for anybody... ever. Let alone someone who's in the 3rd trimester with an obviously very desired pregnancy and is now facing a horrible choice because of medical reasons of hers, or the fetus'. How callous can you be? And especially for a woman! I'm assuming she has kids, and if I'm not mistaken, she's from Florida (correct?) So maybe there IS something in the water down there. I'm looking for a reason to abandon women at their very hardest crisis and add more bullscit to her agony.

Me? I'm in Kansas, and I'm still going to be working as hard as I can until this dominion over women is thwarted, once and for all.

[betsuni]

86. Never freak out about these sorts of headlines. Everybody should know this by now.

[roamer65]

88. I disagree with her.

Abortion should be an option at any point until the fetus is born.

[Polybius]

89. What about in situations that almost never happen?

Like if the boyfriend left a woman when she was 7 months pregnant. She decides that she doesn't want to raise a kid alone. Should Alabama be be able to restrict that abortion?

[roamer65]

92. Should be a decision between the woman and her doctor.

No entity or government has any place in meddling in such matters.

[Showbizkid]

108. That's a position held by maybe 5 percent of the country

I respect the consistency, but that's a political loser on par with total bans.

The Democrats need to be the reasonable party on this issue.

[roamer65]

109. Just give it 20 years.

Once the climate crisis bites down hard, it will be a majority opinion.

[ShazzieB]

110. Do you have a citation to support that 5% claim?

Just wondering, because I don't recall ever hearing any stats on that particular issue.

Unless you can back that up, I reserve the right to remain skeptical.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

95. Same.

[marble falls]

93. Compromising with Right to Lifers only changes our goal posts. This is a medical issue ...

... not a political football. The only ones making concession is us.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

94. Goddammit Amy.

[Marius25]

96. This is pretty standard. Even Roe/Casey restricted abortions in the 3rd trimester

except in extreme circumstances.

I don't see the issue with Klobuchar's message. The last thing you want is Republicans screaming that Democrats want to legalize 3rd trimester abortions at will.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

97. Oh FFS

Klobuchar should have known that Roe already allowed for that.

So why open her mouth and beclown herself this way?

I already had...reservations...about her for supporting Schwann foods over Michelle Obama's school food nutrition plan, and this doesn't help any.

[LiberalLovinLug]

101. OPEN BORDERS!!! Its important to make these pubilc stances

Even if, as some say, this was already in the original wording of Roe vs Wade.

Just like the meme "open borders" was stuck to Democrats when of course that is not their position. And gave off the impression that Democrats just want to open the gates and let anyone through without paperwork.

And for this issue it could easily be framed as "open abortions!" for anyone, anytime. If we don't make sure to establish the limitations on issues, even though that is unpopular to talk about with some in the base, it will be taken advantage of by the propagandists on the other side

[riversedge]

103. Klobuchar is basically saying bring back Roe v. Wade.

[LostOne4Ever]

104. While I get that she is just restating Roe v. Wade

I think it better morally, philosophically, politically, and strategically to stand the position that it is the woman’s body and therefore the woman’s decision to share it or not.

I feel we should promote the idea that bodily autonomy and self ownership are paramount. There can be no other rights if you can’t even have a right to yourself.