Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
136. In other words..
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:39 PM
Feb 2015

Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude

Q: Do you believe personally that life begins at conception?
A: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.
But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy

From my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question [of abortion].
I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government’s one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.
And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and ‘80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions

When Clinton said that pro-choice and pro-life people could find common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through increased access to birth control, it was called "an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run i 2008." The Wall Street Journal described her alleged changes in position as a "makeover and move to the center that she's now attempting." NPR saw Clinton spinning in circles: "She is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time."
Yet she was not changing her position on anything. For her entire time in public life, Clinton has been pro-choice and has supported access to birth control. Pointing out that such access would reduce the number of abortions, something anti-abortion forces ought to favor, cannot fairly be described as a shift in any direction.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 , Mar 25, 2008
Consistently uses Dem. Party line, "safe, legal, and rare"

After Senator Hillary Clinton gave a 2005 speech restating her long-held view that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," some pundits accused her of being "transparent" and taking a "poll-tested path," despite the fact that the formulation had been a consistent part of Democratic rhetoric on the issue for over a decade. The speech was cited again and again whenever a journalist or commentator wanted to show that Clinton was "moving to the center," evidence that she was massaging her actual views for political advantage. Yet McCain's varying statements on abortion haven't seemed to diminish his reputation for straight talk.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.166 , Mar 25, 2008
1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion

In 1974, Hillary met William F. Harrison, a prominent abortion doctor in Arkansas, who became her gynecologist and friend. In a series of interview for this book, Harrison shed some light on the development of Hillary’s pro-choice.
Harrison is quick to point out that Hillary never saw him for an abortion. Harrison says he met Hillary simply as a result of her yearly ob-gyn exam.
This is an important point, since it would mean that Hillary’s support does not stem from a personal experience in which she had the procedure. Rather, Harrison estimates that a reason for her pro-choice stance is that she is a product of an age “where she would have had friends who had illegal abortions. I am sure that was part of it.”
Harrison says that when he met Hillary, she was already steadfast in her support of Roe v. Wade. He sees her upbringing as a Methodist as no reason to believe she would be against abortion. “Hillary is a Methodist. The Methodist Church is very strongly pro-choice.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 49-50 , Jul 18, 2007
1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion

Mrs. Clinton, during her efforts to revolutionize the health care industry, said 1993 that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” This prompted anxieties over the prospect of taxpayer-funded abortions, sparking the Coates Amendment, which sought to strip abortion funding from the plan.
The first lady allowed for a “conscience exemption” in which doctors and hospitals would not be forced to perform abortions. Pro-lifers were relieved; still, they could not fathom that their tax dollars might be used to find what they saw as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
Mrs. Clinton’s words also ignited fears among moderate and conservative Christians over the availability of the abortion pill, RU-486, under her health care plan. One of her husband’s first acts in office was to push the pill to market through an expedited FDA approval process that was criticized by pro-lifers as allegedly too quick for the safety of the women who would take the pill.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.124-125 , Jul 18, 2007
1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century

On January 22, 1999, Hillary took an unprecedented step for a first lady by delivering a speech to NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the premier advocacy group for legal, unrestricted abortion. Speaking to the group in DC, she stated her goal of “keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century,” a slogan that would become the mantra for her position. She shared revealing remarks beyond conventional pro-choice sentiments: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.191 , Jul 18, 2007
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases

Later today, the president will veto a bill passed by Congress to support stem cell research. I co-chair the Alzheimer’s Caucus in the Senate. I’ve worked on helping to boost funding for research to look for cures and a way to prevent so many devastating diseases. And we know that stem cell research holds the key to our understanding more about what we can do. When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research. This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right’s dominance

On the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed a series of executive orders undoing the draconian policies of the Reagan-Bush era relating to abortion, contraception, and family planning.
Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill’s pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration’s first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun.
The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to suc personal questions was over.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.256-257 , Jun 5, 2007
Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice

The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to such questions wa over, as was the ascendancy of the conservative movement.
Yet, Hillary’s views of sexuality and the exercise of women’s reproductive rights were far more conservative than perceived at the time. While some of her friends had undergone abortions and ha been promiscuous, she had not. The idea of choosing to abort a child she had conceived would have been totally out of character and at odds with her own values. One of the fortunate facts of her life was that she was of the generation whose sexuality was fashioned in large measure by the pill and its easy availability. Her own difficulty in conceiving a child had only intensified her deeply held belief that abortion, for anyone, was a personal choice that should be made with the greatest reluctance.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.257 , Jun 5, 2007
Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions, read the New York Times. It was 2005, and the story was about a speech Hillary had given. “Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
Hillary said: “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”
Hillary is correct. Abortion is tragic. But why? What makes an abortion “sad, even tragic” is that an unborn child loses his life. Her “sad, even tragic” comment is not the first indication that Hillary believes it is indeed a child that is ripped from the womb during an abortion. In 2003, while debating a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions, Hillary referred to the unborn child as “the child, the fetus, your baby.”
[Nevertheless,] Hillary has spent a lifetime fighting to keep abortions legal.
Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p.134-136 , May 14, 2007
Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market

In the last few years, we’ve seen major breakthroughs in research and effectiveness of contraceptives. For example, Plan B is a new emergency contraceptive that can prevent a pregnancy after another contraceptive has failed or after unprotected sex. I fought for years to get Plan B on the market, so that fewer women will face the choice of abortion. It is now available for over-the-counter use by adult women. I have proposed Prevention First, a bill that focuses on prevention of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education, emphasizing responsible decision-making and expanded access to contraception. With these efforts, it’s my hope that the abortion rate will fall further.
Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p.301 , Dec 12, 2006
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too

Hillary has spoken clearly about the importance of respecting such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade. Her commitment to supporting Roe and working to reduce the number of abortions [includes] reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. As First Lady, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system.
Source: PAC website, www.hillpac.com, “Biography” , Nov 17, 2006
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception

In 2006 Hillary teamed up with nominally pro-life Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and pushed to increase federal funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in order to “increase awareness” about unintended pregnancies.
Senator Clinton co-wrote an editorial with Reid titled, “Abortion Debate Shuns Prevention.” The piece said, “As two senators on opposite sides of the abortion debate, we recognize that one side will not suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs And we believe that, while disagreeing, we can work together to find common ground.“
The ”common ground,“ was, once again, increased government--in this case government programs to promote contraception. The Prevention First Act, as they named it, would increase accessibility and ”awareness and understanding“ of emergency contraception. They aimed to ensure that sex education programs have medically accurate information about contraception and ”end insurance discrimination against women.“
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 96-97 , Oct 11, 2006
Partial birth exceptions for life-threatening abnormalities

In 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton [commented] about the anatomically correct drawings I used to demonstrate the partial birth abortion procedure:
CLINTON: The visual aids show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. We should have a chart that demonstrates the tragic abnormalities that confront women forced with this excruciatingly difficult decision.
SANTORUM: Do we consider a child who may have an abnormality to be less of a child?
CLINTON: Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities or babies who are in such serious physical condition that they will not live outside the womb?
SANTORUM: No, if--
CLINTON: That is the point.
SANTORUM: Do you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not? The Americans with Disabilities Act says we treat all of God's children the same.
CLINTON: I value every single life and every single person.
Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.258-261 , Apr 30, 2006
Government should have no role in abortion decision

Here is the paragraph in Hillary's speech that everyone focused on:
This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
The phrase that the neo-conservative pundits all left out, in describing the speech as remarkable, is that the abortion decision is "also one in which the government should have no role." Put that in, and the rest of her description is totally unremarkable.
Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p. 54 , Oct 17, 2005
We can find common ground on abortion issue

Hillary advocates finding common ground with opponents: Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supports, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion--particularly members of religious groups--asserting that there was “common ground” to be found.
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 87 , Sep 30, 2005
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania

When I defend my pro-choice position in the debate over abortion in our country, I frequently refer to Romania, where pregnancy could be monitored on behalf of the state, & to China, where it could be forcibly terminated. One reason I continue to oppose efforts to criminalize abortion is that I do not believe any government should have the power to dictate, through law or police action, a woman’s most personal decision.
[The Romanian dictatorship in the 1980s] banned birth control and abortion, insisting that women bear children for the sake of the state. Women told me how they had been carted from their workplace once a month to be examined by government doctors whose task was to make sure they weren’t using contraceptives or aborting pregnancies. I could not imagine a more humiliating experience.
In Romania and elsewhere, many children were born unwanted or into families that could not afford to care for them. They became wards of the state, warehoused in orphanages.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 354-5 , Nov 1, 2003
Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement

Mother Teresa had just delivered a speech against abortion, and she wanted to talk to me. Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman's right to choose and told me so. Over the years, she sent me dozens of notes & messages with the same gentle entreaty. Mother Teresa never lectured or scolded me; her admonitions were always loving & heartfelt. I had the greatest respect for her opposition to abortion, but I believe that it is dangerous to give any state the power to enforce criminal penalties against women & doctors. I consider that a slippery slope to state control in China & Communist Romania. I also disagreed with her opposition--and that of the Catholic Church--to birth control. However, I support the right of people of faith to speak out against abortion and try to dissuade women, without coercion or criminalization, from choosing abortion instead of adoption. Mother Teresa and I found much common ground in many other areas including the importance of adoption.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.417-418 , Nov 1, 2003
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice

Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?
A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk

Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it “infanticide.” Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose

I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 , Jan 22, 2000
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare

We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC , Jan 22, 1999
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion

I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC , Jan 22, 1999
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems

Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. , Jan 22, 1999
Supports parental notice & family planning

If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.
I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.
Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 , Feb 3, 1997
Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning

The Cairo Document, drafted at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, reaffirms that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” And it recognizes “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so.” Women & men should have the right to make this most intimate of all decisions free of discrimination or coercion.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p. 63 , Sep 25, 1996
No abortion for sex selection in China

Many on the left advocate a policy of abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time during the pregnancy, with no state regulation or limitation allowed, and paid for by the taxpayers. This extreme position is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. It means a government policy of allowing abortion as a means of birth control and sex selection. Most people know this is simply wrong. (Even Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke out against abortion for sex selection in China.)
States should have the right to regulate and limit abortions. At the very least, parental consent or notification should be required before abortions are performed on minors; states should be allowed to impose waiting periods; and late-term abortions should be prohibited except to save the life of the mother.
Source: Agenda For America, by Haley Barbour, p.161 , Apr 25, 1996
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus

Hillary’s votes all echo the liberal line in the Senate
She opposed the ban on partial birth abortions
She came down against criminalizing harm to a fetus during an attack on the mother
She opposed a travel ban to Cuba
She opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
She backed extending the ban on assault rifles for 10 years
She was against Bush’s tax cuts
She opposed repealing the estate tax
She opposed limits on class action lawsuits.
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 85-86 , Oct 11, 2005
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006
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
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.

Clinton is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”
Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Clinton sponsored expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:
prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
Congress makes the following findings:
Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.
Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

Paperback: Ron Paul
vs. Barack Obama
On The Issues
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.

Clinton sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Clinton scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.

Clinton sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

Clinton co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

Clinton signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Can you imagine all the lost media ad revenue if The Game is over before half time? Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #1
So sad that even on on DU Hillary haters have to resort to FAUX to make their "case." MoonRiver Feb 2015 #2
And some RW media website "pledges" a million dollars....same apoleptic response. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #3
Yeah shenmue Feb 2015 #6
Absolutely! MoonRiver Feb 2015 #7
You mean the same Faux Nooz, whose owner held fundraisers for her in 2008? Fuddnik Feb 2015 #52
Hillary's ties to lobbyists aren't a right-wing creation Enrique Feb 2015 #4
Oh noes! Hillary only gets her money from poor people and, um, angels. djean111 Feb 2015 #10
Criticizing her for big corporate donors is silly treestar Feb 2015 #12
And then, of course, we are admonished that OF COURSE the elected one has to please their big djean111 Feb 2015 #15
How can they "please" them? treestar Feb 2015 #20
I do not buy that lessening regulations on wall Street will avoid a recession. djean111 Feb 2015 #24
who could this be... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #129
You invented all that stuff treestar Feb 2015 #178
How has Hillary claimed she want to regulate them less? treestar Feb 2015 #195
there is a way to fix that.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #28
Oh, I don't think Hillary is going to regulate Wall Street. Which vote are you referring to? djean111 Feb 2015 #32
"you don't think" VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #38
No, not when she gives speeches to banks saying we are just being mean to them. djean111 Feb 2015 #41
She gives lots of speeches....and she raises money for lots of philanthropic causes too... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #43
Oh good grief. This is my last response to you today. "lots of speeches" - which is where you get djean111 Feb 2015 #48
Of course it is....when you have no evidence to support your theory....that is what one does... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #50
... The good old fashioned announced ignore. Agschmid Feb 2015 #90
What speech? treestar Feb 2015 #196
I think "we" is us stupid liberal Lefties. djean111 Feb 2015 #198
sounds like an opinionated summary treestar Feb 2015 #205
Not alone in their opinion. djean111 Feb 2015 #207
Protip MFrohike Feb 2015 #74
No it doesn't ....none of her supporters consider her to be "some kind of Liberal Jesus" VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #93
Well, no MFrohike Feb 2015 #116
My point is...her record shows she IS a Liberal Democrat. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #121
See, that's your problem MFrohike Feb 2015 #122
You see.....its not a problem... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #123
Not so much, no MFrohike Feb 2015 #124
OHHHH you want evidence.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #125
Heh MFrohike Feb 2015 #131
Oh I've read it...its you that needs to!... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #134
If you say so MFrohike Feb 2015 #137
Yeah I say so....and I have public records to prove it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #140
Except you don't MFrohike Feb 2015 #144
Except I DO....those are all documented! READING is fundamental VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #146
Cool MFrohike Feb 2015 #148
and that is just ONE of many many many just like it that i have to support my contentions... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #150
In other words.. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #136
Cool MFrohike Feb 2015 #139
damn skippy.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #141
It could be that MFrohike Feb 2015 #143
Oh thats what you think? Could be that you have a preconceived notion based on VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #145
It could be MFrohike Feb 2015 #147
Or it could be that you wouldn't know what documented public records were...if they jumped up and VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #149
You must be tired MFrohike Feb 2015 #152
actually I am not....I am posting the actual record of this LIBERAL Democrat. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #157
I finally get it MFrohike Feb 2015 #159
No not "JUST" economic matters....OVERALL the woman is a Liberal Democrat... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #161
Well, make the argument MFrohike Feb 2015 #164
its not "walls of text"....its FACTS in Public Record...Every ONE of them sourced! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #167
Oh man, now you're condescending MFrohike Feb 2015 #172
No indentation and no punctuation.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #175
You're doing it wrong MFrohike Feb 2015 #177
In Summary VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #126
In summary MFrohike Feb 2015 #132
I have read my evidence thank you....it proves exactly what I am saying... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #151
Read the Social Security section MFrohike Feb 2015 #153
I have read it...thanks... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #155
No she does not, or more likely pretends not to /nt Dragonfli Feb 2015 #128
You got evidence of that? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #130
Why yes, you. You are the evidence /nt Dragonfli Feb 2015 #158
no but I DO have the evidence.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #160
Have you ever tried making this claim to a Republican? treestar Feb 2015 #197
Sigh MFrohike Feb 2015 #199
Bravo deutsey Feb 2015 #213
When she pulls that stuff out, it is best to give up discussing the content with her Dragonfli Feb 2015 #100
Except my arguments stem from actual facts..... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #127
This is kind of fun MFrohike Feb 2015 #135
badly reasoned arguments? I just laid out abortion in response to another post...lets move on to VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #138
hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha MFrohike Feb 2015 #142
Oh looks like you need another topic...lets see... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #154
Woo MFrohike Feb 2015 #162
Woo my butt.....the public record is there... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #163
At least I picked MFrohike Feb 2015 #166
I didn't have to "pick" its public record...AND sourced... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #168
Comedy MFrohike Feb 2015 #170
Well there ya go, have fun with that Dragonfli Feb 2015 #156
and you have something that supports this in public record do you? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #165
Why yes, you just posted it, thanks for that by the way. /nt Dragonfli Feb 2015 #169
Item #1 is OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)  TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #180
that is not the full record though is it? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #182
and here you go... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #183
Perhaps you should read further...its about a "total score" what we Democrats like to call a RECORD. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #184
Well then how about criticizing her for this. A Simple Game Feb 2015 #27
Exactly not even Obama.... Historic NY Feb 2015 #51
Criticizing ONLY her would be silly. Orsino Feb 2015 #57
Just how do you expect someone pure enough to get elected? treestar Feb 2015 #200
I don't buy that framing. Orsino Feb 2015 #212
Downplaying its importance is legitimate argumentation. Calling it "LIES" is, itself, a lie. Jim Lane Feb 2015 #95
Poor people don't donate to candidates. They need to eat. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #14
I do not see Hillary as "relatively progressive". She is not for anything progressive, IMO, before djean111 Feb 2015 #17
Care to answer my question? nt SunSeeker Feb 2015 #18
Your question, with the "besides Hillary" part, is illogical or something. False premise. djean111 Feb 2015 #25
Oh really? Whats so "NOT at all Progressive" about this record? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #133
Not for anything "relatively progressive"? Really now? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #31
"Strongly favors" doesn't mean anything these days, sorry. djean111 Feb 2015 #37
Of course not in YOUR world view it doesn't.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #40
I am starting to believe you honestly feel no one should have a "world view" that you do not djean111 Feb 2015 #44
I am starting to think that you don't believe Hillary Clinton has a public record of what she has VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #47
Of course you're right, VR. Hillary is a progressive by any definition. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #46
EXACTLY.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #49
So why was there a Civil Rights Act, a Social Security Act, etc? treestar Feb 2015 #21
I totally agree with you, treestar. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #61
wow that's inspiring ND-Dem Feb 2015 #23
How is this for inspiring.. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #33
gee, shouldn't this come with a multitude of blue links? bbgrunt Feb 2015 #58
Your bullying of DUers for posting facts is disgusting. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #65
I was waiting for this one treestar Feb 2015 #201
It isn't an issue specific to Hillary, as the articles make it appear. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #26
People can be easily manipulated and it's all about $$$$$. Fox and the RW are very skilled RKP5637 Feb 2015 #5
Many corps will donate to BOTH parties just to deflect - Can anyone here HONESTLY blm Feb 2015 #8
And remember...M$NBC Just fredamae Feb 2015 #9
Uh they haven't announced that.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #34
Yes, thank you-it is my opinion...n/t fredamae Feb 2015 #42
My problem with this and other smears is making a mountain out of a molehill OKNancy Feb 2015 #11
I agree Andy823 Feb 2015 #13
Couldn't Clinton easily dispel these concerns by echoing Warren and Sanders? fbc Feb 2015 #16
Her advisers will tell her when it is okay to parrot Warren and Sanders, okay? djean111 Feb 2015 #22
Her actions speak louder than her words. Whose lobbying as First Lady was critical pnwmom Feb 2015 #29
she can easily dispel it with her own record... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Feb 2015 #19
+1 marym625 Feb 2015 #68
Why does no one post the headers when they post this table? Agschmid Feb 2015 #91
Because then they wouldn't be able to lie about what the table means. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #114
Indeed, I always notice that there are NO headers ever when that table is posted. Agschmid Feb 2015 #115
Is the header supposed to be reassuring? progressoid Feb 2015 #192
You skipped part... Agschmid Feb 2015 #194
Why? The employees may not be "rich." treestar Feb 2015 #202
Bwahahahahahahaaa. progressoid Feb 2015 #208
Are you claiming everyone who works for Goldman Sachs treestar Feb 2015 #210
Nope. progressoid Feb 2015 #211
How Funny,,,,, Cryptoad Feb 2015 #30
Just so I understand this inanity whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #35
Oh, just for Hillary. You understand correctly. djean111 Feb 2015 #39
It is applicable when convenient like to attack an actual liberal or of course a TeaPubliKlan TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #54
About sums it up whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #56
so true bbgrunt Feb 2015 #60
And if you notice, there's no refutation of the bare facts of who's donated. Lars39 Feb 2015 #82
Of course not, the only response is spin or flat denials of reality. Conservatives excel at both. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #88
I just hope that no lefties fall for the premise Broward Feb 2015 #45
HDS is alive and well here. riqster Feb 2015 #53
It's not quite "LIES" -- it's disingenuous muckraking. cheapdate Feb 2015 #55
Uh-oh. WSJ just wrote the Earth is round MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #59
I've been a member for 25 years. zappaman Feb 2015 #63
A Reichwinger Tried That On Me Leith Feb 2015 #62
3 things ellennelle Feb 2015 #64
K & R Iliyah Feb 2015 #66
Lots of us recognize them for the right-wing hatchet jobs they are... SidDithers Feb 2015 #67
Yes, Canadians should set DU policy whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #70
As an American (not sure why in the hell that matters, but...) Sid is 100% correct. NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #83
You mean whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #85
DU is not limited to Americans treestar Feb 2015 #203
That goes both ways marym625 Feb 2015 #71
Sometimes the poster is a fraud...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #76
Really? marym625 Feb 2015 #77
Sure. What would you call someone who's been banned multiple times... SidDithers Feb 2015 #80
exactly what did I say that has anything to do with that? marym625 Feb 2015 #81
Waffles are real, however you cut them. Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #92
A little consistency would be nice, Sid.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #72
plus.1 n/t Ichingcarpenter Feb 2015 #73
Bashing from the left and bashing from the right have the same result...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #75
Exactly, neither results in any effect on your life Fumesucker Feb 2015 #84
Please provide the link you reference where Sid says a DUer is "too far to the left." SunSeeker Feb 2015 #78
This is the most recent example.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #86
I remember that marym625 Feb 2015 #96
Oh yeah? Well how about an example where Sid wasn't right about it? MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #97
That doesn't say woo is "too far to the left." SunSeeker Feb 2015 #98
Personally I think Sid rises to the level of performance art and bit past that Fumesucker Feb 2015 #99
No. He's criticizing the destructive use of GOP propaganda to bash a fellow Dem. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #102
What woo says is a long way indeed from GOP talking points.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #103
Bull. There was a post in GD on 2-14-15 pulled straight from a right wing site. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #107
I've seen Skinner post Andrew Sullivan approvingly.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #108
Skinner cited Sullivan when he was actually telling the truth about Obama. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #109
Wait, I thought we were talking about woo? Fumesucker Feb 2015 #110
We're talking about DUers using right wing propaganda against Dems. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #112
You were talking about woo.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #113
I was responding to your assertion about woo, and disputing your characterization of S id's post. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #117
Well according to his response to me marym625 Feb 2015 #79
does HRC favor corporate coups like xl, TPP, aca, and charter schools? Doctor_J Feb 2015 #69
+1 marym625 Feb 2015 #87
The ACA saved my brother's life. It was not a "corporate coup." SunSeeker Feb 2015 #105
healthcare would also have saved your brothers life. we didn't have to sign over Doctor_J Feb 2015 #171
Bullshit. My brother's pre-existing condition made it impossible for him to get coverage. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #173
voters from 2008 stayed home in 2010 because Obama sold them out on every issue Doctor_J Feb 2015 #174
Obama did a lot for us. We didn't have the votes for a public option, let alone Medicare for All. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #185
XL and TPP I understand your confusion....but the ACA and Charter Schools WTF??? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #204
ACA was written by the heritage foundation. Obama's education scheme continues the Doctor_J Feb 2015 #209
Two questions MFrohike Feb 2015 #89
The Media Matters article is specifically about the receipt of donations from foreign sources. Maedhros Feb 2015 #94
I guess you're trying to make the case obxhead Feb 2015 #101
Oh my god this is so lame. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #104
what did hillary say. a VAST rite wing conspiracy. pansypoo53219 Feb 2015 #106
"lefties"? progressoid Feb 2015 #111
Lefties is used by Conservatives as a pejorative. Most "Lefties" wear the label proudly. nm rhett o rick Feb 2015 #188
Yep. progressoid Feb 2015 #191
Especially DINOs, BOGgers, PUMAs, Turd Way, and moles Doctor_J Feb 2015 #193
I'm all for the facts coming out and not distorted by rw hacks or any Hacks for that matter.. Cha Feb 2015 #118
If what they report is false then make that argument. It seems the only argument we see from rhett o rick Feb 2015 #119
+1,000 Scuba Feb 2015 #181
Then you're not paying attention. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #186
Again, I never see anything of substance. Of course Sen Warren is going to be polite rhett o rick Feb 2015 #187
So you're calling Warren a phony liar. Nice. nt SunSeeker Feb 2015 #189
BTW, if you "never see anything of substance," it is because you aren't looking. SunSeeker Feb 2015 #190
Doesn't look like there is a lot of money in the Clinton Foundation. Rex Feb 2015 #120
Hillary haters using WSJ and Fox propaganda now? workinclasszero Feb 2015 #176
On any given day just Google the "issue" and "Fox News." joshcryer Feb 2015 #179
Where is the defense of Nader when similar claims are made? nt Bonobo Feb 2015 #206
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The origin of a RW hack j...»Reply #136