Biden; "Federal funding for abortion forces a view"

[inthebrain]

Why is it that the right to an abortion is the most easily dismissed right in the country?

Afterall, this isn't like a drivers license where it's a priveledge that can be revoked. Abortion, like the "right to bear arms" and "the right to free speech" (Although, sad as it is, the constitution does little to protect that right) is also a right.

Funding abortion has nothing to do with forcing a view anymore then the government providing loans for college students. Either people agree with it or they don't. It's not forcing a view on anyone.

What if we were to go to the flip side of this? Where is it a guarenteed right for the government to kill people? How about strip away their right to privacy or to assemble?

If funding abortion forces a view does Biden and the other senators feel that the IWR and Patriot Act is forcing a view?

When it comes to woman's right to do as she wishes with her body it is her right. It is a medical decisions and a quality of life decision that belongs between her and her doctor. When choosing a medical procedure, nobody gets the right to force someone to not to have it done because it conflicts with their personal tastes. And abortion IS a right.

It's one of those things where if someone doesn't like it, TOUGH SHIT!!!! And as far as not dissagreeing with it and not wanting to pay for it, TOUGH SHIT!!! I have to pay for this stupid war that I never once fucking endorsed. I have to pay for full health benefits for employees of the federal government while citizens that are insured and those that are not insured equally get shafted.

Sometimes we all have to pay for things we don't like.



Edited to add link and quote;


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Joe_Biden_Abortion.htm
No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view
Q: Are you still opposed to public funding for abortion?
A: I still am opposed to public funding for abortion. It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007

[sufrommich]

Well said.

I wish all the Dem candidates would just state it as eloquently as you just did.k&r

[dsc]

1. We don't fund any other health care for the vast majority of our people

I get hit by a car tomorrow and the feds will not provide so much as a bandaid. Under that senario, funding abortion is clearly making us pay for abortion above other health care.

[inthebrain]

3. We're forced to pay for a lot of things we don't agree with

Sometimes we are right in demanding that we don't pay for them. Other things, like abortion, just comes from the fact that we live in a society. Women have a right to be represented and recieve beneifts from the taxes they pay too.

As far as someone getting hit by a car, n body should be buried by medical bills for that. We all agree that having a private company provide us with fire protection is freakin absurd. Health care is the same thing.

[dsc]

10. if we have universal health care

then fund abortion, but we currently don't so we shouldn't.

[inthebrain]

14. Two wrongs don't make a right

And as pointed out, the government will pay for it through medicaid for low income women in cases of incest and rape.

[dsc]

17. So what would you say to a pro lifer who loses a leg due to not having

access to medical care who has to pay for an elective abortion? Seriously, what would you say to that person?

[inthebrain]

25. Under what circumstances would someone lose a leg because they don't have health coverage?

The argument for universal health care is to improve primary prevention and reduce costs. They work hand in hand. And nobody is left by the side of the road becuase they were hit by a car. Those people are taken care of as well. We all pay for that when that person can not afford to pay the bill. We are already paying for eachothers health care in the free market system.

In cases where people lose legs there is often some kind of trauma. Unless we are talking Diabete but even when it gets to that stage the condition is acute and they won't be denied care.

[dsc]

41. It happens quite often

Procedures that can save a leg which has been badly mangled are very costly, cutting off a leg, is relatively speaking, cheap. In Moore's film a guy lost his finger for lack of funds, while not a whole leg, it still happened.

[inthebrain]

69. Sowing it back on

I see what you're saying.

I don't think the scenerio is applicable to abortion though.

Especially when we are talking about victims of incest and rape.

[Sparkly]

27. I really hate to approach these things from an economic standpoint

because it's all a matter of morality, and there's no price we can put on a leg, for example.

And first I'll say again that the goal should be universal health care AND access to abortion within that. Biden seems to be for the former but not the latter.

In terms of dollars and cents, the cost of a child -- especially from an unwanted pregnancy -- can be significant. In some circumstances, it involves social services to the mother as well as the child. Again, I hate to think of this in financial terms, but to the argument about the cost of abortions (especially from conservatives who love "unborn children" but would tell the children of "welfare queens" to get lost), those factors should be considered. And so should the low cost of helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies!

(Same goes for a lot of other things they don't want to spend tax dollars on, like urban renewal, job training, housing, school services, drug rehab, economic incentives, etc. -- instead, they'll spend far more on prisons and court proceedings. Edited to make clear: I'm not relating unwanted pregnancies directly to crime, but drawing another analogy.)

[Sparkly]

4. Just to be clear -- there isn't broad federal funding for abortion.

Ideally, all healthcare would be available to all people, and that includes abortion.

Right now, the only federal funding for abortion that I know of is through medicare, only for low-income women who are victims of rape or incest or whose pregnancies are life-threatening.

Women in the military are provided abortions if their pregnancies are life-threatening, but have to pay for the procedure themselves if it's a result of rape or incest, incredibly.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/government-health-care/ban-fed-funding-abortion-military.html

[dsc]

11. That would be Medicaid

but I think elective abortions should come after universal health care.

[Sparkly]

13. Yes, medicaid.

The whole thing is important -- both universal healthcare and access to safe, legal abortions.

[inthebrain]

23. It should be a part of Universal Health Care

I hate the term "elective" as it's applyed to abortion. An elective procedure is one that is not necasary. For the woman who chooses to have an abortion it is not "elective" like a nose job.

[DemBones DemBones]

38. By the very fact that a woman CHOOSES abortion, it is ELECTIVE,

not required. It is an elective surgery like a nose job except that a baby is killed when a woman chooses abortion. A nose job removes tissue; an abortion kills a living human being and removes its remains.

If a woman's LIFE is truly in danger, she will need medical treatment which MAY kill her baby but the PURPOSE will be to save her life, not to end the baby's life.

Medically performed abortion is the direct killing of an unborn baby, performed with the explicit intention and for the purpose of killing the baby.

(A miscarriage is technically called a "spontaneous abortion," but the word "abortion" by itself has come to refer to the medical "termination" of a pregnancy, i.e., directly and purposely killing an unborn baby. Many people think that removing the remains of a baby that has died in utero is an abortion but of course it's not; the baby died a natural death but has remained in place, which could lead to complications for the mother if its body is not removed.)

[inthebrain]

42. It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

To the woman having the abortion it is absolutely necasary. It is absolutely for her health and well being no matter when it occurs or whether someone else approves of it.

Abortions do not kill human beings.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Semantics don't change reality.

Call it an embryo or fetus if you like but using the medical terms is just a semantic means of avoiding reality. A baby is being destroyed with every abortion.

(Please don't say the embryo or fetus is a parasite. A parasite is always of a different species than its host organism, such as tapeworms, liver flukes, protozoa that you or your pets may have growing inside your body or external parasites like fleas and ticks.)


My usual disclaimer: Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is unacceptable. Women should always receive the medical care they need to save their lives, even though sometimes it's obvious the baby will probably or definitely die as a result of the mother's treatment. That's not abortion because the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the baby.

Abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn baby.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

48. Nevermind.

You've made your point, another DU'er who sits in judgement.

You'd have those women who have the procedure jailed, no doubt.


MKJ

[DemBones DemBones]

72. No, I do not judge anyone nor would I jail anyone nor make abortion illegal.

I think people need to leave denial behind, admit that abortion takes a human life and stop being so cavalier about it, work to make it RARE.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

78. Who the f***is cavalier about it?

I used to admire your posts, boy has this thread been a wake up call.
And you say you're non judgemental...

MKJ

[inthebrain]

55. That's not semantics

A fetus is very differnt from a neonate and an infant.

VERY different things.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. Of course it's semantics.

An embryo, fetus, neonate are just different stages in a baby's life.

Some adocates of "choice" think it's acceptable for parents to kill neonates and older babies. The "bioethicist" Peter Singer thinks it's OK to kill children up to the age of 2 years.

Those who support abortion on demand don't want to call the unborn child a baby or a child. Somehow it's easier for some to call the baby an embryo or fetus when they want to kill him or her.

Abortion advocates used to tell women "It's just a few cells" or "a blob of tissue" when in fact the baby already had a nervous system and beating heart, the beginning of limbs, eyes, etc.

Sonograms and photos of living babies taken within the uterus have shown what the reality is.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

79. Except for that little business of being able to respire, thus completing the carboxyhemoglobin

cycle.

But, just keeping peddling Randall Terry.



MKJ

edit spelling.

[cuke]

84. Sorry, but LIFE is not ELECTIVE

It's not like you have some OBLIGATION to bring a child into this world UNLESS you have a good (ie health) reason. If you don't get that nose job, there is no cost to society. You can't say that about abortions.

[Stop Cornyn]

85. Amen!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

86. Sorry, cuke.

Missed the nuance first time around.

On this thread, it's sorely lacking. :-)

MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. Except, Medicare, Medicaid, the Armed Forces, the VA are all federal programs.

Of course, not all of us have access to those health care programs.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Viagra is covered in those programs?

MKJ

[inthebrain]

8. Private insurance will cover it

But very few of them will offer in vitro fertilization.

Having a D&C covered because you have endometriosis is a bitch and half as well.

[dsc]

9. Most of us don't

Until there is universal health care, it is wrong to ask people who don't have access to any health care to pay for abortions for others.

[sufrommich]

16. Then let's throw Medicare out the window too.

Anyone who collects a paycheck pays for Medicare,whether they are personally insured or not.

[dsc]

19. If Medicare funeded elective abortions I would be opposed to that too

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. Why?

MKJ

[dsc]

21. because I have no legitimate answer to this question

On what planet if it fair for a pro lifer to lose a relative to lack of health care having to turn around and pay for an abortion for someone else?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

22. dsc, I honestly don't understand your analogy. I'm against war, and I'm paying for one.

Should those who oppose blood transfusions for religious reasons, pay for blood transfusions for others?

I'm just wondering why you, personally, oppose this? MKJ

[dsc]

24. because we treat no other health care as a right to be funded by the government

Yes, we have given special classes of people medical care but that isn't the same as universal care. I think it is funamentally unfair to ask working poor pro lifers to fund elective abortions when they themselves have no access to health care whatsoever.

[inthebrain]

26. What about veterans?

They have their health care taken care of by the fed gov.

[dsc]

37. because they are deemed to have earned it

thus a special class of people. It isn't because the government believes health care to be a universal right but because veterans have earned a priviledge.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. But what about working poor Jehovah's Witnesses funding blood transfusions?

You can find examples of this everywhere.

dsc, I usually love your OP's and it saddens me to see your views on women's health, since you of all people seem to have such compassion for those who are disenfranchised by society.

I have a hard time believing you would deny an "elective" abortion to a young girl who had no access to birth control or who was coerced or forced into sex. Especially one who is as poor or poorer than the "prolifers" for whom you take up. I worked as a nurse for years providing care to the medically indigent, almost all of whom were working poor. Taking away this most basic of medical procedures would have forced them into untenable situations.

Peace.

MKJ

[dsc]

36. I think we should have universal health care including abortions

but if we don't have universal health care, then we certainly shouldn't be funding abortions which are not medical necessities (ie life or serious health concerns of the mother). Like it or not, a significant portion of the US public believes that abortion is 'murder lite' and to treat abortion uniquely as a health concern would be totally unfair.

[Sparkly]

46. What other people think about it is beside the point.

I understand your point that if seen as a medical procedure equivalent to other medical procedures, it shouldn't be covered when other procedures aren't. (Not saying I agree with it, but I get the logic.)

But whether other people deem an abortion or any other procedure as appropriate or not isn't at issue.

Also, just to be clear, there's been a long debate about mental health as a serious issue in abortion 'justification,' for lack of a better term. How far do the definitions go of "health" -- including a woman's fertility, longterm health rather than short-term, and other concerns? (The answer is usually that they don't go very far -- in too many people's minds, if a woman can survive the pregnancy, the government can say 'no' to an abortion.)

I just wish there were no such public discussions and judgments of such a personal issue at all.

Anyway, I think we agree that abortion should be legal as part of comprehensive universal healthcare.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

47. oh, dsc

You would see women return to the back alley, and applaud it, it seems, rather than access a safe, inexpensive, and most importantly, private procedure.


I guess you'll be calling your congressperson to demand that Medicaid no longer provide coverage for this. :-(

Lucky for you, you'll never have to face this situation yourself though you seem to feel comfortable passing judgement on those who do.



MKJ

on edit, removed personal information

[dsc]

54. I am not saying it should be illegal

but I am saying that if we don't fund transplants, heart surgeries, or other clearly necessary proceedures due to not thinking health care is a right, it is fundamentally unfair to fund abortions with tax funds from some of the very people for whom we are refusing to pay for those proceedures.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

56. But, we DO fund those things.

Why did you think we didn't?

MKJ

On edit, Medicare and Medicaid pay for them, those are life saving surgeries.

[dsc]

59. Not universally we don't

If I lost my health insurance tomorrow, or somehow went over limit, I would not get any of those proceedures done for me since I don't fall into any of those classes of people.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. You keep moving from the issue of coverage to the fact that "some say" it's murder.

I give up, you feel very strongly about this, and feel that elective abortions shouldn't be covered for anyone, and nothing will give you any sense of compassion for those girls and women faced with that excrutiating decision.

Your sympathy for prolifers says it all.

It's just been a bit discouraging for me seeing this facet of your POV's, but others agree with you, so there you go.

MKJ

edited to add more clarification.

[dsc]

62. I think the reason does matter

it surely does from a political standpoint, but it also does from a public policy one. A solid third of the public thinks abortion is murder lite. Rightly or wrongly they do think that. It would be political suicide to tell someone with an income of say 30k who can't get his or her cancer drugs due to having to high an income to get public assistance but not enough of one to afford the drugs, that some of their tax money is being used to fund an abortion for someone when they think it is murder lite. I also think it would be unfair public policy. I will let you have the last word as I have to leave.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

64. And, again you fall in with the solid third who would invade a woman's medical privacy.

MKJ

PS, dsc, give me the chance for last word, and I'll take it every time.

[dsc]

39. On edit

The Jehovah's Witness arguement is completely off point. Their problem with blood transfusions is unique to them getting blood transfusions. It isn't that they think an innocent victim is being harmed by blood transfusions.

[inthebrain]

50. No one else is capable of thinking like that?

How do you know a Jehovah's witness feels that way?

[dsc]

57. Because I have read up on religions and know what their doctrine is

I also know Jehovah's witnesses have gone into nursing at hospitals which provide blood transfusions. One doesn't have to be a Catholic to know what the Pope's role in that church is.

[inthebrain]

67. Jehovah's witnesses that are Doctors and Nurses

are instructed to withhold tranfusions and blood products from other Jehova's witnesses. As far as other patients of different faiths it's left up to their discretion.

So paying for a transfution for a JW that wants one is condidered a sin.

[DemBones DemBones]

71. JWs don't care if other people have blood transfusions because

they think they'll go to Hell, anyway. (If you don't become a JW, it's your own fault, and you'll go to Hell.) That's why you don't see them demonstrating at blood drives.

You wrote:

"I have a hard time believing you would deny an "elective" abortion to a young girl who had no access to birth control or who was coerced or forced into sex. Especially one who is as poor or poorer than the "prolifers" for whom you take up. I worked as a nurse for years providing care to the medically indigent, almost all of whom were working poor. Taking away this most basic of medical procedures would have forced them into untenable situations."


The poor have no access to birth control? I taught in three schools in two Appalachian counties that are federal poverty areas and the students had access to contraception. Most had cars of their own or could use their parents' car so they had a way to get to the health department or to a drug store where condoms and spermicidal foams are openly displayed and no one looks askance at kids buying them.

The kids had the means to get contraceptives but not the motivation. Their lack of motivation wasn't because abortion was an option; most girls had their babies and kept them. And why not? Having a baby is a status symbol in these areas and the schools provide day care for the babies. If a girl thought she might be pregnant, the school nurse would provide a free test. If the test was positive, the nurse would help her do the paperwork to get prenatal care, supplemental food, etc.

You spoke of "untenable situations" (unplanned pregnancies) for the poor, but pregnancy can be avoided with condoms and spermicide -- as long as they're used consistently and correctly, which just requires understanding how and when to put on a condom and how and when to use spermicide -- and the far more untenable situations (AIDS, HPV, other STDs) can be avoided at the same time, with simple items available without prescription and having no side effects.

Of course, people also need to know to use condoms every time they have oral sex and anal sex. This message especially needs to get out to the black community, according to statistics I saw on CNN this morning. They were reporting on AIDS, the AIDS quilt in Atlanta, etc., and the latest statistics showed that most new HIV infections are in blacks (a bit more than 60%, if I recall correctly) and that black women are particularly at risk. It's very discouraging that this virus is still such a threat, especially to black women who already face sexism and racism.

Condoms need to become fashionable. Maybe if we called them "French letters" as the English do, or used to do, they'd seem chic.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

80. OMG, aren't you the lecturing 60's dad. Just listen kids, and you'll never have an unexpected

pregnancy.

Maybe in the Appalachias everyone has instant access to free contraception and non judgemental medical instruction on its uses and benefits, but it ain't happening here in the city.

Sounds like those kids lived in a contraceptive utopia.



MKJ

[DemBones DemBones]

40. I agree with you. nt

[inthebrain]

29. The women having the procedure is also paying for it

Pro Lifers are not the only ones paying taxes in this scenerio.

[dsc]

49. That is sophistry akin to saying you aren't paying to wage war

since generals also pay taxes. It is both political suicide, and in my opinion bad public policy, to fund abortions without having universal health care.

[inthebrain]

53. The abortions that we fund

are in cases of rape and incest.

Is it good public policy that in the absence of universal healthcare we suspend that?

As far as the General goes, WE PAY THAT MOTHERFUCKERS SALARY!!!! Not really the same thing.

[dsc]

63. You can't use that to justify your post

since Biden has supported funding for those abortions. He is opposed to widening the funding of abortion but not in favor of narrowing it from where it is now. I do think he is wrong to propose universal care and leave out abortion but that wasn't your original point either.

[inthebrain]

68. Where was widening it proposed?

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Bingo. nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. What's the "bingo"?

:shrug: MKJ

[inthebrain]

33. My thoughts exactly

Some gets hit by a car they aren't going to be left by the road.

[DemBones DemBones]

43. If you look, you'll see it was a reply to dsc's post #1, which said

"We don't fund any other health care for the vast majority of our people"

"I get hit by a car tomorrow and the feds will not provide so much as a bandaid. Under that senario, funding abortion is clearly making us pay for abortion above other health care."

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. Abortion is women's health issue and, even more importantly, a medical privacy issue for all of us.

The R's like this issue since, as abortion is tagged "criminal", the legal language can be used to limit various types of contraceptives, if any, to women, something for which the RW dark ages fundies yearn because they hope to have the opportunity to keep those uppity women barefoot and pregnant, just the way the Promisekeepers want.

And, even more insidiously, it allows for more prying into medical information, which can then open the door for everyone's medical information to be available to employers, law enforcement, the airlines, financial institutions, etc.

Well, except for the richest 1%, who can then be the only ones to live lives of utter privacy.

Yet, D candidates seem afraid to commit to this actual part of the Democratic platform, except for Sen. Clinton, who is unequivocal about this particular issue and has been adamant about support of reproductive health rights.

MKJ

[Hepburn]

6. Sooooooo.....if Uncle can take my tax dollars and fund an immoral war in Iraq...

...with which I TOTALLY disagree, what is the difference with taking someone else's tax dollars who disagrees with safe and legal abortions? I see this war as immoral...others see abortion as immoral.

Govt runs for ALL people....not just for some...and there will be times that there are discissions made and policies set out with which someone does not agree. So what do we do? Stop taking ANY tax money unless EVERYONE is in total agreement?

[Sparkly]

7. inthebrain, do you have a link to what Biden said? nt

[inthebrain]

12. Here; 2007 "Meet the Press"

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Joe_Biden_Abortion.htm
No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view
Q: Are you still opposed to public funding for abortion?
A: I still am opposed to public funding for abortion. It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007

[Sparkly]

18. His record on abortion rights isn't stellar, but he's gotten better afaik.

It's one of the ways he's been too conservative for me to be thrilled with him, but nonetheless there are many things about him that I think would make him a good candidate.

It's troubling that he'd say this while at the same time advocating universal health care. And I agree with you that the logic of his reasoning doesn't make sense.

[Adelante]

15. Link to the quote, please

Thanks.

[Steely_Dan]

31. Self-Deleted

[1corona4u]

34. I bet there are a lot more people who

agree with Biden, than those who don't. I'm ok with abortion, but not ok with publicly funded abortion. Trying to draw a parallel between abortion and the war is just...... Still don't get the obsession he has with Joe though.......

GO JOE!!

[Tejanocrat]

75. If you're "ok with abortion, but not ok with publicly funded abortion" doesn't that mean you really

only OK with economically secure women having reproductive rights but poor women don't enjoy that right?

[Tejanocrat]

76. deleted

[KittyWampus]

35. Biden scored 100% w/ Planned Parenthood. Despite your sad, constant effort to malign Biden

it just doesn't work.

Critics also say that he leans conservative on abortion/choice issues.

Again, his issue group ratings indicate otherwise: Biden scored 100% with Planned Parenthood, 100% with NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2005, 2004, and 2001. He scored 90% with NARAL in 2000 and 83% in 1996-2000. He also scored 71% with Planned Parenthood in 1999. The only things Biden seems to raise an eyebrow at are partial-birth abortions and late-term abortions.

[Tejanocrat]

58. Actually, Biden has some 50% and even much lower marks from Planned Parenthood and NARAL:

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=1804

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=112

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=1002

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=603

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4

[Stop Cornyn]

70. Yikes!

[KittyWampus]

82. Biden's scoring- ratings year by year going back 10 years.

There were obviously one or two years when he disagreed with PP and NARAL with on a particular piece of legislation. I've bolded Choice group ratings.

One can note how often he got ZERO percent by the National Right To Life group. Unless you're one of a handful of DU'ers who need to try and twist Biden's actual record.

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2006 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Biden supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 93 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Biden supported the interests of the Democrats for Life of America 33 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 17 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 36 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2001.

2001 Senator Biden supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 75 percent in 2001.

2000 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 90 percent in 2000.

1999-2002 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 67 percent in 1999-2002.

1999-2000 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 22 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 46 percent in 1999.

1999 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 25 percent in 1999.

1999 Senator Biden supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 71 percent in 1999.

1998 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 65 percent in 1998.

1997-1998 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 40 percent in 1997-1998.

1997 Senator Biden supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 34 percent in 1997.

1997 Senator Biden supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 42 percent in 1997.

1996-2003 Senator Biden supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 83 percent in 1996-2003.

[Tejanocrat]

88. A mere 36% from NARAL as recently as 2003 is awful.

[KittyWampus]

89. In 2003, there was legislation were NARAL & Biden disagreed. Yet, MANY other years it's 100%

So you are really dishonest if your intent is to imply that 36% in the year 2003 (when there obviously was some legislation they disagreed on) is indicative of Biden's record.

[KittyWampus]

90. Just to show how ultimately dishonest & pathetic your attempts to paint Biden as anti-abortion

Dennis Kucinich- and this is since his supposed "awakening" as a POTUS candidate in 2004.

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2006 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 56 percent in 2006.

56% is damned pathetic.

And before he ran for POTUS last time it was USUALLY around 10%.

[Tejanocrat]

91. Here's the difference between you and me. You won't admit that Biden is not good on abortion, but I

will admit without hesitation that Dennis' views on abortion are one of the greatest weaknesses of his candidacy.

I'm not pretending that Kucinich has some great liberal record on abortion because he doesn't. But neither does Biden.

In the years before this election, Biden backed away from his long, crappy record on women's reproductive health rights. I'm glad that he had moderated his view, but you can't portray Biden as having a good record on abortion rights.

[KittyWampus]

92. Dennis' 56% was AFTER his 'awakening'. The real difference between us is that I'm not a liar

You are totally dishonest saying Biden is not good on abortion. I just posted the info to prove what I was saying.

True, Biden hasn't voted every single year the way PP and NARAL preferred.

But in the VAST majority of years he did.

And in the VAST majority of years the National Right to Life groups and such gave him near ZERO.

And it's damned curious that you can excuse Dennis changing his view before his POTUS run in 2004 but you can't accept Biden's which happened over ten years ago.

And even before Biden got with the program on Reproductive Rights, his record was STILL better than Kucinich.

[Tejanocrat]

93. Ten years ago? Biden's 36% failing grade from NARAL was 2003! I grant you this is not Kucinich's

strongest issue, but I can admit that Dennis isn't superman and has a spotty record on this issue. You seem unable to objectively accept that Biden has one of the worst records on reproductive rights among the Democratic candidates.

Which of the Democratic candidates has a worse record on abortion rights than Biden or Kucinich?

[Steely_Dan]

44. Self-Deleted

[sufrommich]

51. I like Biden.Will vote for him if he wins

the nomination.He's not as pro choice as I would like,but all of our Dems would fight to keep it legal.I have no idea what the OPs posting history is,but I agree with the analogy.

[1corona4u]

52. Go Joe!

[Bread and Circus]

61. Actually Biden is right, it forces a view...

in the same waging illegal wars forces a view on us as well. We are collectively responsible for what happens in a democracy. The blood is on all our hands. That's one of the reasons we all get so upset about the Iraq war.

Any time we collectively pay for something through tax dollars you will always have the uncomfortable consequence where people pay for things they don't approve of.

Biden's response is purely political, but probably the right tact to take on what is really a 2 sided issue.

[inthebrain]

66. The abortions the fed gov pays for

are in cases of incest and rape.

Many staunch pro lifers agree to make an exception in that case.

[EV_Ares]

65. Your points are well-founded and correct. Abortion does not force

its view on anyone. It is an unfortunate choice a woman has to make in certain situations. Granted, a perfect world where you did not need abortions would be great but we all know that is not to be. So, we all pay for things by taxes we do not agree with but we all have to live together regardless of our religious views, political views, race, gender, etc. Abortion is a medical procedure and decision for a woman should she need to make that decision and the women who cannot afford to pay for the abortion have a right to have it with our help as much as other medical is provided with our help for those who are unable to afford it.

[DemBones DemBones]

77. Women deserve better than abortion.

There are other, better choices.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

81. OK, I shouldn't laugh, but I can't figure this out. Either you respect the decisions women make, or

you don't.

A bit further upthread, we were Appalachian girls who got pregnant for fun in spite of being surrounded on all sides by instant contraception or else cavalier baby killers.



MKJ

edit, spelling

[Solon]

83. Women deserve the right to be able to do with their bodies what they and their doctor's think best.

Nothing else matters. It is as simple as that. Inserting your own convoluted morality and judgementalism into the equation is counterproductive. If you are really interested in minimizing abortions, then support full federal funding for The Pill and contraceptives under a Universal Healthcare System.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. So does funding the Iraq War, but do you see me arguing that I shouldn't have to pay for it?

I have moral qualms with a lot of what my tax dollars do, but I don't oppose those things because my tax dollars go to them, I oppose them because they are immoral.

[cuke]

87. It most certainly does, thank the goddess

Poor women have as much right to health care as women who are not poor.

[Sandaasu]

94. Is the government giving me a gun? No.

Having a right to possess or do something doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to be able to actually do it, it just means that the government can't prevent you from doing it. Funding for abortive procedures should be the same as for other areas of health care.