31 Years after Roe v. Wade: What does your candidate have to say???

[SangamonTaylor]

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today:

"On the same day that we are honoring the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are also fighting to save it. You and I know that since the Supreme Court handed down this landmark decision, forces have been hard at work trying to overturn it. When it comes to a woman's right to choose, there is no choice: I support it and will protect it one hundred percent.

"The president and the Republican Leadership have one goal in mind-to over turn Roe v Wade-and we have a million reasons and ways to stop them and we will start by taking back the White House in 2004."

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=566&press=1

Considering the debate is tonight, I wonder if the candidates will recognize the historic decision and voice out against the Bush administration, or follow the politically safe route by not making abortion an issue this election.


edited for link

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Wesley Clark says

http://www.clark04.com/press/release/200/

For Immediate Release
Date: January 22, 2004


Honoring Roe V. Wade

"Thirty-one years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right of privacy to encompass a woman's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing in Roe v. Wade. Time and again, during the last three decades, that right has been threatened. The Court's ruling has been tried and tested and reaffirmed - but it will be tested again. So we must continue to defend it.

I am pro-choice. I stand with the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court, and the majority of the American people in believing that our government has no right to come between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal and private decision. A woman, of any age, should never be forced to endanger her life. I opposed the ban on late term abortion enacted by President Bush and Republicans in Congress last year because it didn't provide an exception for the health of the woman. And I have opposed parental notification laws that don't allow judicial bypass or notification of another responsible adult, because, while parental involvement is always preferable, it isn't always possible. Our goal should be to make abortion safe, legal and rare.

We should not stand for attempts to return this country to the dark days before Roe v. Wade. We, as a nation, have embraced several simple important constitutional values, such as one-person, one-vote and the right to privacy that are now matters of settled law. I am committed to appointing people from all backgrounds, with the highest qualifications, who are committed to upholding the law and enforcing fundamental constitutional guarantees-- including the rights of privacy and equality."

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. That's my Wes!

:loveya:

Go, Wes!

[funky_bug]

2. He said...

Edited text 'cause somebody beat me to it :)

http://clark04.com/press/release/200/

And to answer your question, I'm sure it will come up in the debates tonight. Depending on which candidate any given DU'er is rooting for, it will either been lauded a heroic speech, or a blatant pandering.

[Ramsey]

4. Dean's position

As a physician, I do not believe Congress or the President should practice medicine. Abortion is a deeply personal decision, which ought to be made between a woman and her physician. It's none of the government's business.

I have been a strong supporter of a woman’s right to reproductive freedom my entire life. I believe that the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution. As President, I would do everything in my power to preserve that right.

I have a different perspective on this issue than other politicians because of my medical training and my experience as a family doctor. I am proud to have served as a Board Member of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. I understand women’s health, and I will defend the right of women to control decisions about their bodies.


Edit: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_health_reproductivefreedom

[Terwilliger]

5. more importantly: what Dem could have a position other than pro-choice?

That's what they think about it. But, hell, isn't this one of those dreaded "single-issues"?

[liberalhistorian]

7. Believe it or not, there

are quite a few anti-abortion Dems, just as there are pro-choice Republicans. And let's not forget Lieberman's wanting to "reevaluate" Roe v. Wade in light of, as he says "increased medical knowledge now available in 1973." Thank GOD he has no chance of winning the nomination!

[Terwilliger]

18. but that's the problem, isn't it?

should there be any Democrats against choice? Hell, I have problems with Kucinich over his former positions.

[redqueen]

40. Yes, there should.

Sorry, but making this issue the litmus test for being a Democrat would be the final nail in the already nearly obsolete Democratic Party's coffin.

I'm sick of seeing NARAL hijack our party. We are NOT defined by this issue.

[RUexperienced]

6. "I'm glad I wasn't aborted."

Might not get a lot of applause, but I would like to hear one candidate say it.

[David__77]

8. That's a ridiculous, foolish statement--beyond belief.

That's like saying, "I'm glad my parents has sex when they conceived me." Or "I'm glad my father wasn't wearing a condom when I was conceived." Shall we outlaw contraceptive devices because they prevent pregnancy? It's the same exact logic of outlawing abortion because it prevents birth.

There was a slogan: "A baby's not a baby until it comes out; That's what birthdays are all about."

[RUexperienced]

9. You you support abortion right up to delivery?

Curious. Not many elected Democrats will state that.

Wes Clark just backed off of that position this week.

I have never heard anything so boldly cold-hearted in my life.

[David__77]

11. I support abortion being legal--end of story.

I don't want doctors or patients being arrested. I am not aware of a case of abortion that has occurred in the U.S. since Roe that should have been illegal. So, if you interpret that position as "support" for abortion until delivery, that's fine. I favor abortion being legal. It's a straightforward position. I'm aware of plenty of Democratic officials who oppose banning late-term procudures.

[RUexperienced]

12. In your words, you support abortion "until the baby comes out"

End of story.

(Or should I say, end of life.)

[David__77]

14. So, when would YOU criminalize abortion?

Where do you draw the line and say to doctors and women: YOU are a criminal if you have an abortion? When?

And furthermore, that was a slogan, and not mine. I do favor abortion being legal in the late term--yes. I think women and their doctors can make these decisions without being fined or imprisoned.

[RUexperienced]

16. If the baby is viable

he or she deserves protection.

[Terwilliger]

19. how about the people already alive?

shouldn't they get more concern from government officials?

Millions of homeless? Yeah, wake me when the government should care about women having abortions.

[liberalhistorian]

22. EXACTLY!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[liberalhistorian]

20. So, do you vote for

and support children's services levies and for the public support of social services benefiting children, such as foster care, abused and neglected children, the WIC program, etc., etc.? Have you offered to be a foster or adoptive parent, or to volunteer in some way to assist babies and children? Have you contributed to children's organizations and assist those who are already born? Do you help young mothers who've chosen to keep their babies and who desperately need help in order to do so? Do you support ensuring health care for all children and ensuring the existence of public health programs like child vaccination and treatment, etc.? Because it's pretty damned hypocritical if you don't.

[RUexperienced]

23. Yes.

I contribute to a women's shelter that help women who decide to keep their baby, since "pro-choice" groups don't.

I would even consider a contribution to NOW IF they had a fund to help women who kept their babies.

Tell me, does the National Organization for Women or NARAL have a fund to help these girls?

[liberalhistorian]

25. Yes, actually they do,

and pro-choice groups also do an awful lot for them. I know, because I was helped by them and they helped me a lot more than the "pro-life" groups did, who only wanted to lecture me on my "sins" and "irresponsibility" and who were only interested in the baby and not me.

[RUexperienced]

26. I have met too many girls who have told me that the

"pro-choice" groups dropped them when they happened to make the wrong choice.

"What programs do you have for me to help me buy a crib, clothes and food if I choose to keep the baby."

"Sorry, we have nothing for you. But if you choose to terminate, we have several options..."

[liberalhistorian]

28. Well, that sure as hell wasn't

the case with me and many other women I know. Nor is it true of the pro-choice groups I work with. And we also work with the women AFTER the baby's born, not just beforehand, including help with child care, etc., whereas the "pro-life" ones didn't. They considered their job done once the baby was born.

[RUexperienced]

29. The pro-life groups I work with

provide food, shelter, clothing, cribs, and mentors for these women.

The local "pro-choice" groups obviously only support one choice.

[liberalhistorian]

32. Well, at least they're

"walking the talk". And that's too bad about the pro-choice groups, that's not the case with the ones around here.

[David__77]

37. Well, if it's "viable," then you can deliver it, right?

So, if it's non-"viable," then a woman can have an abortion? And if it's "viable," which to me implies it can live on its own, then you can deliver it, thereby ending pregnancy, right? So, in any event, a woman can one way or the other end a pregnancy at any point, right?

Or are you saying that a woman should be forced to carry a "viable" fetus?

[liberalhistorian]

17. I am staunchly, strongly pro-choice,

but I have to disagree with that. I don't believe in abortions after the fifth month. The fetus is viable, and, to me, that's just plain murder. Unless, of course, there's a real need for it in regards to the health of the mother or some other dire reason.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Well, and here's my

staunchly pro-choice stepdad's answer whenever he's asked that question, "what if you'd been aborted?": "Well, I wouldn't know any differently now, would I? How would I possibly know?"

My parents and grandparents and their friends have friends and family members who'd be alive today had abortion been legal long before it was. My grandmother watched a friend of hers bleed to death in a hospital because she'd gone to an underground butcher in desperationg. My dad's sister had a friend who bled to death because she stuck a coat hanger up herself to try to induce an abortion.

A college professor of mine told me about women she'd counseled in the forties, fifties, and sixties who'd been desperate enough to have illegal abortions and who were permanently maimed or injured, while the MEN, of course, suffered nothing whatsoever, no stigma, no problems, NOTHING!

She also told me about the student who came stumbling into her office one afternoon in the late fifties, screaming for help because she was bleeding so heavily from an underground abortion, she died at the hospital an hour later. The hospital chaplain said "Her poor parents will miss being the grandparents they could have been to that child." She couldn't believe she'd heard right, I mean, what about their daughter that they'd lost so needlessly and senselessely? The parents were pretty pissed off about that, too.

Other women had husbands who were pissed that "they'd gotten themselves" pregnant (yeah, like the husband had NOTHING to do with it!) and forced them to get an abortion, usually available only from an underground butcher, many of them died as a result, leaving behind young children who didn't understand. My parents and grandparents can give several examples of that right off the top of their heads.

I remember once during college when I attended a pro-choice march in D.C., one woman had a large white sign, and written in scraggly red letters were these words: My Mom had an Illegal Abortion. I don't miss the baby, I miss my mom. She said her father had wanted her to have an abortion because they had two kids and he didn't want to deal with anymore, and she ended up bleeding to death because the butcher she went to didn't want to alert anyone for fear he'd get arrested. She said she was tired of people always assuming she missed having another brother or sister and saying nothing at all about her mother. "I didn't care about the baby, I just wanted my mother back. And she was only two months pregnant at the time anyway."

I realize none of this matters to people like you, who keep burying your head in the sand in some naive unrealistic utopia where no one has abortions if they're illegal. But it sure pisses off the rest of us. And I have news for you. We gals ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THOSE DAYS. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THOSE DAYS when our lives were not considered important, when a clump of cells was considered more important than the life of a young woman, or a young mother. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK to those days when MEN made all the decisions about our bodies and lives and dictated what we could and couldn't do, then had their fun with us and left us to deal with the consequences even though they were equally responsible. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK. And if you think otherwise, you've got a real fight on your hands.

[RUexperienced]

21. I have held a fetus

I fed the fetus and I hoped and prayed for my fetus to live.

My daughter was born prematurely, and for you or anyone else to say that since she was only 33 weeks gestation she was less than human, carries no weight with me.

Go to any neonatal nursery and tell me that those babies are just a "clump of cells," as you call them.

[liberalhistorian]

24. If you'd read

my earlier post, you'd see that I agree with you on that point. I don't believe in abortions after the fourth month, certainly not after the fifth month when it's viable, that's plainly murder to me. However, I recognize that there are times when it's medically necessary and in those times it's no one else's business.

And let me say that I'm very sorry about losing your child. As a mother, I can only imagine how heartbreaking and terrible that is.

So, you see, I didn't say a 33-week-old fetus was just a clump of cells. I meant the first four months or so when, frankly, that's what it is. I saw my own son on an ultrasound at six, seven, and eight months. And if you'll remember, I chose not to have an abortion during my surprise, unplanned pregnancy after my fiance threw me out of the house because he "didnt' want to deal with it." But hey, what the hell did he care, he'd had his fun. But it was all up to me to deal with it, whether I wanted to or not.

And how interesting that you didn't say a word about anything else I said in my post, just like I thought you wouldn't. Because whenever I tell pro-lifers that, they don't give a damn. They couldn't care less. You'd think, being pro-life, they'd also care about the totally needless deaths of young women, especially those who were wives and mothers. Guess they pick which lives are important and which aren't. And they also remain completely naive and unrealistic about the prevalence of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, and the fact that it cost so many young women their lives, or that so many more young women were permanently maimed or injured. And they NEVER say anything at all about the men. Oh no, it's always the WOMAN'S doing, totally.

[RUexperienced]

27. I did read your earlier post

but in my skimming, I did not realize it was from you. My fault.

And good news, my daughter lived. She is sitting right here with me.

And I could live with the elimination of late term abortions with exceptions of the life of the mother and the health of the mother (if clarified so it could not be abused).

[liberalhistorian]

31. Your daughter lived,

THAT'S FANTASTIC! I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your earlier post. My son will be thirteen in April and is already starting to get that adolescent smart-ass attitude, it's gonna be a real fun ride these next few years!

I had a friend in college who was born three months prematurely in 1965 and survived, believe it or not, how I don't know, considering the time. She has cerebral palsy, but they said she would have had that anyway.

[RUexperienced]

33. Today, she is fourteen.... uggh!!!!

and healthy. Thank God.

Regards,

[redqueen]

41. This is why this issue kills us

Talk like that alienates people immediately.

I wish the party as a whole weren't so easily connected to that kind of heartless, reckless rhetoric.

I know women who work in NICU's, and I don't think anyone who talks like that has ever been near one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Statement from John Kerry on the 31st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

“The 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade marks the year when women who were not afraid to stand up and fight won a victory for choice. But today, it also marks a moment when all Americans must stand up and fight harder than ever to preserve this victory. Never in my years in public service have the rights of women been at such risk – never have women been assaulted in their citizenship here at home or womanhood around the globe as they are by this Administration.

I have always believed that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. And I am proud that I am the only presidential candidate to pledge that I will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Some may call this a litmus test – but I call it a test of our will to uphold a Constitutional right that protects women’s right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. And If I get to share a stage with this President and debate him, one of the first things I’ll tell him is: ‘There’s a defining issue between us. I trust women to make their own decisions. You don’t. And that’s the difference.’

We can’t go back to the days of back alleys – days in which women were shamed and put to all kinds of risk. We can’t put women in the place where their choice is to break the law and be branded a criminal.

The right to choose didn’t just happen. People made it happen – women most of all. Now we need to work just as hard to protect it. We need to energize a new generation of citizens who care about freedom – who care about respect for women – and who will stand up and make clear that we can’t go back. We will never go back. We will never, ever let this right be taken away.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0122.html

[blm]

13. That's odd. They have ALL released statements. Why would you

assume they wouldn't touch it?

[SangamonTaylor]

30. just that the politico democrats do not want to make abortion...

and issue for the general election. It follows along with the gay marriage issue which politicos are probably going to avoid.

[sandnsea]

39. Kerry - pro-choice judges

He doesn't care about litmus test nonsense, he will appoint judges that uphold the law and the Supreme Court has ruled on abortion. Ergo, it is law and only judges that will uphold it should be appointed. He's gone the furthest on protecting abortion. And in his statement, he didn't back down one iota. And he won't.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Which candidate voted to restrict abortion rights?

I know John Edwards decided to practice medicine without a license when he voted for the ban on the GOP-named "partial birth" abortion. Who else?

[diamondsoul]

35. Kucinich supported the

PBA bill that came up before the one that passed, but he voted against the one that passed. His past record on abortion rights stinks, however I think he's well on his way to rectifying it.

[liberalhistorian]

36. The problem I have with that

is that I think his recent "conversion" to the pro-choice side was only done because he was planning on running for president, and he knew he wouldn't be able to get any traction at all if he didn't have such a "campaign conversion."

[diamondsoul]

38. Since his Pro-choice

voting record begins a full year before he even considered running, I'd have to say you're probably wrong. There's nothing in the record or anywhere to suggest Kucinich ever thought about running for President until after his Prayer For America speech in Feb. 2002, and his pro-choice voting record begins right around the same time.

[redqueen]

42. This is such a huge misconception

We need to make sure people know this was no election-year conversion.

It's widely regarded as such, thanks to the whore media and cynicism in general.