Posted on 03/09/2016 2:21:55 PM PST by NYer
.- Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders drew heavy criticism for their recent defense of abortion, which critics say is out of touch with the American people.
“Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were finally asked about abortion last night, and we now know why it’s been avoided up until this point: Both oppose legislation that would protect unborn children from brutally painful late-term abortions after five months of pregnancy,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.
The subject of abortion was raised in the March 7 Democratic Town Hall hosted by Fox News. Moderator Bret Baier asked both Clinton and Sanders about their support for abortion and whether they would accept any limits on the legality of the procedure.
Pro-life critics suggested that both candidates avoided a direct answer to the question because their views are more extreme than that of the American public.
Asked whether there were any circumstances or point in pregnancy in which he would be okay with abortion being illegal, Sanders responded, “It’s not a question of me being okay…I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.”
“I think, I believe, and I understand there are honest people. I mean, I have a lot of friends, some supporters, some disagree,” he continued. “They hold a different point of view, and I respect that. But that is my view.”
Sanders criticized Republicans who want to cut social programs, “but somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.”
When pressed by the moderator specifically about whether he would consider proposals supported by some Democrats to ban abortion after five months, with some exceptions, Sanders replied, “I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That’s my view.”
Clinton was also questioned by Baier, who said, “Do you think a child should have any legal rights or protections before it’s born? Or do you think there should not be any restrictions on any abortions at any stage in a pregnancy?”
Noting the Texas abortion restriction currently before the Supreme Court, Clinton warned that some lawmakers want to restrict women’s rights.
“Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution, women have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor. It’s not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained,” she said.
“So I think we have to continue to stand up for a woman’s right to make these decisions, and to defend Planned Parenthood, which does an enormous amount of good work across our country.”
Pressed to clarify her stance, Clinton added, “I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.”
However, she said, “I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.”
Pro-life leaders blasted these comments. Dannenfelser described Clinton’s claim of support for “late pregnancy regulation” as “a total fantasy.”
She stressed that a “late-term abortion limit beginning at five months based on the pain of the child would actually save lives, protect mothers, and is enthusiastically supported by a majority of Americans, especially women.”
“Clinton knows her support for late-term abortion is a liability, and is desperately trying to hide it,” she said, pointing to numerous national polls showing that a plurality or majority of Americans support limiting abortion after five months.
Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association, also rejected Clinton’s claims.
“Mrs. Clinton tried to hide behind a ‘health’ exception in defending late-term abortion, but she knows very well that the Supreme Court has defined ‘health’ so broadly as to include ‘all factors’ including emotional health, family size, and the woman's age,” Ferguson said.
“Hillary Clinton's record in supporting taxpayer funding of abortion, as well as voting against the ban on partial-birth abortions, reveal a deep disregard for the sanctity of human life – an issue that should be a fundamental consideration when deciding for whom to cast a vote.”
Photo credit: Joseph Sohm via www.shutterstock.com
Catholic ping!
And yet it's somehow ok to totally limit and constrain a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I think this bobble headed traitor would say just about anything that she was paid enough to say. If Naral didn't fund her through the selling of baby fillets she wouldn't be so steadfast.
Hillary and Bernie still hoping that scientists can still develop an immortality infusion from the fetal remains.
I do not understand how some people can honestly believe that they would have stood against Hitler but then turn around and defend the wholesale slaughter of children in this country. At least the Jewish mothers were forced into killing their children, we do it voluntarily. Progress? If Neo-Barbarianism is progress, we are the cutting edge.
First, note that low-information Sen. Sanders and likewise low-information former Sen. Clinton are execellent examples why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified imo.
Next, with all due respect to mom & pop, please consider the following. If parents were making sure that their children were being taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, then high school students would probably be able to reprimand Sanders and Clinton about federal funding for abortion with the following argument.
Simply put, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and pay for abortions.
In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified in broad terms that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes basically for anything that it cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from federal government overreach, unconstitutional federal funding for vote-winning abortion an example of such overreach.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion activist justices.
At least Trump has provided well for his known children.
Well, being that Roe v Wade DOES limit and constrain abortion .... what is she talking about? Limiting and constraining is only a matter of degree ... so if you are citing Roe v Wade you have already ceded that limiting an constraining abortion is "constitutional".
Logic not Clinton's strong suit.
It’s always better to kill babies, right Hillary and Bernie?
The thing is, whoever is elected for anything as a pro-”choice” candidate is not holding his office legitimately.
Obviously not the dimocrats since abortion is part of their party plank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.