Posted on 04/18/2007 3:47:49 PM PDT by Cincinna
HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION:
4/18/2007
From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
It could put her over the top.
It could like this: Wake up women, your god given rights as women are under attack by the likes of bush! Thanks to bush’s nominees, they have begun to wittle away at our rights. If we get any more radical right wingers in the whitehouse, we’ll be back in the pre civil rights days where a man is your master and you will be forced to do his bidding! Don’t let this happen! Elect me and I promise to undo the damage Bush has done!
It could work.
Oh yeah, I would like to be a democrat. Where do I sign up?
...to rip an unborn child from her womb and tear it limb from limb.
Nor will Obama, who is even more hidebound. Hey Barry, you're so worried about "role models" for your daughters, what do you tell them about baby killers like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the 'rat whorehouse? They're right up there with Crystal Mangum another fine example of 'rat womanhood.
|
HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION: 4/18/2007 From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." |
HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support |
|
COMMENT: If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem. IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this. But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum. Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support. Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps. So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated. In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion. And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election. Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion. Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away. But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late. MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion. This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton. |
By the time the 60's limped to a close, 90% of all abortions were being done in hospitals by licensed physicians. They called them "D&C's" and billed accordingly.
That's the liberal mantra: "Death to the innocent, mercy to the guilty.".
This was a Rove-like caper, IMO.
This could be a two-fer for Hillary and the Left.
Now she gets to paint conservatives as the Boogie Man, enraging women...wagging a finger "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Socially speaking, I celebrate the vote. Politically speaking, I think Kennedy's words indicate that if different language was presented in the future they would revisit it.
I don't like this at all.
The grim and gruesome realities of the Clinton sex life were revealed one day, accoding to American Evita, by Hillary screeching "C'mon Bill, I need to be F*d more than twice a year!"
I know it's a nauseating thought, but the historical record demands accuracy.
How can Hill oppose what happened at Virgina Tech and yet support other forms of mass murder?
It would seem that she might exhibit more consistency.
I thought about the potential all those murdered students represented, and then immediately thought about all the other children that never reached their potential, or even saw the light of day. We need to have a national day of mourning, for all of them, aborted lives.
Not the woman's strong suit...
I don’t have the slightest idea what your point is but if you are referencing the chart you will notice it is only about illegal abortions.
In R. Emmett Tyrrell’s new book, The Clinton Crackup, Hillary was heard by witnesses telling Nancy Pelosi “Bill F***d Denise”, referring to Denise Rich, Clintonista and ex-wife of the odious arms dealer to the Iranians, Marc Rich, who was pardoned by Slick.
Charming people. Does anyone really want the Arkansas Grifteres back in the White House?
80% of all Americans are opposed to partial birth abortion. The polling on PBA has been steady for the last 10 years.
Well I hope that statistic is SHOUTED and not buried in the debate.
I have read that experts in these matters have so testified, and what I like to think of as common sense tells me that this most likely is true.
bttt
THIS PROVES ONCE AGAIN HOW IMPORTANT HOLDING THE WH WILL BE IN 2008. WE FINALLY HAVE A MAJORITY WHO FAVOR “LIFE” - WE CANNOT ALLOW A LIBERAL TO TAKE THAT ALL AWAY.
GINSBURG AND STEVENS ARE HOLDING OUT - THEY DON’T WANT TO RETIRE ON THE OFF CHANCE THE DEMS GET BACK IN THE WH - AND WILL BE ABLE TO APPOINT TWO (2) EXTREME LIBERAL JUSTICES.
STAYING HOME ON ELECTION DAY IN 2008 IS NO LONGER AN OPTION!!
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.