Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HILLARY CLINTON'S STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT DECISION
Hillary Clinton Statement ^ | 4/18/2007 | Hillary Clinton

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."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; babybutchery; babykiller; clinton; electionpresident; hillary; partialbirthabortion; prolife; stoprudy2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: babygene

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.


61 posted on 04/18/2007 5:32:24 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to pull a baby half way out of her womb, suck it's brains out, and discard what is left like a used tampon"

Oh yeah, I would like to be a democrat. Where do I sign up?

62 posted on 04/18/2007 5:33:04 PM PDT by fightu4it (conquest by immigration and subversion spells the end of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose..."

...to rip an unborn child from her womb and tear it limb from limb.

63 posted on 04/18/2007 5:37:45 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
Her rant is such a 1970's anachronism, it is almost peculiar. All her henchmen and flying monkeys are hardcore abortionists, so I don't think she knows the American people have moved away from the early feminist extremism on abortion. I suspect she will not benefit from this.

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.

64 posted on 04/18/2007 6:11:21 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna; All
thx for the heads up :)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

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


Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

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.


POSTSCRIPT

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.

 

 

65 posted on 04/18/2007 6:13:07 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals

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.

66 posted on 04/18/2007 6:14:07 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Dems have always opposed death for the most guilty and supported for the most innocent.

That's the liberal mantra: "Death to the innocent, mercy to the guilty.".

67 posted on 04/18/2007 6:16:57 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
What are you talking about?

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.

68 posted on 04/18/2007 6:26:38 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hardworking
Strange that a woman who has had so little opportunity to potentially become pregnant would be so passionate about ending pregnancies. One would think she was married to a man who actually wanted to have sex with her frequently.

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.

69 posted on 04/18/2007 6:28:19 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

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.


70 posted on 04/18/2007 6:29:44 PM PDT by Memphis Moe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Memphis Moe

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.


71 posted on 04/18/2007 7:01:12 PM PDT by huldah1776 (Worthy is the Lamb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Memphis Moe
consistency

Not the woman's strong suit...

72 posted on 04/18/2007 8:02:46 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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.


73 posted on 04/18/2007 8:12:20 PM PDT by TigersEye (If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment you don't understand America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
I wonder how drunk he had to get to perform the biannual rutting?
74 posted on 04/18/2007 8:17:00 PM PDT by TigersEye (If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment you don't understand America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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?


75 posted on 04/18/2007 11:26:54 PM PDT by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO "We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

80% of all Americans are opposed to partial birth abortion. The polling on PBA has been steady for the last 10 years.


76 posted on 04/18/2007 11:28:29 PM PDT by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO "We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

Well I hope that statistic is SHOUTED and not buried in the debate.


77 posted on 04/19/2007 3:17:56 AM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: LaineyDee

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.


78 posted on 04/19/2007 8:38:16 AM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

bttt


79 posted on 04/19/2007 9:29:12 AM PDT by Pagey (Horrible Hillary Clinton is Bad For America, Bad For Business and Bad For MY Stomach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna; All

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!!


80 posted on 04/21/2007 11:56:23 AM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson