Yeah, I don't get it, either. Roll back rights for women? What the hell kind of compromise is that? Even many Republican women don't want to see that.

Anyway, it's about sacrificing poor women; no woman who can afford to do what it takes will ever be denied an abortion.

Will the DLC fuckwits ever grasp the reality that to the rupugs abortion is just a wedge issue. As such, they will continually shift the goalposts to frame the issue in their terms. The first restriction will be followed by a second and then a third and then.....whatever. It's only brought up to make sure they get the votes of the anti-abortion people who constantly say "maybe this time".

The repugs are in total control. If they want to try and crimalize abortion, pre-maritial sex, contraception, gay marriage, and whatever else the bigots demand, let them. I'll bet they won't.

There might be something going on that could be very useful strategically. What Clinton and a couple of others have been talking about is birth control, not choice.

If you frame birth control and family planning as neutral ground to reduce abortions, then the "Pro-Birth" crowd has a problem. The hard-right opposes birth control too, but there are people who are anti-abortion who support family planning. It's a wedge without giving ground on Choice.

Exactly. Call for them to stop viagra production as part of abstinence education. See how far that boat floats.

It would put this entire charade into perspective.

Healthy sexual choice is the issue. Wisdom adheres all sides of an argument, to act like sex will not happen is foolish.

Against abortion? Don't have one, that is as much as anyone can do.

It is all about self-determination. And, therefore, freedom and liberty are literally at stake. Either all women have self-determination...or they don't. Either all men have self-determination...or they don't.

But what about the little fetus? Sorry. Until the first independent breath is taken, as in God breathing life into Adam, then the proto-baby is NOT a living human being, in my humble view.

The funny thing about the GOP, or the Gay Old Party, is that they wield their self-determination in an attempt to takeaway the self-determination of everyone else. That, my friend, is Communism. Nazism. Slavery in the Old South. Wahhibism. Talibanism. GOPism. And, to be fair, on some issues involving health and guns, Democratic Party-ism. Having an elitist, superiority-complex can be a bitch, and hell for everyone else.

So be very wary of anyone trying to forcefully spread "freedom and democracy." That rabid dog won't hunt. Tyrants "force." Dictators "force." Religious zealots "force." Slave-masters "force."

Get the picture?

Oracle:
You are the first person on this website that I've seen that has made a negative comment about a fundamental Democratic value - gun control. And I appreciate that.

You have your opinion that life does not begin until the baby could breathe on his or her own. I disagree with that point of view, but it is still a legitimate view. But let me ask you a few questions:
1) With ever-advancing technology, more and more premature babies are living. I think that I saw a baby a few weeks ago that was born 3 months early. That baby clearly couldn't survive outside the womb without help from doctors and technology. But now, the baby is fine and is expected to live a normal life. Would this baby have been OK to be aborted? What if in 20 years, babies that are 3 or 4 months old can survive outside the womb with the help of medicine and technology? Is it OK to abort them? These are questions that will have to be answered by the Democratic party eventually.

2) Are you in favor of late term abortions? In some states, such as Maryland, a woman can walk into an abortion clinic the day before giving birth and abort the baby. I use Maryland only because I know that its law used to read this way - I am not sure if this has been modified in the past few years. But still, many people in the Democratic Party want abortion rights that extend this far. I personally think that if Dems would back off this point that they may be able to persuade some middle-of-the- ground people about reproductive rights.

A vast majority of the abortions in this country occur during the first trimester. A woman who has access to affordable health care can make a choice about whether or not to have a baby. Women who don't have health care don't have as many choices. That includes the choice of doctors, types of prenatal care, parenting classes, etc. There is grossly inadequate support - financial, societal, educational - following the birth of a child to poor, immigrant, and undereducated women, and the difficulties these families face are both predictable and heartbreaking. You can tout adoption all you want, but our black and multi-racial babies are more likely to be adopted by Canadians than Americans. White Americans are more likely to go to overseas to adopt than take on children they fear are from high-risk populations. This entire cycle is the issue -- not just the abortion aspect of it. And unless the entire issue is dealt with, the Democratic party cannot and should not find "answers" that deal only with abortion.

I have to agree with Sen. Clinton that if people want to actually reduce the number of abortions, they should support widespread education regarding, and access to, birth control. It seems to me that she is trying to shift the debate to include the realities faced by women of reproductive age, most of whom will never seek an abortion. The fact that this puts others in the position of seeming to support abortion rights when they oppose her plan is just frosting.

Last, I am so friggin tired of hearing the old third trimester abortion stories trotted out. I want hard numbers on how many are done, where, why and what proportion they make up of the total procedures performed. Until that time, it's just speculation. If a woman goes in the day before she is "scheduled" to give birth (don't get me started on that) and they perform an abortion, there is probably a very good reason - like the baby is already dead. Without knowing the reasons why these things are done, these stories are designed solely to inflame and disgust. Lord save the person who so uses a woman's tragedy in this fashion.

According to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on 6-6-03, 1.8 percent of abortions occur after week 20. The article echoes your sentiments on partial birth/late term abortions - that they are scare tactics. Maybe, maybe not. A fetus is viable at week 24 - or at least it can survive with the help of modern medicine. I don't know the number of abortions performed in this country each year; but it seems like 1.8 percent of that number would probably be fairly substantial.
Whether a woman woman actually goes to have an abortion the day before she is supposed to give birth, while improbable, is still an option in some states. My point is, why even have this option available unless the mother is going to die while giving birth? Additionally, since this type of thing never happens, why are some liberals so adamant about leaving it on the books? If the mother's health is in serious danger, then I can understand late term abortion? But why take such a hard line stance on something that is only hypothetical anyways?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams