tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post1252977377233969682..comments2023-10-22T12:01:32.633-04:00Comments on The Lurking Canary: :: The AnswersBuffyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14901971975109018287noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-75755216430145361212008-02-07T15:40:00.000-05:002008-02-07T15:40:00.000-05:00My understanding of the legislation Senator Clinto...My understanding of the legislation Senator Clinton supported - called the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act (LTARA) - was that it was specifically written to cover only post-viability abortions, and included life and health exemptions. It differed from the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" because the latter was written in such a way that it could be used to ban first and second trimester abortions using a number of procedures, and did not have a health exception. LTARA was crafted to make a point - if Senators supported the PBA ban really wanted to protect "infants" on the "verge of being born" they could have supported the legislation that would specifically do that instead of the vaguer language that would undermine Roe. So it had that purpose; plus it gave pro-choice Senators something positive to point to when their opponents charged that they "supported abortion for any reason in all nine months, right up to birth" (which nobody in their right mind does and which Roe does not allow). <BR/><BR/>The problem with Obama's answer is that he knows that a host of restrictions have been permitted by the SCOTUS under Roe v. Wade. This is the thinking that Justice Roberts referred to during his confirmation hearings - the Court could approve enough restrictions on abortion to make it practically unavailable while not overturning the precedents upholding Roe that were set by the Webster, Casey, Carhardt etc. decisions. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying Obama is another Roberts. What I do think is that he has to appeal to Af-American religious leaders, who are very shaky on reproducive choice (and gay rights). Bush's "faith based" strategy to recruit black voters (which totally fell apart) was based on the notion that he could connect Af-Americans to white evangelicals over social issues. I think Obama's vaguery is specifically meant to appeal to these folks, and the problem is that it assuages the stigma they place on reproductive health services - he abets it, rather than acting as a leader to educate about it. And it is entirely possible that Obama will go further and suggest he won't oppose specific restrictions (waiting periods, mandatory lectures, etc) or tell them he is pro-choice but won't "make a big deal out of it." <BR/><BR/>Obama can beat Clinton in states with a big percentage of Af-American primary voters. Obama can't beat a Republican in those states, however, no matter what anybody promises now. The red states have been red for two elections, and those Republicans - who are very concerned about national security - are not going to hand the country over to some guy who looks like a kid, never served in the military, has no foreign policy experience and who made the "no preconditions" statement about meeting with foreign baddies. Those states will stay red.<BR/><BR/>Hillary or Barack only need to win the blue / purple states that Kerry won, plus either Florida or Ohio. Everyone understands Kerry ran a miserable campaign, and HRC or BO only need to do as well as Kerry plus get one more. (Surely either would do better than Kerry, I think). Barack has set himself up for a serious problem: if he opposes the seating of the Florida delegates, he basically forfeits that state in the general election (hard to imagine Floridians Dems going all out for him after he tells them he doesn't want their votes to count). But if he assuages the Floridians by supporting their delegates, he won't win the nomination. Its a catch 22.<BR/><BR/>If he becomes the nominee by forfeiting Florida, he will have to win Ohio. Ohio is a tough state with a lot of white ethnics (Reagan Dem) voters. <BR/><BR/>Hillary, by contrast, can pull Florida (latinos and old people). <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Hillary can and will pull independent and Republican women because she is fully pro-choice. That is one issue that has demonstrably pulled these women to vote Dem. "Hope" and "inspiration" - I doubt it will resonate that much with those voters. By contrast, Obama has signalled that he is not going to highlight choice (or any women's issues) in his campaign. He has no pitch to those women.<BR/><BR/>Good to hear from you RS. Cheers.Nina Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411919366541020475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-78906268199043539442008-02-07T02:15:00.000-05:002008-02-07T02:15:00.000-05:00Senator Clinton has *specifically* (you gotta love...<I>Senator Clinton</I> has *specifically* (you gotta love her for that, no?) pointed out that she <I>supported an alternative to the partial birth abortion bill that prohibited non-endangering post-viability abortions, and was consistent with Roe v. Wade</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>Senator Obama supports restrictions on abortion that are consistent with Roe v. Wade</I>.<BR/><BR/>How are the two responses different, except that Clinton gives an example and Obama does not? Senators Clinton and Obama could vote the same way on each such piece of legislation and be completely consistent with these answers.<BR/><BR/>You could believe that Senator Obama wants to be able to compete in conservative states, and so wants some wiggle room. OK. But that also means that Senator Clinton has <I>given up</I> on those same states. And look where that approach got John "we don't need to win the south/conservative states" Kerry.<BR/><BR/>That pragmatism could well be why the pro-choice leaders you mention back Senator Obama - better to have someone who <B>could</B> help us, than end up with someone who most definitely will <B>not</B>.RShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380182761372599473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-36874628591791079682008-02-06T17:41:00.000-05:002008-02-06T17:41:00.000-05:00Zippy! Yay!Zippy! Yay!Nina Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411919366541020475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-690193163031728562008-02-06T15:22:00.000-05:002008-02-06T15:22:00.000-05:00I'd just like to point out one issue that RH Reali...I'd just like to point out one issue that RH Reality Check didn't ask about is the Helms Amendment, which prevents any foreign aid from supporting abortion-related activities. Sure, you say, that's ridiculous -- how could they even ask that question? It's too politically sensitive to comment on. But since unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal death in Africa -- one that we carefully ignore because it's politically distasteful -- I don't see how we can't deal with the issue head on. And no -- I don't think talking about the gag rule counts, because the gag rule in many ways is a heavy blunt object, compared to the Hyde Amendment. <BR/><BR/>Also, did y'all see Robin Morgan's blogpost on electoral misogyny? I admit to often being skeptical of my feminist foremothers, but this is awfully good.<BR/><BR/>http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/good-bye-to-all-that-part-ii-by-robin-morgan/Kirstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09332550775893618503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-85764823373272896972008-02-06T08:14:00.000-05:002008-02-06T08:14:00.000-05:00I'm with Ciccina on this, especially because he ta...I'm with Ciccina on this, especially because he taught con law - he has to know what that answer means and how far the Supreme Court has stretched the legal framework of Roe. It's a very wishy-washy answer and does not inspire my confidence that he would do the right thing on the hard issues. <BR/><BR/>Nice job on the putting this together, too, Ciccina. The side-by-side really gives a clear picture of who I want to trust with my vote, my rights, and my body. Hillary has such clear details in her answers and she can point to her record, at being there for the tough votes and actually owning them. Barack can't point to any of his votes in the state legislature, for example, because of all the present votes, I'm guessing. And while I appreciate that he spoke up about the Aurora clinic, it is in his hometown. I'm not sure that it would have been all that appropriate for Hillary to have been involved. <BR/><BR/>All of this just further demonstrates the point that you can certainly have other reasons for supporting Barack, but I don't think you can make a good argument that he's the stronger candidate on choice and women's issues when you really look at the facts. I'm proud to be a woman for Hillary and to have a candidate that I feel like I can support wholeheartedly because she gets the issues that are nearest and dearest to my heart. I can't wait to go vote for her in 6 days!ladybechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504043456559742275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-87438331704760107882008-02-05T18:39:00.000-05:002008-02-05T18:39:00.000-05:00I disagree. I think the response to the restricti...I disagree. I think the response to the restrictions question is VERY wrong. To say you support restrictions compatible with Roe is to say you support basically every restriction out there. In the questionnaire, he says he opposes the Hyde amendment and parental consent without a bypass, but since he never actually voted on these issues, we really have no idea what he would do. More importantly, we don't know (though I could guess) why it was important to provide an answer that so obviously signals he wants wiggle room.<BR/><BR/>If they wanted to give a "standard" answer, they could have written "Obama supports a woman's right to choose whether and when to have a child; that all children should be wanted and loved, etc. etc." They didn't. They chose to write "Obama supports those restrictions..."<BR/><BR/>A pretty clear sign that he's preparing to throw us overboard. Kate etc. might as well climb up on the gangplank right now.Nina Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411919366541020475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4281789906349841218.post-92021980895351746362008-02-05T18:24:00.000-05:002008-02-05T18:24:00.000-05:00Barak's responses aren't wrong (except for the PBA...Barak's responses aren't wrong (except for the PBA question) but they lack specifics. Hillary's response show her (and her staff) deep knowledge of the issues and the things the activists care about.<BR/>In addition, Hillary has proposed one the largest expansion's to FMLA in history. She understands (as a good feminist should) that we need to support women in all thier choices. And raising children is as important as giving birth to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com