I though Hillary's Abortion Speech was EXCELLENT (plus EXCERPT)

Many people on the board seem to have totally misread the speech or didn't read it and only read the misleading press reports.

The speech not once called for rolling back abortion rights. It simply stated very clearly that the goal should be towards reducing abortions and making them unnecessary by preventing unwanted pregnancies through increased family planning, sex ed, and keeping abortion legal as a last resort.

I think this is exactly the kind of approach we need to have in coming campaigns.

An excerpt:

So whether it was Romania saying you had to have children for the good of the state, or China saying you can only have one child for the good of the state, the government was dictating the most private and important decisions we make as families and as women. Now with all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves.

I heard President Bush talking about freedom and yet his Administration has acted to deny freedom to women around the world through a global gag policy, which has left many without access to basic reproductive health services.

This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

<snip>

The use of contraception is a big factor in determining whether or not women become pregnant. In fact, this is a statistic that I had not known before we started doing the research that I wanted to include in this speech, 7% of American women who do not use contraception account for 53% of all unintended pregnancies. So by preventing unintended pregnancy, contraception reduces the need for abortion. Improving insurance coverage of contraception will make contraception more affordable and reduce this rate of abortion. And expanding coverage and resources for Title X will do the same.

http://www.friendsofhillary.com/speeches/20050124.php

It's really an excellent speech. Other issues touched on the speech include the fact that abortions declined under Clinton and have risen under Bush and how the administration is witholding family planning money from other countries in the world.

I encourage you to read it before you jump to conclusions and start engaging in histrionics. At least read it first.

ON EDIT: Thought I'd add the excerpt that caused so much consternation on DU about respecting pro-life views. Again, read the whole paragraph:

I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available. But that does not represent even the majority opinion within the anti-abortion community. There are exceptions for rape and for incest, for the life of the mother. Those in the pro-choice community who have fought so hard for so many years, not only to protect Roe v. Wade and the law of the land, but to provide the resources that would effectuate that constitutional right, believe just as strongly the point of view based on experience and conscience that they have come to. The problem I always have is what is the proper role of government in making this decision? That is why I started with two stories about Romania and China. When I spoke to the conference on women in Beijing in 1995 -- ten years ago this year -- I spoke out against any government interfering with the reproductive rights and decisions of women and families.

Has something changed, is new legislation up for a vote. If not then it is simple and useless political positioning.

might be just what the democrats need these days. I understand if you disagree with Clinton's stance, but if not, then what is wrong with outlining our moral, caring and practical views on the matter?

A speech given before the New York State Family Planning Providers.

Knee jerk. I thought this was a wonderful speech. She has never voted against abortion rights and she won't. You have to talk about abortion in a way people can relate to such as this. Sorry everyone but no matter how much you wish it to be true that a Democrat could go screaming "HANDS OFF MY BODY, FASCISTS" it is never going to work and we lose many elections because of this. You can support choice and talk in a way people understand. I am gay and realize gay marriage is far off. So why have our candidates pushing it when they can't even pass worker protection or domestic benefits for gays? there is being Liberal and there is being impossible and if we want to win in 06 and 08 we need to be tough as nails but also sensible.

nt

on the Senate floor?

fetal porn and "the fetus feels PAIN" propaganda from the repukes? maybe? (and, of course, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and *'s support of the anti-abortion march)

Another form of family planning that should be widely available to women is "Plan B," Emergency Contraception. I agree with the scientists on the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory Panel who voted overwhelmingly that Plan B is safe and effective for over the counter use. And I worked to launch a GAO investigation into the process of denying Barr Laboratories' application because I believe the decision was influenced more by ideology than evidence.

I am hopeful that the FDA will come to its senses and announce a new policy making Plan B available. Information about Plan B should be available over the counter, which is exactly what the FDA's Advisory Committee recommended. It should also be made available -- automatically -- to women who are victims of sexual assault and rape. I have to confess that I never cease to be surprised but last week, I joined with 21 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women -- that's the name of the office at the Department of Justice -- urging the Director to revise the newly-released first-ever national protocol for sexual assault treatment to include the routine offering of emergency contraception. Right now, this 130-page, otherwise comprehensive document fails to include any mention of emergency contraception, a basic tool that could help rape victims prevent the trauma of unintended pregnancies, avoid abortions, and safeguard their reproductive and mental health. Every expert agrees that the sooner Plan B is administered, the more effective it is. Once a woman becomes pregnant, emergency contraception obviously will have no effect.

Yet nowhere does the DOJ Protocol mention emergency contraception or recommend that it be offered to sexual assault victims. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there are 15,000 abortions a year from rape. How is it possible that women who have been so victimized by violence can be victimized again by ideology? And how can we expect to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies if we lose this most obvious opportunity to help women who may have had an unwanted pregnancy physically forced upon them?

http://www.friendsofhillary.com/speeches/20050124.php

On edit: that "snip" was proferred on a previous post.

I regret that and will be much more careful before I jump on any "flame train".

I do wish she would join the "Boxer/Democrat Rebellion". As that rebellion continues to grow, I expect her to become another strong voice for "the people",...a strong voice beyond her expertise on her "causes" involving women and children.

On edit: your postline, however, is oddly inciteful and in contradiction to the content of your post. Why did you choose that particular postline?

It's amazing how many DINOs should be proud that they still have faces. Kerry's positions during the presidential campaign pale in comparison on the "flip flop" scale to Hillary the world class political chameleon. Yikes! I wouldn't trust her to pet sit a gerbil.

long as she has been in the public eye. Try reading her book. She also has always talked about her faith. Bill Clinton was the one who said "safe legal and rare".

I think it's a pretty comprehensive description of the pro-choice point of view.

Did you read it?

don't even start to SUGGEST that the government has ANY business what a woman and her doctor decide to do ... that is not Government's business.

Hillary is rotten to the core toward our democratic values for even addressing this (government should legislate what women do with their bodies) ... sure she has her pluses. Like her husband Bill, they are both laudable moderate republicans.

It's not allowed. ;)

Anyway, thanks, it was a good speech.

They were (she still is) two of our best elected moderate republicans.

My mistake. I guess.

mixing her faith and morality with politics is an action that IMO is "rotten to the core." If you think that this placating the pro birth nut cases will get us anywhere, please think again?

I'm on your side - Pro Choice albeit, in my practicing religion (Catholic), I do not believe in Abortion (or Execution).

The difference between me and freepers is that I'm a Pax Christi Democrat.

Further, I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State. It's no one's business for a politician to lecture moral faith ... focus on constitutional rights - the privacy of a woman's decision over her own body. Let the churches do the rest - ON THEIR OWN.

I don't give a damn about her religious faith as long as she is moral and represents her constituents.

Get government off of women's bodies and the church out of the state.

Amen and thank you Jesus!

of ALL women and admonishing the "hand of Bush" on the private decisions of women about their bodies.

After having actually read her speech, she clearly advocated FOR WOMEN, ALL WOMEN.

Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this -- and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts and evidence -- we have to deal with the choices young people make not just the choice we wish they would make. We should use all the resources at our disposal to ensure that teens are getting the information they need to make the right decision.

We should also do more to educate and involve parents about the critical role they can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age.

If you didn't already know who gave the speech, who would you guess it was?

abstaining is the only sure fire way to avoid disease or pregnancy, but we must also push condoms and birth control. It should be a two pronged thing. Let them know even with condoms you aren't safe but they should be used if you ARE engaging in sexual activity.

She doesn't condemn teens who engage in sex and she also stresses family planning and sex education. All she is saying is that many unwanted pregnancies occur among teenagers and we should seek to reduce teen pregnancy. The only surefire way to keep teens from getting pregnant is to encourage them to abstain. Note she isn't even emphasizing abstinence till marriage. And she's not being dogmatic about it - she's throwing it out as one strategy.

It really doesn't offend me. And I say this as somebody who doesn't really think there's anything inherently wrong with teens, particularly older teens, having sex, provided that it's responsible and done with proper birth control.

or mother. I don't appreciate such moral "self-righteous" banter from my political representatives.

Religious morals and government should not be melded together. Shame on Hillary.

That was the "snippet" which I reacted to BEFORE actually reading her whole speech.

I hope I learned my lesson about avoiding jumping on any more "flame wagons" based upon a "snippet".

This woman has been advocating womens' rights and children's right her whole life. She is INCLUSIVE when it comes to the voices and rights of women and children. She is an ADVOCATE for choice and voice.

She does an exceptional job of pursuing her cause.