...which includes his vote to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

I don't think that if he's president, he'll nominate a judge who is anti-choice.

I find these kinds of attacks on Bernie pretty insulting. There's a reason to focus on Citizen's United first. Until you get the fricken money out of politics nothing else gets fixed. It poisons every other aspect of political life and decision making.

That said Bernie is not gonna nominate someone who isn't good on women's issues. He's been very good on women's issues over his career.

"Until you get the fricken money out of politics nothing else gets fixed. It poisons every other aspect of political life and decision making."

No.

You are never going to get all the money out. Also, he said what his one issue is - and it's money. Period.

Money is not the only fundamental question of human rights. You can talk about more than one thing at a time. You can talk about all kinds of justice. Not just money.

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Bettyellen has every right to express her opinions. Reverence for Sanders does not take precedence over her views as a citizen. As a human being, I am insulted that so many put Sanders first and citizens last.

A rating from Planned Parenthood is based on votes on bills presented to him as a senator. His priorities are revealed through what he emphasizes. My rights didn't rate a mention in that interview, and now you insist money is more important than my standing as a equal citizen. I am not willing to erase myself from political discourse in order to satisfy one man's political ambitions. That you are determined we do so insults me as a feminist, a citizen, and a human being. I do not accept the hierarchical nature of human worth that underlies efforts to enforce absolute deference to a member of the political elite.

appointees will be there a generation, and there could be a few. Bernie talked about other things he would consider- that the judge not be pro- millionaire. That was it, and it is too narrow for me.
After he smeared Planned Parenthood out of nothing more than sour grapes, I am not feeling reassured he has womens' backs.

appoint an anti-choice justice? No way.

But, not for me to say that women shouldn't demand a better answer from him.

that a judge who would rule against citizen united would also uphold women's reproductive rights, but then that's just a guess on my part. Justices, after all, operate based on judicial philosophy and interpretation of the constitution, not on political opinions about issues--or at least they are supposed to.

Sanders strength is that he appears deeply committed to a single core issue, but that is also his weakness. He fits everything else into that framework, but the framework always takes precedence.

for how they would judge monetary issues.

I just find it a better indicator if one is more liberal on social issues, they are more likely to be more liberal on money issues. I don't see it working as well the other way around...

Hillary Clinton: I Could Compromise on Abortion If It Included Exceptions For Mother's Health

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

I can't believe you are even buying into that BS.

No one will EVER take that type of made up criticism seriously.

--if there are exceptions made for life and health?

But you know that. Still, want to spread this tripe around.

You've been a member in HoF a long time and I don't want to block you. But I will, if you continue to make these allegations, which are false. Womens health is way to important to have this crud being espoused here.

I honestly don't get why Clinton thinks she will get support from RW whackos by attempting to compromise with them.

We are not going to have this here. Maybe once the primaries end people will become a little less partisan and not so much into scoring political points for their candidate. And will be more concerned about the truth of the matter. I'm sorry..... the issue is to important to have that type of false crap being spread here.

I've seen it before several times--it's completely out of context.

Of all things, Hillary's strength on reproductive rights and women's should not be in doubt. Th9s is just sad.

It's why I don't post here any more.

- as it should be.
It's a well thought out reply to a hypothetical about constitutional restrictions on abortion.

one of the candidates just failed it.

Followed by "feminists" justifying: it's not a compromise on abortion rights, just on late term abortions.

May as well say "I'm not punching Billy. Just his face."

What happened to us???

currently do- which is to make the decision between the doctor and patient with her life and health considered first. I am with Hillary on that.

Bernie is for no restrictions.

Not sure how anyone could misinterpret that. It's not "life and health considered first." She supports a ban on late term abortions *unless* you can prove the life or health of the mother is at state. That's a national restriction which does not now currently exist.

Omg.

allowed in the eight states where they are (too narrowly) sometimes allowed. So in all states it would be easier- including the 42 where it is now banned.

Currently late term abortions are allowed by federal law in all states.
And some states have enacted their own restrictions.

She supports a federal ban (where none now exists) on late term abortions, with some exemptions - that she gets to decide. This is an anti-choice position.

A federal ban - even with some narrowly defined exemptions - is MORE restrictive than not having a federal ban.

I trust Bernie much more than Hillary, much more. Hillary has shown how little she regards women with her policy decisions...this is just flame-bait.

Oh, and I'm a female feminist.