Silence from Sanders as Planned Parenthood comes under attack.

[sufrommich]

But with these new videos, progressive members of Congress and Planned Parenthood's biggest corporate backer are nervously recalling another liberal institution brought down by a conservative sting operation: ACORN, a grassroots political group that fell apart in 2010 after conservative activist James O'Keefe pulled a similar sting. "We saw what happened with ACORN, and it happened so fast and it happened without enough pushback from Democrats," Heidi Hess, the campaign director for Credo, a liberal group that is Planned Parenthood's largest corporate sponsor, told the Hill. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) agreed: "It does have that feeling."

They are referring to the successful GOP campaign to destroy ACORN, a string of community organizations that advocated for various issues touching low-income families. But the group was best known for its massive voter registration drives. ACORN registered 450,000 first-time voters in 2008 alone. Over its nearly 40 years of operation, the group had received about $53 million in federal funds for its community organizing activities.

Planned Parenthood's allies have sensed that these videos have more resonance than past attacks. Compared with past attacks on the group, its supporters have been more muted. During the Komen debacle, presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) was part of a chorus of lawmakers who demanded that Komen restore funding. This time around, he has not gone out of his way to defend the group, and he said the "tone" of the staffer in the first video "was terribly wrong." Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is responding to reporters' questions exclusively by reading from a tepid, prepared statement: "These politically motivated videos raise questions, but nothing I've seen indicates that Planned Parenthood violated federal law." On Tuesday, Credo called on Democrats to defend Planned Parenthood more vocally.

A congressional push to defund Planned Parenthood would likely not result in the organization's complete collapse, and would probably only focus on the group's Title X funding, a federal family planning grant program that makes up 10 percent of the group's federal support. The rest of its federal funding comes from Medicaid; in the past, as Vox reports, conservatives have left that alone. But Planned Parenthood allies are already fearful that this is the start of a full-on ACORNing. Earlier this week, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said that the videos "give us a window into the soul of the big abortion industry." If the public comes to believe her, it could spell disaster for the largest women's health care network in the country.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/planned-parenthood-sting-videos-explained

[reddread]

1. lol

how many shovels will be worn out this way?

[sufrommich]

2. Yes, reproductive rights are hilarious and

a divisive "wedge issue".

[sufrommich]

6. Ok Mr. Progressive dude.

[SusanCalvin]

127. Yeah, a pharmaceutical exists, as does a procedure.

And more. If available.

Look around. People are trying to take that away.

The phrase "barefoot and pregnant" exists as well.

[Petrushka]

4. "...he said the 'tone' of the staffer in the first video 'was terribly wrong.'"

If I'm not mistaken, what'sername, the head-honcho at PP made an apology for that staffer's "tone" . . . indicating that PP must have judged that "tone" to be wrong, much the same as Sen. Sanders did. So . . . now what?

[sufrommich]

5. His comment about "tone" isn't the problem.His silence is. nt

[Petrushka]

12. If that's the case, what prompted you to BOLD that particular sentence in the article?

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps he understands (unlike some of us) that "silent" and "listen" are twins. So, what's the problem? His listening?

[sufrommich]

14. What is he listening for? Is PP under attack or not?

[Petrushka]

20. You might do better to question the FIGHTER concerning HER extended silence on the matter. I mean:

Sen. Sanders gave his opinion on the 17th; but HRC's strategy was to remain silent a while longer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/23/explaining-hillary-clintons-silence-on-the-planned-parenthood-videos/


P.S.
You asked, "IS PP under attack of not?" Yep! And, when it comes to being under attack, so is Bernie Sanders.

[sufrommich]

22. Hillary Clinton Defends Embattled Planned Parenthood

From the same date your linked article claims she "remains silent"


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-defends-embattled-planned-parenthood-n397476

[Petrushka]

34. Why didn't she say something sooner . . . on the 17th, for instance?

Don't tell me, please! Let me guess the verdict: Silence was golden on the 17th.








Now . . . I'm out of here . . . sorry for wasting your time and mine.

[virtualobserver]

56. it takes time to gather focus groups and to poll test phrases....

before you speak.

[Fred Sanders]

59. Clinton's have supported PP fully for a lifetime....but you already knew that. Inexplicable comment.

[virtualobserver]

61. the comment was about why it took so long for her to speak NOW

not about her lifetime support.

It was an observation of how she runs her campaign

[Fred Sanders]

66. Well, she has been kind of busy fending off all the fake attacks on her lately, left and right, if one would kindly notice.

[AgingAmerican]

183. 'Too busy' to say a paragraph?

nt

[arcane1]

103. So has Sanders. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

184. Agreed, and that is the problem, because the focus should be on ending the GOP and media insanity.

[ColesCountyDem]

13. He's not been silent.

The OP itself makes that clear.

[sufrommich]

16. He certainly has been silent.Please link to his comments on

this latest,and most potent,attack on PP.

[ColesCountyDem]

17. From the article itself:

"... This time around, he has not gone out of his way to defend the group, and he said the "tone" of the staffer in the first video "was terribly wrong." ....

By definition, he has NOT been 'silent'.

[virtualobserver]

63. exactly, it makes no sense to defend wrong behavior....

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

you don't have any credibility when you do
that.

[okasha]

122. He would have done better to remain silent.

Blaming the victim isn't going to endear him to women who look to Planned Parenthood for reproductive health care.

Another Sanders-Blows-It moment.

[ColesCountyDem]

125. He used the same language the director of Planned Parenthood used.

You can have it one way, or you can have it the other way, but you can't have it both ways. If Sen. Sanders should have remained silent, then so should the director.

[okasha]

128. Irrelevant.

He repeated Richards'self-criticism, but he offered Planned Parenthood no support. That's what was needed, and that's where he failed.

[ColesCountyDem]

132. To the contrary, it's entirely relevant.

Why is Sen. Sanders being held to a higher standard than Planned Parenthood's own director?

[okasha]

135. Simple.

Political realty required that the Richards do a public mea culpa. Nothing but cowardice or disinterest required Sanders to pile on.

How hard would it have been to say, "Yes, the speaker was flip about a very serious subject. But that in no way lessens my support for Planned Parenthood or the services it provides to women?" It's his second major failure of leadership, very public and very obvious.

[ColesCountyDem]

137. Oh, horse poop!

If he had said what you suggested, I'm sure there would be many supporters of a certain other candidate who would have criticized him for saying THAT, too.

[okasha]

139. Also irrelevant.

It didn't happen that way, though. The point is not what other candidates' supporters think, but that Sanders' failure to defend PP gives aid and comfort to PP's enemies. I

[ColesCountyDem]

140. Again, horse poop!

I had to re-read your reply, just to be sure that you had actually accused Sen. Sanders of giving aid and comfort to Planned Parenthood's enemies. I have seldom read such a preposterous statement on DU, and I've been here for a LONG time!

[okasha]

142. Deal with it.

That's exactly what he did.

[ColesCountyDem]

143. I'll deal with it by laughing.

That's how I normally deal with totally preposterous, overreaching, illogical statements.

[okasha]

144. Whatever.

At least you're no longer repeating yourself metronomically.

[ColesCountyDem]

146. Some times, that's the only way to get the point across.

It works 99% of the time, but some times there are folks who are so self-righteously sure that they're right, that they refuse to see the truth of what's being repeated to them.

[okasha]

158. Very, very true.

[Enthusiast]

160. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[beam me up scottie]

145. +1

It's healthier than taking them seriously.

These are the same folks that ignore HC's record on lgbt rights.

[neverforget]

147. Good point!

[beam me up scottie]

152. Our guy didn't need to "evolve" on equal rights.

Some people just know what's right, others need polls to sway their opinion.

[ColesCountyDem]

148. If Sen. Sanders walked on water, there are some people who would say he can't swim.

I don't hate Sec. Clinton and will vote for her, if she's our nominee, so I just fail to understand the hatred for Sen. Sanders among certain of her supporters.

[beam me up scottie]

149. They did the same thing to Obama in 2008.

It's nothing personal, they just don't know how to promote their candidate any other way.

[ColesCountyDem]

151. Oh, I well remember. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. There must be many progressives who do not favour or even like to go along with

sexual libertarianism, or as we view it: license.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. You have many very nasty things to say about other people's sex lives, very Republican of you....

"Can't you discern a hierarchy of the most lethally threatening issues facing the world, and your own bedroom-orientated hobby-horse? Or pony, as the case may be. What's the matter with you?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6999636

[freshwest]

164. That's an interesting post. Oh, well, another day online. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

113. What. The. Fuck.

Who is this "we"?

Progressives aren't sexually repressed losers who condemn others because they've been brainwashed by a religious cult.

If you don't support the rights of women and lgbt people you don't belong here.

[skepticscott]

123. If they don't, then they can hardly be considered "progressives"

And they certainly don't belong on DU. Not when they speak so disparagingly of allowing gays and lesbians to be full human beings.

Which begs the question, why do you?

[LiberalAndProud]

124. The malady considers itself the remedy.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201004/sexual-repression-the-malady-considers-itself-the-remedy

It's an interesting read.

[BainsBane]

37. What?

Are you serious?

[Vattel]

7. The silence is strategic

The White House and congressional Democrats, who are allies of Planned Parenthood and protective of women’s abortion and reproductive rights, have been mostly silent. They say that Planned Parenthood has done a good job in its own defense, and that they do not want to give the story any more oxygen than it already has — especially since some video stings of the past came to be discredited without Democrats’ help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood-videos-activist-ignites-abortion-issue.html

[sufrommich]

8. Planned Parenthood is about to be ACORN'd to death.

The story already has explosive amounts of oxygen.That article is from four days ago, democrats better put their ass in gear and speak out,now.

[MH1]

19. You have a point, but a strategic mistake is a different issue than

what I think you're implying, that the other candidates don't care about PP and women's reproductive rights.

All 3 of the candidates in my sig have 100% ratings from NARAL. Clinton is obviously very strong on this issue. O'Malley won an award from PP in 2014, and as a climate hawk who understands economics and the coming resource conflicts, I guarantee you he will support access to contraception and abortion.

I hear what you are saying about PP about to be "ACORN'd to death" but I think it's more complicated than that. For one, I'm pretty sure PP's size, scope, and funding base is way larger than ACORN. It would be a devastating blow to women in areas where PP might not be able to sustain clinics without the federal funding for the non-abortion services they provide. BUT I doubt that PP would go completely under and I think other funding sources (foundations, etc) would step up to some extent. (Please do not misinterpret this to say "don't worry they'll be ok". That is NOT what I am saying. Please read on.)

A key point that needs to be emphasized in this discussion is that PP doesn't get any federal funds to perform abortions. They are funded for other services they provide, which oh by the way, make up about 97% of the services they provide. (as you know) These include medical exams and screenings for low income women who in some cases could not otherwise afford them.

I honestly agree with the candidates' strategy here. You KNOW - and everyone on DU knows - that the media connives and distorts everything for their own profits and ratings. If the candidates start beating on this issue all it will do is give LOTS more oxygen to it and people will be getting their words through the media filter, not the filter of reality and rationality.

IT'S A TRAP.

I hope they continue to stay out of it.

What we need is our actual reps and senators in congress to stand firm on any attempts to defund PP. They need to hear from US, not the presidential candidates.

As for DU, there are many other areas in which to differentiate our candidates. I really don't think women's reproductive rights is a significant differentiator.

[Fred Sanders]

26. EXACT same plot as ACORN, this time folks have to grow a pair and call a lie a lie! Everyone!

[Bluenorthwest]

75. FYI Fred, only 7 Senators voted against the attack on ACORN, one of whom was Bernie Sanders

So that makes this OP a tad less than cohesive. It is an attack on Bernie which invokes the lack of push back from Democrats on ACRON, when Bernie was one of just 7 in the Senate to push back on ACORN.

[Enthusiast]

170. I believe most of the complaints against ACORN were contrived and

blown way out of proportion by the Right Wing Media®.

[Enthusiast]

168. Didn't the President and the Attorney General have a hand in the demise of ACORN?

Now don't alert on me, I'm only telling you my impression. Didn't the President tell Van Jones to resign?

I remember quite a bit of anger at the time directed toward the President when he did not speak up on behalf of ACORN and Van Jones.

Many of us were furious and tried our best to defend ACORN. I signed a number of petitions at the time.

ACORN was treated completely unfairly by the media. But it seemed as though the President took the anti-ACORN right wing narrative to heart.

[Fred Sanders]

169. The President did not ask Van Jones to resign...the problem with people is amnesia a lot of the time.

[still_one]

18. That is why a women's right to choose is on its last legs because Democrats haven't been forceful

enough.

I remember when both Gore and Kerry were running, it was only mentioned briefly.

I suspect the campaign advisors believe it is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't cut it. There are a lot of issues that are supposedly polarizing and the Democrats really have to take a strong stand.

For years it was assumed that the SC would not over turn Roe, but the next SC will most likely decide it. It isn't just Roe either, reproductive rights are being attacked.

This "strategic silence" has been a colossal failure

[bettyellen]

76. THIS! Thank you, Still One.

[rocktivity]

49. And it looks like the stratetgy paid off

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141157373


rocktivity

[arcane1]

109. But you won't see customized headlines complaining about Obama's "silence" on the issue.

The OP is also strategic.

[Popcorn 51]

9. He no doubt sees it as a "side" issue.

I guess economic justice will mean women no longer need health care.

[SoapBox]

10. Speaking of always attacking...

It's really tiresome.

[A Simple Game]

58. Now, now, Bernie supporters are the only ones that do attack posts. I know,

I read it on DU hundreds of times.

[90-percent]

11. Infuriating

Looks like PP is about to be O'Keefe'ed and will enjoy the same fate as ACORN if we don't fight back. I have a religious friend that was aghast about parting out fetuses. I sent her this NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-campaign-of-deception-against-planned-parenthood.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

And I'll use that link again to counter my conservative FB friends. Or anybody else ignorant of the benefits of PP for women's health.

-90% Jimmy

[HFRN]

15. 'keep digging! gotta find something on Bernie!' nt

[Scootaloo]

21. Hmmmm...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Wicker Amdt.; Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105 ; vote number 2009-S081 on Mar 5, 2009
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations; Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-379 on Oct 18, 2007
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:
Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Sanders scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals.

Sanders co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Sanders scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.

Sanders co-sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007


Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions.

Sanders signed Access to Birth Control Act
Access to Birth Control Act: Amends the Public Health Service Act to require pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including:
providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock;
immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and
ensuring that pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription.
Provides that this Act does not preempt state law or any professional clinical judgment. Sets forth civil penalties and establishes a a private cause of action for violations of this Act.
Source: HR2659&S1415 11-S1415 on Jul 26, 2011
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Sanders co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Protect the reproductive rights of women.

Sanders co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
before fetal viability; or
at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed.
Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

Sanders co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

Sanders signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.

[TheKentuckian]

29. They know good and we'll his record is excellent, consistent, and even ahead of the curve

the idea is to silence his economic, environmental, civil liberties, peace, and accountability messages or failing that to crowd it out by forcing so much of a focus on various demographic issues that they want to be the sole focus in order to avoid speaking about economics, foreign policy, civil liberties, and a government accountable to its citizens to the point he cannot be differentiated from the establishment candidate.

The conversation must stay anchored in Reaganism, they offer the rainbow fake liberal version. Same base ideology but without the moral majority/southern strategy factors to be contrasted with the regular Atwater racist and bigoted variety as "moderate" and better yet with the completely delusional and racist Teabag kind as "conservative".

[Petrushka]

35. ^^ This! ^^ (eom)

[raindaddy]

36. You nailed it!

[onyourleft]

90. Thank you. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

105. ^^^THIS^^^

For you --->

[Ed Suspicious]

106. Right on!

[Le Taz Hot]

138. They got nothin'

It just makes them look even more ridiculous than they already do. I remember watching this same movie in '08.

[hifiguy]

150. Yep. You and Scootaloo nailed it.

[Iliyah]

23. Shutting down PP has been the GOPers plan for PP for sometime.

Props to HRC for speaking up and fighting for PP whose women's facilities help millions across the good old USA.

[Fred Sanders]

25. Clinton has spoken out forcibly against the criminal propagandists who did the video.

I hope Bernie does not consider the distorted video as anything other than lies????

[Jim Lane]

24. OMG! Sanders agreed with PP's President!

Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, stated the organization's position (the comment that Sanders referred to but that didn't suit the OP's agenda):

Planned Parenthood has said that it donates the tissue for scientific research and receives only reimbursement for its expenses, which is legal. On Thursday, Richards said the group's "top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion."

"This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements," she said in a video. "As always, if there is any aspect of our work that can be strengthened, we want to know about it, and we take swift action to address it." (link)

[Fred Sanders]

27. You know that is not correct, you know it was not about "tone" and PP said much, much more.

Anyone not agreeing the distorted videos and aftermath are not a huge propaganda set up exactly like ACORN is being willfully blind.

[Jim Lane]

38. I have no basis for disagreeing with what Planned Parenthood said.

I haven't bothered to watch the video, so, no, I don't "know that is not correct" but I trust Planned Parenthood.

[Fred Sanders]

41. PP has implied that the distorted videos from GOP political operatives are a mendacious abortion of truth.

I believe PP because I did not just fall off a turnip truck and so I do not suffer from amnesia.

I trust PPP, which is not that hard to do, even with amnesia, because if you distrust every political outrage by the GOP and distrust the mass media as much, just use the same lens on everything.

[JackInGreen]

28. I swear...

We should get all the candidates little fire trucks and flashy lights so they can go around putting the best show possible on to impress us by putting out all these blazes while running for office. I'm sure it'll lead to productive outcomes and we'll all be a lot happier.

[Ed Suspicious]

108. +1. It's asinine.

[jalan48]

30. Women of the 1% will never have trouble with unwanted pregnancies.

PP helps all women. I'm sure Bernie has supported a woman's right to choose far longer than most of the men in the Senate. He may not be perfect but he's been consistently on the right side of all the issues.

[GitRDun]

31. Another ridiculous OP in the never ending food fight on DU

between Clinton and Sanders supporters.

There is no way either Clinton or Sanders is, in fact, anything but supportive of Planned Parenthood.

If your goal is to please others on your side of the trenches, carry on.

If your goal is to gain the support of those of us who are undecided, all you have accomplished is made your side look petty. It's as bad as the ridiculous Hlllary feaux email scandal.

[artislife]

77. hear hear

[bobbobbins01]

32. Needing constant reassurance about a candidate's stance on every issue...

strikes me as insecure...but I suppose if you have a candidate who's stances change with the wind, it's necessary. Sort of like someone with a cheating spouse...you need them to keep telling you they're faithful, even though you know deep down they're getting some action on the side.

I already know where Bernie Sanders stands on this issue, because his record backs him up time and time again. He doesn't need to speak again, he already has.

[BainsBane]

39. It's not reassurance or "stand"

It's about action and priority. He spoke out about MSNBC programming and he spoke out to criticize a Planned Parenthood staffer's "tone."

A record of voting doesn't say what he will prioritize or what fights he is willing to take on. He has told groups of men we will "agree to disagree on abortion rights." It does not appear to be a priority for him. It isn't a priority for you. It is, however, for many women since reproductive rights are key to our basic civil rights, and those rights are under attack.

[bobbobbins01]

42. He took the same stance as planned parenthood

its a non issue. And he's right. Planned Parenthood knows people are gunning for them and will do whatever they can to vilify them, so they need to be very mindful of how they present themselves, and the tone they strike...otherwise they open themselves up to shit like this.

And seeing who can send out a press release the fastest in no way indicates priorities.

[Fred Sanders]

44. So PP staff have to be aware that GOP operatives might have a hidden camera on them at all times??

Which said operatives will then highly distort and then in a coordinated propaganda ploy with the GOP begin an effort to use a huge lie to take down a health provider that has fetal tissue removal operations as very minor component of it's health care delivery for WOMEN?

Mostly poorer, black women, like Sandra Bland...... Hmmmm...GOP...control...Women...I can not make any connection....

[bobbobbins01]

45. Unfortunately, yes. They're a lightning rod for this kind of thing, so they need to be mindful.

Is it right? no. But they need to be aware that they're at the center of a very heated political struggle, so the way they present themselves, when they're being watched and when they don't think they're being watched, is extremely important.

[Fred Sanders]

47. Nonsense. Besides, the issue is the massive fraudulent attack on PP, and intelligence, being committed by the GOP, am I right?

[bobbobbins01]

54. Of course you're right. But that doesn't mean they can't be more careful.

I don't see why that is nonsense. The woman in the video did nothing wrong, but her tone did affect public perception. Now they know a way the right wing will try to hit them, so they should probably strike a more formal tone when discussing these things with outsiders.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Got it. So, agreed, OK?.....So shall we move on to the full frontal attack on PP instead of avoid the issue, shall we?

[bobbobbins01]

62. So shall I send out a press release? That'll stop em!

Focusing on who releases a statement when is a stupid game to play. No candidates statement solved anything. Meanwhile, their records speak for themselves.

[BainsBane]

48. How are the attacks on planned parenthood a non-issue?

[bobbobbins01]

55. I didn't say the attacks were a non-issue

I said your attempt to make it seem like Bernie was attacking them is a non-issue, since he and PP both agree.

[BainsBane]

73. I'm not attempting anything

I'm responding to a story. You all try to make major issues about a word Clinton said thirty years ago, but you want to pretend nothing Sanders says or doesn't say is relevant. He makes his priorities clear. He made a major issue about Ed Schultz being cancelled. Who the fuck even cares? This I care about. Some may value cable tv entertainment over my rights, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't share those particular priorities.

Go find some word Hillary said forty years ago so you can focus on something that "really matters", while some of us little people worry about our basic civil rights.

[bobbobbins01]

85. What someone did 40 years ago doesn't matter much at all.

Its about consistency. Consistency for 40 solid years, that is what matters. He has a perfect score from NARAL on womens reproductive rights. So does Hillary. But if you want to play some stupid game of years, his rating is from 2014, hers is from 2007. Does that mean he wins?

But you're right, he's too busy talking about Ed Schultz to address the issue, and Hillary is too busy talking about her hair color to support a $15 minimum wage....

[Sheepshank]

92. Bernie group certainly do put a lot of weight on words said decades ago

You might do well huddling with the group and getting the strategy straight

[arcane1]

116. There's a difference between "for 40 years" and "40 years ago", and you know that.

Stop perpetuating the lies. It's not helping.

[Ed Suspicious]

111. "Hillary Clinton - Everything is Priority #1" great campaign slogan. Completely void of meaning.

What are Clinton's priorities? I'd love for you/her to tell us.

[Sheepshank]

94. As it turns out Bernie outspoken stance this election cycle

Centers much about economic injustices.

It's actually not too surprising that social,issues take some time to be addressed. Bernie tends to see how much his constituency fuss over it first.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Exactly. I'm a big girl, I don't need someone to hold my hand and make reassuring noises.

I know Bernie will continue to fight for my rights.

Another manufactured crisis for Bernie.

Some people sure are worried around here and it ain't Bernistas.

[beam me up scottie]

100. A message from seabeyond: i cannot post, but i can pm.

> wow. you are a big girl that does not need someone to hold your hand
>
> i go back and forth respecting you and your posts. this one leaves me saying, wow.
>
> can you insult women as a whole any more, to support your candidate.
>
> i am glad you do not need your hand held. i dont either. but with the state laws, i spent two weeks trying to get my niece an abortion, a legal medical procedure and had to drive out of state, and deal with lots of bull
> shit.
>
> ya. i held her hand.
>
> thanks

Let me tell you a story, sea. I almost died from a botched abortion because I went alone and had no one to hold my hand. So when I almost bled out I had to rely on strangers to get me to a hospital.

So while I sympathize with your niece I also had an abortion and you don't get to accuse me of not supporting abortion rights because you don't like my post.

And just because I'm not buying the current DU meme that Bernie doesn't care about us doesn't mean I'm "insulting women".



Here's a newsflash for you and other HC supporters: I'm not going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman or because you keep making up bullshit about Bernie Sanders.

And I'm not a lesser feminist because of it.

Stop trying to manipulate women, it's only going to backfire. We're too smart to fall for it when the Republicans do the same thing and you guys haven't exactly perfected the technique.

[hifiguy]

153. Jury results

A message from seabeyond: i cannot post, but i can pm.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=474639

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

this is a blatant call out and of a poster who can't even defend herself. This is despicable.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 26, 2015, 12:57 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seabeyond sends the pm. PMs are not confidential. Sea doesn't get some special dispensation because she can't play nice and is on, what?, her 50th time out?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: She can't defend herself because she can't post because of?? Why is she posting?
Fair game imo. I wish everyone would chill out; we have a long way to go.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Appears to be an intense discussion between two posters who obviously know each other. I'd say it's just an honest case of a difference of opinion.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is NOT disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

Someone's going to be getting an alert timeout, and VERY justly so.

[beam me up scottie]

154. Nice.

sea's not the first DUer whose pm I posted.

Hey people: don't want someone to post your nasty pms?

Don't send them.

It's cowardly and I won't be bullied.


Thanks.

[hifiguy]

156. She is a real piece of work, that one.

I am existentially amazed she hasn't been PPRd for the amount of peersonal abuse she has heaped on so many other DUers, myself included.

[davidpdx]

162. Careful or sh........... I mean someone will alert on you next

I'm sure we'll here from "Fantasyland" at how the poor Clinton supporters are being put on vacation. They keep whining about it, but when you look at the transparency page of any of those who are on vacation you can clearly see why.

[BainsBane]

40. How can I view this video with the staffer's inappropriate "tone."

I have heard that tone comment to dismiss feminists more often than I can count. I want to see how awful this woman was that would prompt such a comment.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. I heard it. Bernie did not. Which is what he actually says, which is that he agreed with Planned

Parenthood's statement.
"At a press conference here, where the 2016 presidential candidate is campaigning, Sanders responded to a question from CNN by saying he had not watched the video, but that he had read coverage of the story.

"Obviously, I think Cecile Richards apologized for the tone of that video," Sanders said, referring to the group's president. "I think her apology was exactly right. I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong."

What Richards said:
" On Thursday, Richards said the group's "top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion."

"This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements," she said in a video. "As always, if there is any aspect of our work that can be strengthened, we want to know about it, and we take swift action to address it."


So Sanders wise, what happened was he got asked, said he had not heard the tape but had read about it and that he agreed with Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, which is exactly what he should have said.

What do you think he should have said? 'I have not seen it, but I read about it and I think Planned Parenthood got it all wrong, the tone was fine.'?

What is the actual complaint about Bernie? That when asked, he cited Richards and agreed with Planed Parenthood by it's name and hers?

[BainsBane]

74. Why does he say it was right if he didn't see the video?

I think he should have said that while I didn't see the video, attacks on Planned Parenthood are attacks on the civil rights of half the population of this country and as such are unacceptable. I think he should have said what Clinton did, but then he doesn't share her priorities. Instead, he chooses to denounce MSNBC programming decisions. Cause, you know, cable TV is what really matters.

Fuck the tone comments by all of them. Richards should know better. Than is how every anti-feminist tries to shut down conversations about women's rights.

Mind you this comes after he failed to stand up to a group of firefighters for women's reproductive rights. He said, "we can agree to disagree," but your children's college education is a key issue. How would you feel if he responded to civil rights about LGBT in that way? I don't think you would be at all supportive of him. I have every right to except someone seeking the Democratic nomination to be forceful in defending the rights of the majority of the Democratic electorate, who are in fact women.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. I think saying 'I have not seen the video but I agree with the leaders involved' is the only right

thing. What he is doing is supporting Planned Parenthood, the entity under attack, and Richards the person leading the push back, specifically and without injecting his own opinion into it. That is called support.
I did not see what Clinton said. I only care what Planned Parenthood says because it is Planned Parenthood under attack. In this, I want to support them and I do not want to exploit them over partisan politics between two candidates who also support Planned Parenthood. You want to take issue with Planned Parenthood, you who have not in fact seen nor heard the material in question. Bernie's choice also not having seen it was to support Planned Parenthood. They are under serious attack. If Bernie has an issue with Richard's rhetoric, this would be one crappy time to make a point of it.
I mean, is your concern that the word 'tone' was used and not the continued existence of Planned Parenthood? Seriously? You want to Democrats to go after Richards for saying it sounded bad, right at this moment?
Is that what Clinton did? I highly doubt it. Was Clinton responding to questions or speaking in a speech? Can you show me where she says she objects to the verbiage of Richards and wants to correct her in public?

[sufrommich]

86. This isn't about disagreeing with Richards,everybody has

acknowledged that the tone was unfortunate,including Hillary Clinton.It's about not allowing the "tone" to be the end of the story.How hard is it to say "yeah,the tone was bad,but this video is part of the ongoing attack on Planned Parenthood and the reproductive rights of women"?

Nancy Pelosi put it like this:

"They've been out to get Planned Parenthood for as long as I can remember," she said in a press conference. "But women's health is what's at stake, and Planned Parenthood is a very important part of promoting women's health in our country."

This is what the video makers are pushing:

"They will attack me and my organization all day long, but that does not change the facts about what our investigation has uncovered and what the American people now know — that Planned Parenthood is engaged in an enterprise-wide operation that traffics and sells baby body parts,"


It's not that hard to clearly state that regardless of videos and republican dirty trick and tone and whatever other rocks they're throwing this week,that we support Planned Parenthood and the reproductive freedom of women.Just say it.

[BainsBane]

88. She didn't wait to be asked

She spoke out because our rights are a priority for her.

"For more than a century, Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women," Clinton said while campaigning at a community college in Greenville, South Carolina. "And I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years. And it's really an attack against a woman's right to chose."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141155506

Sanders has his priorities. I am not among them. He has made that clear enough. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=57694 He wants the votes of the white male working class and middle class. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters He doesn't want to alienate them, so he sticks to what they care about. That's fine. My vote will go to someone who prioritizes women's rights.

Hillary 57% overall support
64% identifying at very liberal
58% identifying as liberal
59% identifying as moderate
37% identifying as somewhat conservative
27% identifying as very conservative

Sanders 22% overall support
26% identifying at very liberal
19% identifying as liberal
16% identifying as moderate
31% identifying as somewhat conservative
42% identifying as very conservative

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

[Control-Z]

112. A little conflict here.

"Sanders responded to a question from CNN by saying he had not watched the video, but that he had read coverage of the story."


"Obviously, I think Cecile Richards apologized for the tone of that video," Sanders said, referring to the group's president. "I think her apology was exactly right. I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong."

How could Sanders possibly say "I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong." when he never watched or heard the video? What an odd statement to choose to make.

[Botany]

43. Oh for the love of dog

Don't spread bull shit on toast and tell me to eat it up because
it is just "country style apple butter." Both Hillary and Bernie
have long histories defending a woman's right to quality health
care.

[restorefreedom]

50. nicely done. nt

[Botany]

60. I really am something special aren't I?

restorefreedom


Do I need to add this?

[restorefreedom]

64. heh. love the handle...plants rule! nt

[arcane1]

107. They're desperate. There is no depth of dishonesty too low for them to plumb now.

Time is running out to discredit the most progressive candidate before he gets too well-known. Especially before he walks onto a debate stage.

This OP is a classic example.

[Vattel]

161. The OP is comical in it's attempt to find fault where none exists.

[Politicub]

46. Sanders will say it's an economic issue, if anything

His silence on this issue is deafening.

It's not just PP under attack, it's women's reproductive freedom across the U.S.

Hillary's defense of PP is one of the many reasons I support her. She has the courage to stand by her convictions.

[restorefreedom]

53. sanders has an excellent record

on women's issues and everyone here damn well knows it. In actuality reproductive rights in a lot of ways IS an economic issue. As someone mentioned upthread, the well-to-do women will never have a problem with pregnancy related concerns because they can always pay for what they want. it's the middle-class women and poverty-stricken women who are having their contraception taken away, don't get the best prenatal care for those who are pregnant, don't get counseling on sexual matters for young people because of the GOP pushing abstinence only crap, women not getting enough time off if they want to have the pregnancy to term, and they're not even afforded a living wage in many cases so that they can pay for whatever they need such as a co-pay for birth control. The more everyone is uplifted economically, ithe fewer unplanned pregnancies that will be, and the less of a need for this aspect of Planned Parenthood services. once again the distortion of Bernie's record is deafening.

[Politicub]

79. But this thread is about defense of Planned Parenthood

not women's issues in general.

This sentence from your post says everything, "The more everyone is uplifted economically, ithe fewer unplanned pregnancies that will be, and the less of a need for this aspect of Planned Parenthood services." Aspect, indeed.

[restorefreedom]

82. those are my words of course

not bernie's. but he has spoken about the pp issue. i think it is reasonable to say that all the d candidates (don't know much about webb) support pp and the critical services they provide to women. and what is the issue exactly? if women are empowered and in control, they are less likely to get pregnant unintendedly and will have less need for abortion. i don't see a disconnect there. these matters are all intertwined.

and there is no doubt that the abortion services are the lightning rod for republicans. no sane person is going to argue against a mammogram. but going after pp abortion services plays to their base.

[jalan48]

67. Somehow I don't think a woman's right to chose is the top issue for women of the 1%.

[arcane1]

110. Another dishonest post.

That's all the Clinton crew seems to have now.

[marble falls]

51. Why is Hillary Clinton so quiet on her pro-fracking, pro-TPP, pro-Keystone, pro-CCA stands?????

[restorefreedom]

84. exactly!

where is the thread about that??

[marble falls]

89. Someone keeps looking for wedge issues with Bernie Sanders, but.....

Hillary Clinton's silence on those four issues alone are life changing in effect. Do you really want fracking, Keystone? I am not pro-life but Bernies stand on abortion will not affect as many people than those four Hillary Clinton stances will.

I'm with Bernie until maybe Hillary gets the nod and then I will be 101% for Hillary Clinton against the clown du jour of the GOP. What do I care if they all get to overcrowd a stage or not?

This election and the next by year election are very important. In the end we will pull together. Now if Hillary would clearly and in simple language explain herself on those four issues.

[restorefreedom]

91. she doesn't want to explain herself

That's the problem. She's probably for Keystone, she hasn't committed to TPP which tells me that she's for it but doesn't want to say so, and with all of these issues they affect her corporate big buddies and she's not gonna want to speak out against them. so she's going to want to try the tap dancing around but that won't work in a debate. Which is one of the reasons why Debbie is put off the debate basically indefinitely.

[marble falls]

93. If she gets the nod she'll have to come clean. What we really need is Dem in the White House.....

and getting Congress back. And it could all be done in four years.

[ctsnowman]

52. By all means let's bring up ACORN

Now who were the 7 people in the Senate that did not vote to defund it? Hint one of them is attacked in this post.

[Fred Sanders]

81. Illustrating how a massive Psyc-op operation well funded and co-ordinated can overwhelm logic.

I applaud Bernie for seeing through that one, but it is beyond understanding for me why he does not see the exact same thing happening now with PP - and I use the word "exact" on purpose - he saw clearly then with the ACORN operation?

[kenfrequed]

65. Is Sander's record in question on this?

I mean seriously, what is his record with planned parenthood.

Is it possible we could stick to issues or is this going to be unending "perception" and "optics" bull?

Sanders record on standing up for a woman's right to choose is adamantine. It is unshakable. Period.

[Botany]

68. adamantine

[LWolf]

69. Nailed it. nt

[BainsBane]

99. A voting record doesn't tell us what his priorities are

It doesn't show what he is willing to fight for. We aren't electing a congressman or Senator. Voting is passive, leading is active. A campaign focuses on what the president plans to do in office. He would seem to be more concerned with MSNBC programming than my reproductive rights. In fact, he has made clear it isn't a priority. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=57694 He wants the votes of the white male working class and middle class. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters. This poll provides a glimpse into where his support comes from.

Hillary 57% overall support
64% identifying at very liberal
58% identifying as liberal
59% identifying as moderate
37% identifying as somewhat conservative
27% identifying as very conservative

Sanders 22% overall support
26% identifying at very liberal
19% identifying as liberal
16% identifying as moderate
31% identifying as somewhat conservative
42% identifying as very conservative

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_72215.pdf

Best not to talk too much about "wedge" issues that might alienate them.

I'll be voting for someone who makes my civil rights a priority.

"For more than a century, Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women," Clinton said while campaigning at a community college in Greenville, South Carolina. "And I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years. And it's really an attack against a woman's right to chose."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141155506

[arcane1]

104. He mentions women's right to control their own bodies in damn near every speech.

You could find this out for yourself, if you wanted to. Or, you could exploit the attacks on PP for cheap, short-term political gain.

Your choice.

[beam me up scottie]

119. #Not Good Enough Bernie.

Or, you could exploit the attacks on PP for cheap, short-term political gain.

Why would they stop exploiting serious issues now?

They can't sell us their candidate based on her record so they manufacture new memes every week.

[arcane1]

126. Seriously, the sheer effort devoted to this fruitless smear campaign has been quite eye-opening!

We The People are clearly scaring the hell out of the right entities!

[BainsBane]

130. "exploit for cheap, short-term political gain."

Go tell that to the people who post the 20,000 anti-Clinton posts all the time, some which are completely made up. We had to hear about a single word made years ago. Countless threads on that, and it's not cheap political gain. Oh, no. of course not. Insisting it's okay to call women "c...ts" and "whores." because some find it convenient to invoke misogyny against a Democratic candidate isn't cheap political gain. Oh, no. My daring to express concern that he fails to stand up for women's rights in at least two public occasions, that is cheap political gain.

We've had thread after thread about how the First Lady at the time was responsible for changes in criminal sentencing, all while completely ignoring the fact that Sanders voted for those crime bills. Talk about cheap political gain. They promote him by criticizing policies he VOTED for. Most of the threads in this forum are dedicated to cheap political gain against actual Democrats--a Democratic President, Democratic politicians, and Democratic candidates. All to promote an independent who wants to take advantage of the resources and organization of a party he has seen as too beneath him to even join for some thirty years.

Cheap political gain: calling women who care about reproductive rights "insecure." Our rights are under attack. Feigning security against that would take sheer delusion. Why should women need "hand holding"? Expecting a candidate to place our rights front and center makes us "weak." Black Lives Matters are "corporate plants," a Koch conspiracy,

Spare me your selective poutrage. His supporters here and on Twitter tell me what I need to know. People don't get to systematically insult members who don't despise Clinton or didn't immediately commit to Sanders as "Third Way" and "neoliberals." They even insult other Sanders supporters that way if they see any inkling that someone might have even the slightest criticism or concern. They have insisted black lives matters activists are corporate plants, "thugs," and "booshie" and called black members "race naggers." After months of that, you want me to go attend one of his speeches so I can hear him mention reproductive rights? Too damn late for that. That ship has sailed. People have made clear they want an exclusive group of people exactly like them in every way. People don't get to systematically insult and exclude and then say, oh really we want you to support our guy, go watch a video. Too damn late. People have systematically cultivated enmity among the Democratic base on behalf of their candidate, and now they can reap the consequences of that. Bridges have been burned and are laying in embers, which is why they are working to enable Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries across the country, as was just decided in Oklahoma. Y'all threw away my vote some time ago. You don't get to ask for it back.

[arcane1]

131. So you're stooping the their level? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

136. iokwhcsdi

[okasha]

141. Righteous!

Preach it, sister!

[eridani]

166. Ever since DLC redefined Democrats as Republicans who are good on social issues--

--it has been very easy for Dems to speak up about them while colluding with Republicans in promoting income inequality, job outsourcing, reducing taxes on the rich, etc.

[arcane1]

102. Only a liar would imply Sanders doesn't have a stellar record on women's issues

It's a shame to see these Rovian tactics used again and again on a supposedly "progressive" site.

[Scootaloo]

159. See my post above.

The only people pushing this shit are people like Sufrommich and BainsBane who have made it clear they are going to spend this season engaging in irrational hatred against Sanders.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Sanders and Clinton are both strong on reproductive choice, and Bernie was one of just 7 Senators

to vote against the attack on ACORN, one of 7 who actually offered the push back this OP says was lacking. This makes this OP self contradictory.
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Robert Casey (D-PA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

[Comrade Grumpy]

78. More shameless shit-slinging. n/t

[CountAllVotes]

83. +1,000 !!!

N/T

[Vinca]

87. Planned Parenthood is always under attack.

And I hadn't thought about it, but the tone was a little off in the first video. Donating fetal tissue is somber business and joking about expensive sports cars in exchange for it was a bit unseemly. I know Bernie supports women being in charge of their own bodies and that's good enough for me.

[Sheepshank]

95. He needs to speak out forcefully now

They all do.

Relying on a past vote , a past March does nothing for this issue on our plate right now

[beam me up scottie]

96. That's it. Bernie is dead to me.

It's obvious he doesn't support PP or women.

Damn good thing I read DU or I never would have known about this.

[arcane1]

114. It's starting to become an embarrassment. Nothing is too sacred not to be shamelessly exploited.

I've been patiently waiting for honest criticism but I think I over-estimated that possibility.

I'm glad I support a candidate for whom I don't need to constantly make up shit to defend

[beam me up scottie]

117. They're upset that progressive women are flocking to Bernie.

We should trust Hillary because she's always fought for equal rights for everyone.

Right?

They must think we wimmenfolks are to stoopid to no what their doing.

Bernie didn't need to evolve on human rights.

[frylock]

98. You must be positively giddy at the prospect of some new bullshit material..

to try to attack Sanders with.

[arcane1]

115. Bullshit-mining is hard work! Especially for free.

Seems like a lot of wasted time and effort just to attack a candidate who "can't win" anyway

[arcane1]

101. LOL keep stretching like that and you'll pull a muscle. Esp with your "creative" headline

Another case where a life-long record is being ignored to create a false "controversy"

You should be ashamed of yourself, dishonestly exploiting PP in this fashion.

[elleng]

118. Old but pretty darn good:

BALTIMORE, MD (4/16/14)- Planned Parenthood of Maryland (PPM) is honored to present the 2014 Betty Tyler
Award to Maryland Governor Martin J. O'Malley for his outstanding leadership in protecting and advancing reproductive
rights in Maryland. The award will be presented at PPM’s 9th Annual Spring Gala event to be held on the evening of
Wednesday, April 30th at The Four Seasons Harbor East in Baltimore.

“At a time when women’s health and access to reproductive care is under attack across the country, Governor O'Malley
has protected the rights of women in Maryland," said Jenny Black, President & CEO of PPM. “For his outstanding record
of prioritizing Maryland women and women’s health, we are happy to recognize the leadership of Governor O’Malley at
Planned Parenthood of Maryland."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/4214/1262/4926/PPM_2014_Betty_Tyler_Award_-_4_15_14_-_Gov_Edit_PPM_edit__2_.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

120. Well obviously M'OM doesn't care about us either.

I like how you guys came up with those initials to fool us into thinking moms like him.

Clever.




GO'Malley!

[NCTraveler]

121. Sanders is an excellent ally in this area.

He has an excellent track record and it is my understanding he fully backs PP. Read Bluenorthwests replies throughout. They pretty much cover it all with respect to attacking Sanders here. I do fully agree we need more forceful action in this area and rhetoric is a major part of that. Rights are being set back. An extremely important institution is under attack.

[Gothmog]

129. Why is Sanders silent on this issue?

This is a case where all good progressives should be out in force

[Gloria]

134. Yes..ALL CANDIDATES should be stressing the campaign to get rid of PP

It should be a priority....the battle is to not destroy PP at this point!!!!

The other side is loud ...and we need to be loud as well.

PP's staffer should have known better...very stupid, knowing how the knives are out for PP and women's health in general!

[John Poet]

133. Re: Bernie, this is a manufactured issue.

Nothing to see here. Moving along....

[billymayshere]

155. The Rovian attacks made by Clinton supporters is sickening

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this crap.

[hifiguy]

157. "Rovian" is the pluperfect descriptor. nt

[shenmue]

163. It's Rovian to ask someone to explain what he means?

You need a new dictionary.

[SunSeeker]

165. It's worse than silence. Bernie piled on and called PP "terribly wrong"!

Last edited Sun Jul 26, 2015, 04:58 AM - Edit history (1)

His apologists claim he was just agreeing with Cecile Richards, but she did not say the conduct was "terribly wrong." She just said the tone was unacceptable and not in keeping with being compassionate. That is very different from "terribly wrong."

No, "terribly wrong" is the GOP efforts to destroy Planned Parenthood, which is what will happen if everyone just piles on PP like Sanders did.

Only Hillary has had positive things to say in PP's defense.

[sufrommich]

167. They know that,they just choose to make it

another vast conspiracy aimed at Bernie Sanders. Sanders and his supporters have a problem with tone deafness.

[geek tragedy]

171. Sanders is better on wealth inequality and war/peace issues.

Clinton is better on reproductive choice and women's rights.

No candidate is perfect.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Bullshit. Any honest HC supporter would admit that his record is stellar.

Clinton is not better, Bernie has ALWAYS supported reproductive freedom.

He has fought tirelessly for women, this latest meme is another vile attack on the most progressive candidate.

Reposting the info in Scootaloo's post for the uninformed:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Wicker Amdt.; Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105 ; vote number 2009-S081 on Mar 5, 2009
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations; Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-379 on Oct 18, 2007
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:
Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" . The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Sanders scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals.

Sanders co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Sanders scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.

Sanders co-sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007


Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions.

Sanders signed Access to Birth Control Act
Access to Birth Control Act: Amends the Public Health Service Act to require pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including:
providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock;
immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and
ensuring that pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription.
Provides that this Act does not preempt state law or any professional clinical judgment. Sets forth civil penalties and establishes a a private cause of action for violations of this Act.
Source: HR2659&S1415 11-S1415 on Jul 26, 2011
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Sanders co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Protect the reproductive rights of women.

Sanders co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
before fetal viability; or
at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed.
Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

Sanders co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

Sanders signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.

[geek tragedy]

173. Voting records do not tell the whole story of how someone would act as president.

Presidents have to make tradeoffs that are not present in most ideologically-driven votes in the Senate.

To put it another way: why did Sanders have time to defend Ed Schultz but not Planned Parenthood?

I can remember when Clinton was getting rightfully roasted for her refusal to take a stand against the TPP.

PP is getting ACORNed.

I prefer Sanders, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that his (and O'Malley's) failure to speak out in defense of PP when it's under attack looks good.

[beam me up scottie]

174. No, but a lifetime of passionate support of my reproductive rights tell me all I need to know.

I'm not buying the current meme that he doesn't support PP.

It's manipulative and despicable for HC supporters to attack a champion of women's rights because they can't promote their candidate any other way.

The meme that he doesn't care about social justice is quickly losing steam so they're getting desperate.

[geek tragedy]

175. why did he have time to defend Ed Schultz but not Planned Parenthood?

Is there a good answer to that question, in your estimation?

I prefer Sanders, as I stated above.

But, the silence from male progressives in the face of this onslaught against PP has been very disappointing.

Do you remember how ACORN got killed? It got killed because no one would stand up for it.

What Clinton is telling us here is that she is willing to take political risks by defending the cause of abortion rights even when it's not popular and could alienate potential voters, given the really bad publicity it's getting.

Sanders and O'Malley are not telling us that.

"Look at my record" is not good enough. Yes, it's the reason many of us prefer him, but here and now he needs to add to that record, not rest upon it.

Sanders has shown he'll fight against things Clinton won't fight against--corporate power, income inequality, excessive militarism.

But this is a chance for leadership he's missing.

[beam me up scottie]

176. Oh ffs, knock it off.

I already said I'm not buying what the op is selling.

If women who don't support Hillary were concerned and posted a thread about it I would take it seriously.

But it's obvious that the op and other Hillary supporters are pushing a false narrative that he doesn't support PP because he is being "silent".

Other people may be gullible enough to fall for it but I've been at this a long time.

I don't attack my allies when their enemies lie about them and I resent being manipulated by both the GOP and HC supporters.

[geek tragedy]

177. A question for you to answer, with blunt candor:

If Bernie Sanders had issued this statement this week:

For more than a century, Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women. And I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years. And it's really an attack against a woman's right to chose."

And Clinton had said:

"Obviously, I think Cecile Richards apologized for the tone of that video. I think her apology was exactly right. I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong."

Would you and Bernie's more fervent supporters here have been dismissive of it, or pretended it had no bearing on how far either would go to support a woman's right to choose? Or would it have been on the rec list with proclamations about how he was the candidate who would take leadership while Clinton was triangulating?
**************************

this is what primaries are about. no one should be given a free pass, or be told that "what you've done in the past is good enough."

the primaries are the only real source of leverage issues advocates have on the eventual nominee.

[beam me up scottie]

178. I can only answer for myself: I don't support manufacturing memes to tear down other candidates

I don't post threads that misrepresent Hillary, I refuse to participate in those that do and I certainly don't rec them.

Maybe if everyone felt as I did we could actually get around to discussing the issues instead of vilifying Democratic candidates.

I don't believe that Hillary thinks welfare recipients are "deadbeats" and I don't believe that Bernie isn't supporting PP.

[geek tragedy]

179. We all know that Bernie is 100% pro-choice. I don't think it's villifying

him to point out that he's missing a chance to show leadership on the issue.

And PP is in real danger. People refused to defend ACORN--Obama included--and they got wiped out.

Causes need supporters, but sometimes they need champions.

[beam me up scottie]

180. Then tell that to the posters upthread who are vilifying him.

All HC supporters, btw.

I refuse to play their game and lie about Hillary Clinton.

I am only responsible for my behaviour, it's up to others to decide how they want to promote their candidate.

[geek tragedy]

181. those women are amongst the most fervent advocates of feminism and women's rights

on DU. I would have a very difficult time accusing them of exploiting an issue that's more important to them than any candidate.

Personally, I think it's better to recognize the concerns for supporters of the candidate--to show that yes I share your concerns but I'm still supporting Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

182. You don't have to, someone else already did and I agree with them.

I'm not afraid to call out other women when they lie about my candidate.

At least I didn't question their support for abortion rights like one of them did to me.

You want to raise the level of discourse around here?

Talk to the ones who are wallowing in the muck.