Scrubbed Interview: Corsi Will File Criminal Charges Against White House – 5/22/11

May 25, 2011

Clear Channel radio station scrubs interview from audio archives
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Jerome Corsi has told a Cincinnati radio station that he is preparing to file criminal charges against the White House for producing a fraudulent birth certificate, as the controversial author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? closes in on the people within Obama’s inner circle he claims were behind the hoax.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Scrubbed Interview: Corsi Will File Criminal Ch…, posted with vodpod

“We believe the birth records released by Barack Obama on April 27th, the so called long form birth certificate, is fraudulent,” Corsi told radio host Bill Cunningham.
“I’m working on filing criminal charges on the White House, I think there will be criminal charges filed very soon for having fraudulently produced a birth certificate,” said Corsi, adding that he would seek an FBI investigation.
Corsi re-affirmed the fact that he was close to identifying the individual who played a key role in forging the birth certificate, as well as the source document which the White House used to create the composite fake.
According to The Birther Report, the Clear Channel radio station on which Corsi appeared, 700 WLW later scrubbed the interview from their audio archives, a claim that was also carried by World Net Daily. The You Tube video above was made by a listener.
Clear Channel was also behind the removal of a billboard that was part of a World Net Daily campaign to bring attention to the birther issue in November 2009.
As we reported yesterday, Corsi is closing in on the people within Obama’s inner circle who were responsible for creating the fraudulent document that was released by the White House in electronic format and contains a plethora of errors and clear evidence of manipulation.
“I’m pretty well on the trail of linking the characteristics of this document to someone who’s going to have a lot of explaining to do,” said Corsi, adding that he was “hot on the trail” of one individual who “may have had a hand in this,” and that his identity would be released this week.

In a new development, WND reports that Obama’s Social Security number was issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived.
“The first three digits of Obama’s SSN are 042. That code of 042 falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049,” states the report.
“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” says Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
Daniels said that Obama decided to hide his identity in the 80′s by taking a Social Security Number he couldn’t possibly have acquired without breaking the law.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/corsi-to-file-criminal-charges-against-white-house-over-obama-birth-certificate.html

Advertisements

Esquire Magazine – Lied to cover up Obama’s WATERGATE

May 22, 2011

Dr. Jerome Corsi should hold off on suing the magazine.

He should first tie the magazine in on the WHITE HOUSE scandal.

This will be this governments WATERGATE!

I honestly think that it’s not the Democrats that are doing this, but rather the entire government is corrupt.  The Republicans HAD to have acquiesced, at the least, or, more than likely, were in active participation of this LIE.

Esquire.com: Jerome Corsi’s Book Pulled From Shelves (Corsi says blatant lie)
Esquire.Com ^ | 5/18/2011 | Mark Warren 

Posted on Wed May 18 2011 10:53:45 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by jeffo

In a stunning development one day after the release of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jerome-corsi-birther-book-5765410#ixzz1MidSEaUj

(Excerpt) Read more at esquire.com …

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721580/posts

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who H…, posted with vodpod

I always try to copy everything in it’s entirety.  Things tend to disappear from the WEB.

The below is a complete lie.  The book is NOT pulled. 

BREAKING: Jerome Corsi’s Birther Book Pulled from Shelves!
May 18, 2011 at 10:50AM by Mark Warren
In a stunning development one day after the release of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

In an exclusive interview, a reflective Farah, who wrote the book’s foreword and also published Corsi’s earlier best-selling work, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry and Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great “Moon Landing” Cover-Up, said that after much serious reflection, he could not go forward with the project. “I believe with all my heart that Barack Obama is destroying this country, and I will continue to stand against his administration at every turn, but in light of recent events, this book has become problematic, and contains what I now believe to be factual inaccuracies,” he said this morning. “I cannot in good conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it.”

When asked if he had any plans to publish a corrected version of the book, he said cryptically, “There is no book.” Farah declined to comment on his discussions of the matter with Corsi.

A source at WND, who requested that his name be withheld, said that Farah was “rip-shit” when, on April 27, President Obama took the extraordinary step of personally releasing his “long-form” birth certificate, thus resolving the matter of Obama’s legitimacy for “anybody with a brain.”

“He called up Corsi and really tore him a new one,” says the source. “I mean, we’ll do anything to hurt Obama, and erase his memory, but we don’t want to look like fucking idiots, you know? Look, at the end of the day, bullshit is bullshit.”

Corsi, who graduated from Harvard and is a professional journalist, could not be reached for comment.

DEVELOPING…

UPDATE, 12:25 p.m., for those who didn’t figure it out yet, and the many on Twitter for whom it took a while: We committed satire this morning to point out the problems with selling and marketing a book that has had its core premise and reason to exist gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in advance of publication. Are its author and publisher chastened? Well, no. They double down, and accuse the President of the United States of perpetrating a fraud on the world by having released a forged birth certificate. Not because this claim is in any way based on reality, but to hold their terribly gullible audience captive to their lies, and to sell books. This is despicable, and deserves only ridicule. That’s why we committed satire in the matter of the Corsi book. Hell, even the president has a sense of humor about it all. Some more serious reporting from us on this whole “birther” phenomenon herehere, and here.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jerome-corsi-birther-book-5765410#ixzz1N1ls8wz9


Trump lied – OBAMA’s new BC (Birth Certificate) is a blatant forgery

May 21, 2011

Dr. Corsi on the Alex Jones radio program:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who H…, posted with vodpod

Here’s another interview with Dr. Corsi:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Jerome Corsi Smacks Down Liberal Radio Host Ove…, posted with vodpod

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 28, 2011

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Check out the document released by WhiteHouse.gov for yourself.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  obamabreakout
Upon first inspection, the document appears to be a photocopy taken from state records and printed on official green paper. However, when the government released PDF is taken into the image editing program Adobe Illustrator, we discover a number of separate elements that reveal the document is not a single scan on paper, as one might surmise. Elements are place in layers or editing boxes over the scan and green textured paper, which is to say the least unusual.

When sections of the document are enlarged significantly, we discover glaring inconsistencies. For instance, it appears the date stamped on the document has been altered. Moreover, the document contains text, numbers, and lines with suspicious white borders indicating these items were pasted from the original scan and dropped over a background image of green paper.


VIDEO: Alex Jones gives proof that Obama’s purported birth certificate is fraud.

Let’s assume the state of Hawaii scanned the original document and placed it on the green textured background. This does not explain the broken out or separate elements. There is no logical reason for this to be done unless the government planned to modify the document and make it appear to be something other than it is.

There are two elements of interest, as shown in the image to the above – both entries for the date accepted by the local registry. This appears to have been modified in an image editing program.

The media was quick to dispel the fact the document was modified. “Our analysis of the latest controversy: The original birth certificate was probably in a ‘negative’ form, and someone at the White House took it upon themselves to doctor it up so the form can be readable,” writesJoe Brooks for Wireupdate.

Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,” he writes.

Indeed, but this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was in necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

These layers are also revealed by the White House issued PDF’s hex file in freeware hex editor. Within its code are listed 8 image masks, which if changed from value “true” to “false” turn off and on to reveal the layers as demonstrated in the video and in Illustrator. Whether these represent compression artifacts or other digitizing processes, or whether these masks represent deliberate manipulation remains to be conclusively shown.

<< /Length 17 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 123 /Height 228 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 13 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 199 /Height 778 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 19 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 47 /Height 216 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 15 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 42 /Height 274 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 10 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 1454 /Height 1819
/ImageMask true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 25 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 132 /Height 142 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 23 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 243 /Height 217 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 21 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 34 /Height 70 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>


As Market-Ticker.org points out, it may prove to be significant that two of the boxes appear over both of the “date accepted” boxes, as well as the “Mother’s occupation box.” Was there a need to tamper with the dates on the document or other areas? The recent stamp date and issuing signature of the state registrar also contain an edited layer.

Questions have also been raised about the number at the top of the document issued by the Department of Health, number 61 10641, as one part of the number is in a separate layer when viewed in Illustrator, as demonstrated in the video above. This may prove to be significant. A long form birth certificate obtained by the Honolulu Star in 2009 from a female born one day after Obama and whose form was accepted three days after Obama’s document contains a Dept. of Health number that is lower, 61 10637. There are others subtle differences, such as the use of “Aug.” for the date rather than “August,” and the use of “Honolulu, Oahu” rather than “Honolulu, Hawaii” (seen also in the 1962 certificate below) which may or may not be significant.

More to the point, this certificate and others, like the one posted below it, have visible seals. No issuing seal can be seen on the document released today by Obama.

Negative of long form birth certificate for Aug. 5, 1961 birth in Honolulu, released in 1966 with seal and dated signatures.Published by Honolulu Star and World Net Daily in 2009.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  090728birthcert

Photo of physical copy of long form birth certificate for June 15, 1962 birth in Honolulu, also with visible seal.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  13

Infowars will continue to analyze this issue as more information comes in. It is significant that the Obama Administration was pressured into responding to this controversy, whatever the final analysis of this document. However, the administration still needs to release his other records which have been sealed at great expense. Is there an issue with his being naturalized in Indonesia? Why are his college records at Columbia and Occidental sealed, and what do they contain? Did Obama travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport? These questions and many others have not been properly answered.

Aaron Dykes contributed to this report.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery.html


Obama should not be president – FACTCHECK COLB (certificate of live birth) is a FORGERY and the HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health) has committed PERJURY

March 6, 2011

I had to get this over here, so that I have it for my records.

Butterdezillion did a very good job with the information.

As you know or may not know.  I copy everything I can from the original source, because things seem to disappear off of the internet, so I like to keep as many WORDS original.

 

The Problem with the Announcement Stories

Two items have been offered as evidence of Barack Obama being born in Hawaii: an online COLB imagewhich the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways as a forgery, and online images of birth announcements in the Hawaii papers shortly after Obama’s birth. This post will explain why I believe we’ve been fed – and swallowed – a lie about where those images came from. Later posts will give a glimpse of just how far it seems somebody was willing to go in order to have something – anything –that would suggest Obama was born in Hawaii, a critical need since Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie told Mike Evans (transcript and audio link) he had gone into both hospitals (Kapiolani and Queens) with a search warrant but found no birth certificate for Obama

<http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/announcement-stories-not-true.pdf>

Factcheck Forgery for Dummies =)

Confirmation of Factcheck Forgery for Dummies =)

One: HDOH Confirmation #1: The 2006 amendment is not noted on Factcheck as required.

As explained here, The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but officially confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate in late 2006, rendering his birth certificate legally invalid.

Regarding amendments to birth certificates, HRS 338-16 says:

§338-16  Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates.  (a)  Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

(b)  A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.

HDOH Administrative Rules list 2 kinds of birth certificates: standard (long-form) and abbreviated (COLB). Both kinds have to note amendments, as is illustrated by the examples here.

The Factcheck COLB says it was “filed” on Aug 8, 1961, which the HDOH says is the date it was given a number at the HDOH office. If so, the birth certificate was amended 45 years after it was “filed with the department of health” and according to HRS 338-16 must thus note the amendment, date of the amendment, and the evidence to support the amendment. The date of issuance on the Factcheck COLB is June 6, 2007, so if it truly came from the HDOH office it would have to have note of the 2006 amendment. It doesn’t, and neither does the COLB posted on Obama’s own campaign website. Both are thus indirectly yet officially confirmed as forgeries.

Two: HDOH Confirmation #2: The Factcheck COLB’s “date filed” and certificate number are incompatible.

As mentioned above, the HDOH has said that for Oahu births, the “date filed” has always meant the day the HDOH gave the birth certificate a number. As can be seen here, the Factcheck COLB has the information in the chart below. The bottom 2 lines give the information for Susan and Gretchen Nordyke:

Name         ”Date Filed by Registrar”         Certificate Number

Barack Obama II (Factcheck COLB)         Aug 8, 1961            151-1961-010641

Susan Nordyke (born 2:12pm Aug 5)        Aug 11, 1961             151-61-010637

Gretchen Nordyke (born 2:17pm Aug 5)        Aug 11, 1961             151-61-010638

The Factcheck COLB claims to have been given a number 3 days earlier than the Nordyke certificates, and yet it has a higher (later) number than either of theirs.

At first, people tried to explain the discrepancy by saying that maybe the hospitals had pre-numbered birth certificates and the pile got out of order at the hospital, but the HDOH confirmed that only the HDOH office gave the certificate numbers.

And some tried to explain it by saying maybe the pile got out of order at the HDOH office. But the HDOH has said the number was given on the “date filed” so something that was numbered on Aug 8th wouldn’t still be in the pile to get mixed up with the certificates that were numbered 3 days later. What was numbered on Tuesday skipped ahead to number 641 and then what was numbered on Friday went back to 637 and 638.

Some suggested that the number was different on a COLB than on its long-form, so the discrepancies were because the Nordykes’ were long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. But an individual’s long-form and COLB have the same number.

The “date filed” and certificate number for the Factcheck COLB are not compatible, given the HDOH’s explanation for what “date filed” means and the numbers on the Nordyke certificates.

Three: Neil Abercrombie Confirmation #1 – published interview

In late December 2010, HI Governor Neil Abercrombie came out with interviews to both the New York Times and the LA Times, saying that he was angered by “birthers” because anybody could ask him and he could tell them he was in Hawaii when Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital; he remembered Barack Obama Sr and his wife, Ann, bringing the child to social events. He said he was talking with his Attorney General and Health Director to find a way to release proof of Obama’s Hawaii birth, since “birthers” were “disrespecting” Obama’s parents and the office of the presidency, as well as Hawaiians in general as if being born in Hawaii doesn’t make a person a US citizen. Politically-motivated people, he said, were pushing “birther” bills in state legislatures, and it was time to put the story to rest.

Exactly 3 weeks later, in an interview given Jan 14th and published on Jan 18th by Richard Borreca, political columnist for the Star Advertiser, the following exchange was reported (emphasis mine):

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …

…What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

Notice the excerpting and parenthetical statement. It seems clear that Abercrombie told Borreca exactly what he found and Borreca chose to edit out those comments. What “recording of the birth” would there be, written down in the State Archives? According to the HDOH retention schedule, the only vital records authorized to be stored in the State Archive rather than at the Vital Records Office are

  1. Certificates of Hawaiian Birth and index to foreign birth that are at least 75 years old (see page 5)
  2. Certificates of Foreign Birth (VDR-11) See page 1 and note at the bottom the specific request that only VDR-11 Master Microfilm be stored at the State Archive. It should be noted also that the HDOH says they have no index to certificates of foreign birth – not even electronically. That means that there are either no certificates of foreign birth to be indexed, the HDOH includes foreign births in their standard index data, or they lied.

It’s not supposed to require an “investigation” to find records for a person with a legally valid birth certificate. It’s supposed to be a matter of finding it in the Vital Records Office – like former HDOH Director Fukino implied that she had done. If former Gov Lingle was able to order Fukino to look at Obama’s records then why did Abercrombie have to go to the State Archive to find anything? Because what Fukino found was also in the State Archive – in which case it was NOT a legally-valid record (either a long-form birth certificate resulting from a hospital birth, or legally-valid documentation of a home birth through affidavits and doctor’s examination and records).

In effect, the cartoon below is what the national media let Abercrombie get away with – not reporting or seemingly even grasping that if what Abercrombie said in a published report was true, there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii, and Obama, Factcheck, and the HDOH have been covering up a very public forgery all along.

Four: Neil Abercrombie Confirmation #2 – statements to Mike Evans

According to his recorded on-air comments to radio host Peter Boyles, when Hollywood insider reporter Mike Evans saw the Abercrombie interview that was published Jan 18th he called up the governor’s office to find out from his long-time friend what was actually going on. The next day, Jan 19th, he reported to radio stations all over the country what he had found out (there are reportedly at least 3 other recordings in addition to the 2 below where Evans made these claims).

In the recorded audio of “Austin’s Morning News” (transcript here ) he says,

“Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor, looking at Kapiolani Women and Children’s Hospital and Queens Medical Center, where children were born back in that day. And he said, “Mike, there is no Barack Obama cer, birth certificate…Well, the governor w, demanded to see it, went to the hospital, sent all of his people, a search warrant, and he could not get it. Uh, there, he’s really good friends to the President but he says, he thinks this could cause some problems during re-election…

I’ve known Neil for long (chuckles) long time and he really, he’s a left-wing nut. I mean, I love him, but uh, yeah, he was, he was, you’re exactly right. He was hoping this would get rid of this problem and that he would prove that he was born in the United States. Unfortunately it backfired on him.

 

Denver Post Owner on Obama’s Hidden Records – 3/4/2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 


In the recorded audio with KQRS – Minneapolis (transcript here ) he said:

Yesterday talking in Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his power as governor at the Kapiolani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queen’s Hospital, the only place that kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born, … there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii…Absolutely no proof, at all, that he was born in Hawaii…Now he went out, he LOVES Obama. I mean he purposely did this to get rid of that, that question. Now, got some egg in the face. I mean now he admits publically that there is no birth certificate…

And I asked him, I go, “Well, when do you remember when do you remember Barack? When’s your first memory?” And he goes, ‘I remember him playing, like, in the T-ball league.’ And I go, “Well, when he was, like, five or six.” And he goes, “Something like that.” And I go, “Well, what about before that?” And he goes, “Well, I don’t really remember him much before that.” which I thought was very odd…

I’m tellin’ ya’. Neil and I are buddies and during this whole inauguration when I was in Washington for those a ten days, I spent a lot of time with Neil, and anytime anybody would come up and bring this up, you’re right, Neil was almost militant about it. “I remember him as a kid. He’s from Hawaii, born and raised …” so, needless to say, I’m sure he was shocked more than anybody by this whole thing.

By the next week the story of what Mike Evans had said made it onto Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh opened his monologue with the story. The next day Evans gave an interview with Peter Boyles and Jerome Corsi, in which he said he had never claimed to speak with Abercrombie, but only his office – which is documentably false, as seen in the Austin recording above.

He said he “mis-spoke”, and the media totally dropped it, with Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, and David Gregory very shortly thereafter railing about how stupid “birthers” are because they won’t believe all the evidence out of Hawaii. They totally blew off the fact that what Mike Evans claimed was totally consistent with what Abercrombie had told the Star Advertiser columnist in published reports, and brings into very, very serious doubt whether there is any valid record that even COULD result in the COLB that Factcheck claimed was genuine.

An OB doctor has told me that hospitals don’t keep copies of birth certificates after they have been sent to the Vital Records Office. But someone who trains hospital personnel in record-keeping has told me that hospitals DO keep OB patient logs for a long, long time, and someone unrelated who wished to see those logs without permission from the patient would need a subpoena. In the published interview Abercrombie referred to an “investigation”, which could mean that he had commissioned an investigative committee with power to subpoena records from the hospitals. We don’t know. Mike Evans was going to talk to Abercrombie to clarify some things but last I knew Abercrombie was not answering any questions.

What we do know is that the place to look for a legally valid birth certificate is in the Vital Records Office, and the only reason for Abercrombie to go looking in either the hospitals or the State Archive is if there was nothing legally valid in the Vital Records Office.

Abercrombie’s communications to the columnist and to Mike Evans confirm that there is no legally valid birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, and the HDOH COULD NOT HAVE printed the COLB that is shown on either Factcheck or Obama’s own campaign website.

Five: Tim Adams Confirmation – Affidavit of Statements from Election Office Supervisor

Former City and County of Honolulu Elections Division official, Tim Adams, has signed an affidavit swearing that:

Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government…

Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquiries about Sen. Obama’s birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been born there, even though Governor Abercrombie is now asserting and various Hawaii government officials continue to assert Barack Obama, Jr. was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center on Aug 4, 1961.

During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the government of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no government official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth…

During the course of my employment I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama’s Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama.”

Conclusion: In view of all 5 confirmations (by Hawaii government officials) that the Factcheck COLB is in fact a forgery and has been known as a forgery by HDOH personnel for quite some time, Tim Adams’ sworn statements ring very true. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery which could never have been produced by the HDOH because there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii – a fact which the HDOH has furiously sought to hide, as evidenced by the corrupt and illegal behaviors documented elsewhere in this blog (see the “Government Corruption in HI” section here ).

This entry was posted on Friday, March 4th, 2011 at 8:2

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/factcheck-forgery-for-dummies/


PA – Philadelphia – Abortion clinic horror

January 21, 2011

 

I can’t help but think that the COPS didn’t bust this place, because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  The retribution for busting a clinic that is headed by a BLACK and FEMA – NAZI issues that would come from as far away as California to the east coast, would have been a very heavy burden for the City of Philadelphia to bare.  I know that that is a horrible thing to say, because that means that the COPS are not here to protect US, but to protect THEM.  The progressives, who currently hold us hostage to their POLICIES that are at their core UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

This abortion clinic CANNOT be the only one committing these atrocities.  This is not new.  I posted on this a while ago.

<warning>Abortion – What does LATE-TERM abortion mean? – Graphic

This is Obama’s view: http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
DA: Abortion Doc Killed 7 Babies With Scissors, posted with vodpod

 

 

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”<http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm>

 

Here is Clinton’s position <also added below> – http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

 

<more from ON THE ISSUES after the article>

 

 

 

Victims say abortion doctor scarred them for life

By DANA DiFILIPPO
Philadelphia Daily News

difilid@phillynews.com 215-854-5934

Davida Clarke Johnson, with her husband Bobby Johnson, says she contracted a venereal disease from the unsanitary conditions at the abortion mill Kermit Gosnell is charged with operating.

Davida Clarke Johnson, with her husband Bobby Johnson, says she contracted a venereal disease from the unsanitary conditions at the abortion mill Kermit Gosnell is charged with operating.

 

FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD Robyn Reid didn’t want an abortion. But when her grandmother forcibly took her to an abortion clinic one wintry day in 1998, Reid figured she’d just tell the doctor her wishes and then sneak away.

Instead, Kermit Gosnell barked: “I don’t have time for this!” He then ripped off her clothes, spanked her, wrestled her onto a dirty surgical stretcher, tied her flailing arms and legs down and pumped sedatives into her until she quit screaming and lost consciousness, she told theDaily News yesterday.

Nicole Gaither got an abortion from Gosnell in 2001. After four days, she said, the pain was so bad she could barely walk. She returned to the clinic, where, she said Gosnell blithely told her he’d left fetal remains in her.

“Stand up! It don’t hurt that bad!” he yelled at her, she said, before suctioning – without any medication – her insides.

In 2001, Davida Johnson changed her mind about aborting her 6-month fetus after seeing Gosnell’s dazed, bloodied patients in his recovery room, she said. But in the treatment room, Gosnell’s staffers ignored her protests, smacked her, tied her arms down and sedated her into unconsciousness, she said. She awoke no longer pregnant.

Weeks later, she said, she was diagnosed with a venereal disease that she believes she contracted from unsterilized equipment Gosnell used. Now, she can’t carry a baby to term and said she has miscarried four times since her abortion.

One day after a grand jury issued a hefty report charging Gosnell with eight counts of murder stemming from his West Philadelphia practice, Reid, Gaither, Johnson and other women stepped forward yesterday to share stories of horrors they had hidden for years, unaware that they were part of a sisterhood of suffering.

“It was my first – and last – abortion. I didn’t know it [Gosnell’s treatment of her] wasn’t OK,” said Gaither, now 38, of Southwest Philadelphia.

Reid said she tried to report Gosnell.

 

 

Elmer Smith: This monster wasn’t the kid I once knew

 

 

<click here for images>

 

 

“I called all kinds of 1-800 numbers, abortion hot lines. Not one person I talked to could give me any advice on what to do about the doctor,” said Reid, now 28, of Northeast Philadelphia. “I was 15; I didn’t know what else to do.”

That Gosnell was able to practice so long, leaving such a wide wake of misery, is no surprise to some of his former patients. Abortion, some say, carries such a stigma that they were too ashamed to report their alleged mistreatment.

“A woman getting an abortion, to some people, that’s not accepted. I didn’t want to go to the wrong person and get treated like trash,” said Johnson, now 30, of North Philadelphia.

Gosnell, 69, was denied bail at his arraignment yesterday and did not have an attorney to comment on the accusations from the former patients.

He opened his Women’s Medical Society at 38th Street and Lancaster Avenue in 1979. Although he was not certified as an obstetrician or gynecologist, he performed thousands of abortions over the years, “specializing” in illegal late-term abortions and killing hundreds of viable babies, the grand jury alleged.

But instead of using traditional abortion methods, Gosnell preferred to induce labor, according to the grand jury. That occasionally resulted in live births, a complication that the doctor would handle by stabbing scissors into the newborn’s neck to sever its spinal cord, the grand jury charged.

He kept grisly souvenirs of some abortions, chopping off fetuses’ feet and preserving them in jars in the clinic’s basement, the report said.

Gaither, who was about five months pregnant when she had her abortion, shudders when she wonders whether Gosnell kept any macabre mementos from her experience there.

After reading about the atrocities attributed to him, some former patients feel lucky that they didn’t end up in the hospital or worse. Still, they remained scarred, even after all this time.

“I don’t believe in the death penalty, even though I have an uncle who was murdered,” Reid said. “But I think Dr. Gosnell is a monster. I think he enjoys it. That was his excitement for that day: ‘I got to tie a girl down!’ He ruined my life. If he got the death penalty, not only would I support it, I would show up to watch it.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/114347679.html?cmpid=15585797

 

RELATED STORIES
DN Editorial: If charges are true, abortion doc was yet another serial killer
Inquirer editorial: Decades of horror
The wakeup call on abortion from West Philadelphia
Rendell ‘flabbergasted’ by lax abortion oversight
Abortion doctor surprised by denial of bail
West Phila. neighbors shocked by Gosnell charges
Monster wasn’t kid I once knew
Charged by the Grand Jury
Grand jury’s report on abortion mill a roadmap of failure
Video: Press Conference: Abortion Doctor Charged
Read the grand jury report Warning: Graphic Images
PHILLY.COM’s TOP FIVE PICKS

No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness

Q: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I’ve been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That’s not appropriate to do.

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s true that we shouldn’t apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people. And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe vs. Wade probably hangs in the balance. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

Source: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008

1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother

As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship. But an unsigned–and previously unattributed– 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.The six-page summary considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

Obama’s article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libr

Source: Politico.com, “Obama’s lost law review article” Aug 22, 2008

FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush

Obama, who favors a legal right to abortion, noted that he was trying to “reduce the number of abortions.” But he went too far when he falsely accused President Bush of failing to meet that same goal, saying incorrectly that “over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.”This is an erroneous claim that we first tracked down and debunked more than three years ago when it was being repeated by Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, among others.

The Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are cited regularly by both sides in the abortion debate, say on their Web site, “In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000.”

There’s little to show the decline has come about because of anything President Bush did or didn’t do. In fact, the number of abortions in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the 1980s regardless of whether the person in the White House favored a legal right to abortion or opposed it.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Saddleback joint appearance Aug 16, 2008

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

  1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
  2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Undecided on whether life begins at conception

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception

We’ve actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we’re also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We’re not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy

“In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted ‘present” instead of “no’ on five horrendous anti-choice bills.”
–E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama’s record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama’s record on abortion, citing his “present” votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a ‘present’ vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote ‘present’ as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting ‘present,’ saying “They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes.” Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy

AT A GLANCE

  • Reproductive Choice: Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women’s right to choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies.

OBAMA’S PLAN

  • Protecting a Women’s Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
  • Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.

OBAMA RECORD

  • Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women’s right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.

Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007

Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice.

  • 2007: 100 percent
  • 2006: 100 percent
  • 2005: 100 percent

Source: NARAL voting record, http://www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008

Voted against banning partial birth abortion

Obama’s record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting “present” is the equivalent of voting “no” because a majority of “yes” votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the “present” vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting “no.” During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama’s “present” vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, “He ducked!”.In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases

Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:

  • Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  • Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
  • Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
  • Ensure Ethical Standards

Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, “Resource Flyers” Aug 26, 2007

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that’s where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. “Mr. Obama, I know you’re a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?”I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

“I will pray for you,” the protester said. “I pray that you have a change of heart.” Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism

When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far–that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.

I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution–that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison’s design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive

Q: [to Keyes]: Doesn’t your pro-life stance conflict with your support of the death penaty?KEYES: It doesn’t conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern. Abortion is intrinsically, objectively wrong and sinful whereas capital punishment is a matter of judgment, which is not in and of itself a violation of moral right. The question of whether or not you should apply capital punishment depends on circumstances and it’s an area where Catholics have a right to debate and disagree.

OBAMA: Now I agree with Mr. Keyes that the death penalty and abortion are separate cases. It’s unfortunate that with the death penalty Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in resolving a deeply emotional subject.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill

State Senator Barack Obama today called for passage of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act (HB 3589), which will permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. The bill, formerly known as the Stem Cell Research Act, was recently renamed to honor the memory of former President Ronald Reagan.The Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act specifically permits embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. Today, more than 100 million Americans are afflicted by medical problems [which could be affected by this research]. Obama says, “This bill affects diseases that attack Americans – regardless of their gender, age, economic status, ethnicity, race or political affiliation. This is about a commitment to medical research, under strict federal guidelines. I call on leaders in Illinois and President Bush in Washington to stop playing politics on this critical issue and expand the current policy on embryonic stem cell research so that we can begin finding the cures of tomorrow today.”

Source: Press Release, “Stem Cell Research Bill” Jun 16, 2004

Protect a woman’s right to choose

For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman’s right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities.Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004


Barack Obama on Voting Record

Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law

McCAIN: Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that. Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. That’s a matter of his record.OBAMA: If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. There was a bill that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it. With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception

Source: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008

Supports Roe v. Wade

Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

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 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:

  1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
  2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
  3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
  4. 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 NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature’s rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don’t. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, “Do they want their kids to come to their parents?”, absolutely. But if you ask them, “Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?”, they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate’s 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women’s health care. A YES vote would:

  • Increase funding and access to family planning services
  • Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
  • Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Obama introduced expanding contraceptive services for low-income womenOFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:

  1. prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
  2. include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory “categorically needy” group for family planning services purposes.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

    Congress makes the following findings:

  1. Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
  2. Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
  3. Contraceptive use reduces a woman’s probability of having an abortion by 85%.
  4. Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
  5. Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
  6. By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES — a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.

    Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

    Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

    Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issuesOnTheIssues.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, http://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

    Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

    Obama co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraceptionA 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
    8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
    9. 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

Hillary Clinton on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator (NY); Secretary of State-Designee

Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude

Q: Do you believe personally that life begins at conception?A: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy

From my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question [of abortion].I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government’s one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.

And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and ‘80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions

When Clinton said that pro-choice and pro-life people could find common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through increased access to birth control, it was called “an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run i 2008.” The Wall Street Journal described her alleged changes in position as a “makeover and move to the center that she’s now attempting.” NPR saw Clinton spinning in circles: “She is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time.”Yet she was not changing her position on anything. For her entire time in public life, Clinton has been pro-choice and has supported access to birth control. Pointing out that such access would reduce the number of abortions, something anti-abortion forces ought to favor, cannot fairly be described as a shift in any direction.

Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 Mar 25, 2008

Consistently uses Dem. Party line, “safe, legal, and rare”

After Senator Hillary Clinton gave a 2005 speech restating her long-held view that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” some pundits accused her of being “transparent” and taking a “poll-tested path,” despite the fact that the formulation had been a consistent part of Democratic rhetoric on the issue for over a decade. The speech was cited again and again whenever a journalist or commentator wanted to show that Clinton was “moving to the center,” evidence that she was massaging her actual views for political advantage. Yet McCain’s varying statements on abortion haven’t seemed to diminish his reputation for straight talk.Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.166 Mar 25, 2008

1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion

In 1974, Hillary met William F. Harrison, a prominent abortion doctor in Arkansas, who became her gynecologist and friend. In a series of interview for this book, Harrison shed some light on the development of Hillary’s pro-choice.Harrison is quick to point out that Hillary never saw him for an abortion. Harrison says he met Hillary simply as a result of her yearly ob-gyn exam.

This is an important point, since it would mean that Hillary’s support does not stem from a personal experience in which she had the procedure. Rather, Harrison estimates that a reason for her pro-choice stance is that she is a product of an age “where she would have had friends who had illegal abortions. I am sure that was part of it.”

Harrison says that when he met Hillary, she was already steadfast in her support of Roe v. Wade. He sees her upbringing as a Methodist as no reason to believe she would be against abortion. “Hillary is a Methodist. The Methodist Church is very strongly pro-choice.”

Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 49-50 Jul 18, 2007

1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion

Mrs. Clinton, during her efforts to revolutionize the health care industry, said 1993 that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” This prompted anxieties over the prospect of taxpayer-funded abortions, sparking the Coates Amendment, which sought to strip abortion funding from the plan.The first lady allowed for a “conscience exemption” in which doctors and hospitals would not be forced to perform abortions. Pro-lifers were relieved; still, they could not fathom that their tax dollars might be used to find what they saw as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

Mrs. Clinton’s words also ignited fears among moderate and conservative Christians over the availability of the abortion pill, RU-486, under her health care plan. One of her husband’s first acts in office was to push the pill to market through an expedited FDA approval process that was criticized by pro-lifers as allegedly too quick for the safety of the women who would take the pill.

Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.124-125 Jul 18, 2007

1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century

On January 22, 1999, Hillary took an unprecedented step for a first lady by delivering a speech to NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the premier advocacy group for legal, unrestricted abortion. Speaking to the group in DC, she stated her goal of “keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century,” a slogan that would become the mantra for her position. She shared revealing remarks beyond conventional pro-choice sentiments: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.191 Jul 18, 2007

Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases

Later today, the president will veto a bill passed by Congress to support stem cell research. I co-chair the Alzheimer’s Caucus in the Senate. I’ve worked on helping to boost funding for research to look for cures and a way to prevent so many devastating diseases. And we know that stem cell research holds the key to our understanding more about what we can do. When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research. This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science.Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007

1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right’s dominance

On the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed a series of executive orders undoing the draconian policies of the Reagan-Bush era relating to abortion, contraception, and family planning.Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill’s pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration’s first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun.

The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to suc personal questions was over.

Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.256-257 Jun 5, 2007

Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice

The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to such questions wa over, as was the ascendancy of the conservative movement.Yet, Hillary’s views of sexuality and the exercise of women’s reproductive rights were far more conservative than perceived at the time. While some of her friends had undergone abortions and ha been promiscuous, she had not. The idea of choosing to abort a child she had conceived would have been totally out of character and at odds with her own values. One of the fortunate facts of her life was that she was of the generation whose sexuality was fashioned in large measure by the pill and its easy availability. Her own difficulty in conceiving a child had only intensified her deeply held belief that abortion, for anyone, was a personal choice that should be made with the greatest reluctance.

Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.257 Jun 5, 2007

Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions, read the New York Times. It was 2005, and the story was about a speech Hillary had given. “Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”Hillary said: “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

Hillary is correct. Abortion is tragic. But why? What makes an abortion “sad, even tragic” is that an unborn child loses his life. Her “sad, even tragic” comment is not the first indication that Hillary believes it is indeed a child that is ripped from the womb during an abortion. In 2003, while debating a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions, Hillary referred to the unborn child as “the child, the fetus, your baby.”

[Nevertheless,] Hillary has spent a lifetime fighting to keep abortions legal.

Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p.134-136 May 14, 2007

Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market

In the last few years, we’ve seen major breakthroughs in research and effectiveness of contraceptives. For example, Plan B is a new emergency contraceptive that can prevent a pregnancy after another contraceptive has failed or after unprotected sex. I fought for years to get Plan B on the market, so that fewer women will face the choice of abortion. It is now available for over-the-counter use by adult women. I have proposed Prevention First, a bill that focuses on prevention of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education, emphasizing responsible decision-making and expanded access to contraception. With these efforts, it’s my hope that the abortion rate will fall further.Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p.301 Dec 12, 2006

Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too

Hillary has spoken clearly about the importance of respecting such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade. Her commitment to supporting Roe and working to reduce the number of abortions [includes] reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. As First Lady, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system.Source: PAC website, http://www.hillpac.com, “Biography” Nov 17, 2006

Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception

In 2006 Hillary teamed up with nominally pro-life Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and pushed to increase federal funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in order to “increase awareness” about unintended pregnancies.Senator Clinton co-wrote an editorial with Reid titled, “Abortion Debate Shuns Prevention.” The piece said, “As two senators on opposite sides of the abortion debate, we recognize that one side will not suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs And we believe that, while disagreeing, we can work together to find common ground.“

The ”common ground,“ was, once again, increased government–in this case government programs to promote contraception. The Prevention First Act, as they named it, would increase accessibility and ”awareness and understanding“ of emergency contraception. They aimed to ensure that sex education programs have medically accurate information about contraception and ”end insurance discrimination against women.“

Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 96-97 Oct 11, 2006

Government should have no role in abortion decision

Here is the paragraph in Hillary’s speech that everyone focused on:

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

The phrase that the neo-conservative pundits all left out, in describing the speech as remarkable, is that the abortion decision is “also one in which the government should have no role.” Put that in, and the rest of her description is totally unremarkable.Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p. 54 Oct 17, 2005

We can find common ground on abortion issue

Hillary advocates finding common ground with opponents: Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supports, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion–particularly members of religious groups–asserting that there was “common ground” to be found.Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 87 Sep 30, 2005

Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania

When I defend my pro-choice position in the debate over abortion in our country, I frequently refer to Romania, where pregnancy could be monitored on behalf of the state, & to China, where it could be forcibly terminated. One reason I continue to oppose efforts to criminalize abortion is that I do not believe any government should have the power to dictate, through law or police action, a woman’s most personal decision.[The Romanian dictatorship in the 1980s] banned birth control and abortion, insisting that women bear children for the sake of the state. Women told me how they had been carted from their workplace once a month to be examined by government doctors whose task was to make sure they weren’t using contraceptives or aborting pregnancies. I could not imagine a more humiliating experience.

In Romania and elsewhere, many children were born unwanted or into families that could not afford to care for them. They became wards of the state, warehoused in orphanages.

Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 354-5 Nov 1, 2003

Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement

Mother Teresa had just delivered a speech against abortion, and she wanted to talk to me. Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so. Over the years, she sent me dozens of notes & messages with the same gentle entreaty. Mother Teresa never lectured or scolded me; her admonitions were always loving & heartfelt. I had the greatest respect for her opposition to abortion, but I believe that it is dangerous to give any state the power to enforc criminal penalties against women & doctors. I consider that a slippery slope to state control in China & Communist Romania. I also disagreed with her opposition–and that of the Catholic Church–to birth control. However, I support the right of people of faith to speak out against abortion and try to dissuade women, without coercion or criminalization, from choosing abortion instead of adoption. Mother Teresa and I found much common ground in many other areas including the importance of adoption.Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.417-418 Nov 1, 2003

Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice

Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk

Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it “infanticide.” Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.

CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose

I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.Source: New York Times, pg.A11 Jan 22, 2000

Keep abortion safe, legal and rare

We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion

I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC Jan 22, 1999

Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems

Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. Jan 22, 1999

Supports parental notice & family planning

If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.

Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 Feb 3, 1997

Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning

The Cairo Document, drafted at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, reaffirms that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” And it recognizes “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so.” Women & men should have the right to make this most intimate of all decisions free of discrimination or coercion.Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p. 63 Sep 25, 1996


Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus
    Hillary’s votes all echo the liberal line in the Senate

  • She opposed the ban on partial birth abortions
  • She came down against criminalizing harm to a fetus during an attack on the mother
  • She opposed a travel ban to Cuba
  • She opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
  • She backed extending the ban on assault rifles for 10 years
  • She was against Bush’s tax cuts
  • She opposed repealing the estate tax
  • She opposed limits on class action lawsuits.

Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 85-86 Oct 11, 2005

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 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:

  1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
  2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
  3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
  4. 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 NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature’s rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don’t. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, “Do they want their kids to come to their parents?”, absolutely. But if you ask them, “Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?”, they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate’s 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women’s health care. A YES vote would:

  • Increase funding and access to family planning services
  • Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
  • Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Bill 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 S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as “partial-birth” abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women’s life is in danger, not for cases where a women’s health is in danger.Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003

Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.

Clinton is endorsed by EMILY’s list, a pro-choice PAC:EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”

Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting recordFor 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

Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the PresidentDear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.

We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration’s policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.

However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.

Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:

  • While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
  • All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
  • It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
  • Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.

We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Clinton sponsored expanding contraceptive services for low-income womenOFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:

  1. prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
  2. include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory “categorically needy” group for family planning services purposes.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

    Congress makes the following findings:

  1. Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
  2. Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
  3. Contraceptive use reduces a woman’s probability of having an abortion by 85%.
  4. Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
  5. Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
  6. By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES — a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.

    Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

    Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.

    Clinton sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victimsOFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:

    1. accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
    2. emergency contraception on her request; and
    3. 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.

    Clinton scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issuesOnTheIssues.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, http://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.

    Clinton sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilitiesRequires 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

    Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

    Clinton co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraceptionA 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
    8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
    9. 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.

    Clinton 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.

    Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm


%d bloggers like this: