Do we really want our next Commander-in-Chief to have this kind of philosophy and voting record? What kind of character does this candidate portray with a record like this?

Information was gathered from the site ontheissues.org

Hillary Clinton on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator (NY)

Sub-sections under Abortion:
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Abortion

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

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. Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p.301 Dec 12, 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

Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania (but we live in America)

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

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  (but look at her vote on it below)

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 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 record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President

Dear 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