Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 27, 2019, 03:03:10 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Rice 2008
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Rice 2008  (Read 4006 times)
Snowe08
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2005, 09:17:16 am »

Sure she could - in Maine. Wink
What's her stance on abortion?
Self-described as pro-choice; wants to reduce demand for abortion by addressing the forces which drive demand for abortion and improving sex-ed/contraception availability/reproductive health.

She offered an amendment to the partial-birth abortion ban bill which - in my view - would have rectified that bill's glaring failure (the lack of any provision for cases threatening the life of the mother); the amendment, which failed, might arguably have brought the Act into compliance with Supreme Court rulings and may therefore have precluded the act's failure in the Federal Courts.

"[L]et there be no mistake - I stand here today to reaffirm that no viable fetus should be aborted--by any method--unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Period." - Congressional Record, 10/22/03

"I was a co-sponsor of an amendment to the Late Term Abortion Limitation Act which sought to ban all abortions after viability except in cases where both the attending physician and an independent non-treating physician certify in writing that, in their medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous in jury to her physical health. This legislation defined "grievous injury" very narrowly as (1) a severely debilitating disease or impairment caused by or exacerbated by the pregnancy; or (2) an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life threatening condition." - Answer to Project Vote Smart NPAT test question

She has several times sponsored bills addressing reproductive health and its impact on abortion:

By establishing the research centers and incentives we propose in our bill, contraception options can be safely expanded: thus improving the lives of millions of American women and families; reducing substantial strains on our society; and, importantly, providing a forum for agreement, rather than acrimony, for those with differing views on abortion." (Congressional Record, 4/25/1990, p.H1695)

My deal is that I'm pro-life, but I find it incompatible for anyone to claim to be pro-life and to support abstinence-only education; that isn't being pro-life, it's being anti-abortion, and it's in outright denial of reality. The reality is that, while teaching abstinence is a great idea, and while abstinence should be taught, it shouldn't be taught in isolation; some people who probably should wait are not going to wait, and if we genuinely want to deal with abortion, if we genuinely want to reduce the numbers killed every day, we have to accept reality. Reality is that provision of sex ed and contraception will bring down the incidence of abortion, and it strikes me as faintly concerning that Dr. Frist seems to have become a convert to treating the symptom not the cause.

Sen. Snowe may not want abortion ever banned, but she wants it reduced, she has a proven track record of introducing measures which will help in that regard, and she has a proven track record of the kind of bipartisan co-operation that is necessary to achieve that goal. She and I share a similar path on abortion; being pro-life (and, I hope, a pragmatic one), I just want to go a little further down that path than she does.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,284
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2005, 09:33:54 am »

Sounds fine to me.

The problem with that is...if it sounds fine to me, it won't appeal to the Republican base.

We got this one poll here where basically all the pro-choice Dems say they'd vote for a pro-life Dem over a pro-choice Rep...and all the pro-life Reps say exactly the same...which is why I asked my question, actually.
Logged
Snowe08
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2005, 09:56:20 am »

Sounds fine to me.

The problem with that is...if it sounds fine to me, it won't appeal to the Republican base.

We got this one poll here where basically all the pro-choice Dems say they'd vote for a pro-life Dem over a pro-choice Rep...and all the pro-life Reps say exactly the same...which is why I asked my question, actually.
You're almost certainly right - by for my $0.02, if a person refuses to vote for a candidate who will work assiduously to reduce the number of abortions carried out, just because that candidate describe themselves as pro-choice, then that person isn't pro-life, in my opinion. I'm a pragmatist; to borrow Clinton's phrasing, I will work with any takers to make abortion safe - for the mother, at any rate - and rare, and we can argue about the "legal" part once it's "rare". This "all or nothing" approach advocated by some of the more hysterical commentators, which regrettably, the Hon. Sen. Santorum appears to have adopted, smacks of playing politics with the lives of our children.


This is why it's very important to me to draw a very clear line between those who are merely anti-abortion and those who are legitimately pro-life. I stand with the latter group, and although I never thought I'd be going out of my way to support a candidate who is pro-choice, it's a funny old world. Sometimes politics means making choices and compromises that you're not comfortable with because it's what it necessary in the bigger picture.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC