Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TRANSCRIPT: Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Hillary Clinton discussing Partial Birth Abortion
Thomas ^ | 03-13-03 | Senate

Posted on 03/13/2003 10:05:03 AM PST by Registered

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-142 next last
To: sauropod
If you missed this on C-Span yesterday, you will want to read it. Santorum was great.
21 posted on 03/13/2003 10:49:51 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Abortion (PB) Bookmark
22 posted on 03/13/2003 10:50:36 AM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Man, the cat was ON!

(Quick, name that reference!)

Dan
23 posted on 03/13/2003 10:52:28 AM PST by BibChr (Gotta love these guys who are smarter than God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
"Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Hillary Clinton discussing Partial Birth Abortion"

Hmph. I didn't even know they were seeing each other.

24 posted on 03/13/2003 10:55:04 AM PST by theDentist (So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hispanarepublicana
Excellent suggestion. Done.
25 posted on 03/13/2003 11:07:51 AM PST by Bahbah (Pray for our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Registered
The chart that Sen. Santorum is refering to, was right behind him to his right. The C-Span camera kept most of it out of view except on a few occasions. The chart showed a medical cut-away graphic of a baby being born, head not yet out, little legs dangling between latex gloved hands..perfectly formed.

Santorum went on to address Clinton:

The other thing you said was the chart I had up is ``deceptive.'' I am very curious about how you came to that conclusion. Is it deceptive because it shows a perfectly formed baby?

Thank YOU Sen. Santorum.

The camera didn't show Madam Serpents face, but I certainly could imagine her recoil.

26 posted on 03/13/2003 11:07:59 AM PST by aeronca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Mrs. CLINTON. We are talking about those few rare cases when a doctor had to look across a desk at a woman and say, I hate to tell you this, but the baby you wanted, the baby you care so much about, that you are carrying, has a terrible abnormality.

Yes, he/she will be born a liberal nonthinking person. The good news is, their brain will hardly ever be used.

27 posted on 03/13/2003 11:16:46 AM PST by Dad was my hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
They would much rather criminalize a health procedure than improve women's health.

I love that: "a health procedure!" Like removing a wart. It is only tissue. You would be surprised the number of women (in college no less) that do not really know what occurs in a partial birth abortion. Maybe Hildebeast could educate them....

Is this bill really about what the sponsors say, or is it, as they candidly admit, the beginning of the end--to go back in this country to back-alley abortions, to women dying from botched, illegal procedures? I think you can draw your own conclusions.

Did the silly cow ever hear of birth control, or, heaven forbid, abstaining until marriage? How about that non-sexual means of relief practiced by her husband: oral sex with a person the age of your own daughter?

My reading of the legislative language you have put forth, makes a very clear argument that this is a slippery slope; that there are going to be not only difficulties in defining procedures, but the fact is that once you have criminalized this procedure, what doctor will perform any medically necessary procedure?

The slippery slope works both ways. Once human life has been rendered worthless, you can't easily go back. She keeps calling it "medically necessary." See below.

Is the Senator aware of Ron Fitzsimmons who runs the Association of Abortion Clinics? He has said, when the argument was made by many of the people Senator Boxer and Senator Murray and yourself referred to, who came forward and talked about this being medically necessary or necessary because of complications late in pregnancy--Ron Fitzsimmons said he lied through his teeth when he gave that argument? That was his term. He said, ``I lied through my teeth'' that this was the case. He said it is a dirty little secret, and we all know--those are his terms--that late-term abortions are performed, and the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies.

I refer the Senator to the State of Kansas where they have to report the reason for a partial-birth abortion; 182 were done last year, or the year before, and of those 182, none--zero--were done because of a problem with the child or a physical problem with the mother. They were classified as mental health.

What if the woman has a fight, gets a divorce etc., and doesn't want to bear the child of her husband or ex? Maybe we should have a waiting period similar to that the libs are trying to impose on gun owners. A nice 3 month cooling off period might be necessary!!!

Thank you, Senator Santorum.

28 posted on 03/13/2003 11:23:56 AM PST by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Thanks for posting this thread .. I was so proud of my Senator Santorum yesterday
29 posted on 03/13/2003 11:24:58 AM PST by Mo1 (RALLY FOR AMERICA - VALLEY FORGE,PA MARCH 16, 2003 1:00 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
BUMP!!!!!!!
30 posted on 03/13/2003 11:27:01 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Hillary, once a murderer always a murderer.
31 posted on 03/13/2003 11:30:00 AM PST by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always Flexable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Yes. Senator Santorum came up against Mrs. Screwtape, and was the victor. All of the little Wormwoods are scampering about now, they now their end is nigh !!!
32 posted on 03/13/2003 11:31:04 AM PST by let us cross over the river
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WarSlut
ping
33 posted on 03/13/2003 11:31:49 AM PST by cgk (the Mrs half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
That is one of the other reasons we had to do Roe v. Wade, because is it fair that we have that kind of distinction made on the basis of class or income instead of the basis of law?

You know, it seems to me that lots of rich people get away with a lot of crimes that poor people get caught for. Like drugs, for instance.

Does that mean Sen. Clinton is in favor of legalizing them?

Anyway, the argument is specious. When abortion was illegal, people of means who got abortions in America were just as guilty of breaking the law as anyone eles. That they could afford more competent lawbreaking doctors does not change that.

As for the idea that we had to change our laws because some poeple could fly to Sweden for abortions, if that is a basis for legislating, that our sovereginity ends at the borders, then we might as well have no laws whatsoever.

SD

34 posted on 03/13/2003 11:32:38 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hispanarepublicana
The link to the bill on Thomas
35 posted on 03/13/2003 11:53:08 AM PST by gridlock (This tag line printed with soy-based electrons on 100% post-cosumer ether.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
You're right: There is simply no logic to Hillary's statement that the rich can get abortions ( implying that it was at the time it was illegal), then the poor should be able to get them, too.

Somehow, I'm getting the feeling that Hiilary knows someone in particular, of means, who had an abortion prior to Roe vs Wade. It may have been a classmate at Wellsley or Yale but I truly believe she has a "secret". Something may be in her thesis which has been sealed.

36 posted on 03/13/2003 12:03:56 PM PST by Sacajaweau (Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Registered
read later - and anti-Hillary ammunition
37 posted on 03/13/2003 12:10:39 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Bookmarked! bump
38 posted on 03/13/2003 12:24:01 PM PST by CanisMajor2002 (Annoy a liberal...judge them by the content of their character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
I've been researching news articles at the Library and there are many abortion articles during the 1800's. The index indicates that many involved arrests. I'll copy what may be fruitful. This is not my normal field of research.
39 posted on 03/13/2003 12:28:41 PM PST by Sacajaweau (Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hispanarepublicana
how do you bookmark a thread?
40 posted on 03/13/2003 12:29:15 PM PST by votelife (call the Dem Senate cloakroam for Estrada: (202) 224-4691)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-142 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson