Dear Hillary,

I recently published a diary, [Daily Kos] Hillary Clinton, the Feminist who is Open to Taking Choice out of "Pro-Choice." It tells the story of Taylor Mahaffey, a woman denied modern medical care by doctors who were in tears; their hands were tied by late-term abortion “pregnancy” regulations (as you now call them) in the state of Texas. The article also tells my own story: a woman who discovered after 20 weeks that my fetus would not survive due to severe fetal anomalies. If late-term “pregnancy” regulations had been in effect in my state, I too might have suffered like Taylor, [Daily Kos] a woman forced to continue a doomed pregnancy against her will and against the advice of her doctors. That possibility still haunts me today. I speak out now in an attempt to prevent future women from suffering. How can I live with myself if I do not?

While reading comments in the prior diary, I realized that many voters are not familiar with key aspects of Roe v. Wade. If one is not familiar with one’s rights, they can be taken away relatively easily. I provide some very basic information below.

Hillary, some of your statements at the Fox News Democratic Presidential Town Hall event held on March 7th disturbed me greatly. I have a deeply personal understanding of the impact of the words you said and also the important words you did not say. When pressed by Bret Baier about restrictions on abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy, [Daily Kos] you replied:

I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. — Hillary Clinton, March 7, 2016

These words make me enormously uneasy in two different ways:

• First, your answer is very different from the classic pro-Choice view that feminists and Democrats have been fighting to defend for literally decades, which is:
  

  EACH pregnant woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion!

  Choice means choice! What else could it possibly mean? To say one is pro-Choice while being “in favor” of situations where women do not have it … what kind of a fucking choice is that?

  You are in favor of regulation, Hillary? Is this honestly correct? I cannot believe it to be true. The purpose of regulation is to APPROVE and DENY — the purpose of “late pregnancy” regulation is to DENY abortions that are not “approved” by “the state”. The very thought sends chills right down my spine. Republicans want such regulations because their goal is to outlaw as many abortions as they can; Democrats know this. Hillary, why would you help them? Have you been hearing from Democratic women that they too want to outlaw some abortions? Do Democratic women want their choices to be restricted in this way? Because honestly, Hillary, I have not been hearing that at all. I still cannot believe that you — a woman, a longtime Democrat, a feminist who is backed by Gloria Steinem and “[Daily Kos] Planned fucking Parenthood ” [in the words of one of your supporters] — actually hold this view. Yet the undeniable facts are: you made your statement to Bret Baier, you have made similar statements on prior occasions, and you have apparently not retracted any of them.

• Second, you left out one of the two key players in any pregnancy. We all know that there are two, right? One is the mother, of course. The other one is … the fetus. You did not mention exceptions for the life and health of the fetus. I know that the birth of every healthy baby is a precious miracle, Hillary. Every woman who has ever miscarried learns this lesson in a personal and painful way. My fetus was one of the unlucky ones, who never get a certain sprinkle of magic fairie dust. Instead, something went horribly wrong inside my womb, and my tiny miracle died.

  I believe that thinking about such pregnancies is painful for many people, and so we cope by unconsciously trying to forget they exist. I empathize with this reaction, and even suffer from it myself to some degree. However ... to completely forget about these almost-a-mothers is almost criminal, Hillary. To pass and approve legislation that denies them the medical treatment that their doctors desperately want to proscribe — I think that is nothing less than a sin.

Can you see why your statement makes me uneasy? Leaving out one, tiny little word — the word fetus — makes an enormous difference to women who are already in much pain. It means the difference between humane medical care in their hour of need, and unthinkable, shocking cruelty.

• HAVE YOU HEARD THE STORY OF TAYLOR MAHAFFEY?
• YOU KNOW ABOUT ROE V. WADE, RIGHT?
• ROE V. WADE OPENED THE DOOR TO TRAGIC FORCED BIRTH SCENARIOS
• PRO-CHOICE? OR PRO-ROE?
• STEADFAST CHAMPION? EXPAND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

HAVE YOU HEARD THE STORY OF TAYLOR MAHAFFEY?

Taylor Mahaffey seems to be a nice woman whose only apparent “crime” was wanting to become a mother. When she learned that her 20 week old baby would not survive, her heart was broken. Can you imagine the emotional pain? She had been “expecting” for months, brimming with joy and hope and sweet dreams for the future, and then suddenly her world came crashing down. When the same thing happened to me, I went through the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. I have an image seared into my brain of my doctor with a horrified look on her face; it refuses to go away. She advised that I have a D&C, and lucky for me, I lived in a state that allowed me to have one. Thank you so very much, Jesus, for allowing me to have that D&C. I was treated with nothing but kindness, but still cried the entire time. Taylor was not so lucky — she lives in a state where late-term “pregnancy” regulations have been enacted, Texas, and because of those regulations she was DENIED the medical treatment her doctors wanted to give to her:

The doctors and nurses at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin cried with them, but said because of Texas law HB2, they could not help speed Taylor’s labor. Technically, the baby was healthy and the mother was healthy, so to induce labor would be an abortion, and to do it at this stage in the pregnancy would be illegal.

Taylor and her husband were told to go home and wait for nature to take its course, as the saying goes. I go a little bit crazy when trying to imagine what I might have felt if the same instructions had been given to me. That poor woman … that poor, poor woman.

They prayed conflicting prayers: for a miracle that might save him and for an end to their baby’s suffering. Daniel worried his wife would hemorrhage while Taylor could feel the baby struggling inside of her, Daniel said. Taylor declined to speak for this article.

When Taylor started bleeding, they went back to the hospital, but with Fox’s heart still beating, doctors couldn’t legally interfere.

“Eventually she was just screaming at them to get the child out of her,” Daniel said.

Can you even imagine what she went through, Hillary? And can you tell me why? Why on earth was she forced by law … in America, in the twenty-first century … to be treated in this way? It could have been me, Hillary. It fucking could have been me.

The undeniable truth is that late-term “pregnancy” regulations enacted by politicians were responsible for the excruciating ordeal forced upon her.

Those regulations neglected to include sufficient exceptions for the life and health of the fetus, and the lack of those exceptions condemned Taylor.

Not for a moment do I think that anyone involved with these regulations hoped or intended for any woman to suffer as Taylor did. These people are merely flawed human beings, as we all are, who did not anticipate the results of their actions. Human beings make mistakes.

Nevertheless, these politicians are directly responsible for what happened to Taylor: she was denied humane medical care because of the late-term “pregnancy” regulations they enacted.

YOU KNOW ABOUT ROE V. WADE, RIGHT?

I believe you must have studied Roe v. Wade very carefully, Hillary. I’m sure you know exactly what it says and what it doesn’t say. How could you not? How could you, and Planned Parenthood, and NARAL, not know the exact limits of Roe?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Roe says there are two interests:

1. the life and health of the mother and
2. the life and health of the fetus (“the potentiality of human life.”)

Re the life and health of the mother — things seem pretty clear. Roe says that mothers have rights.

• Roe says exceptions for the life and health of the mother must be provided.

Re the life and health of the fetus — things are not clear. Roe is silent.

• Roe essentially says exceptions for the life and health of the fetus are not required (because of the simple fact that such exceptions are not even discussed).

Hillary, I have been looking at statements you have made over the years. In some ways your views have been extremely consistent:

• Exceptions for the life and health of the mother are always provided
• Exceptions for the life and health of the fetus are never mentioned
• You believe that states should have the right to regulate and limit abortions

When I compare these parts of your statements to Roe, the similarity is uncanny. However, In some ways your views appear to have evolved over time:

• You no longer support parental consent requirements, as you did in 1996.
• Your language has softened and become more vague over time. For example, are both of the following statements equivalent? I’m not sure.
• As late as 2000 you said:
  “I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions ... ”
• In March 2016, your words were:
  “I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation ...”

What does that last statement actually mean? In the past you have been on record for waiting periods, and also never mentioned exceptions for the life and health of the fetus. Should I assume that is your current view today? I don’t want to ASSUME, I want to KNOW ...

As I see it, by being open to late term “pregnancy” regulations, you may be trying to position yourself to conservative voters as a different, more “reasonable” kind of Democrat; one who is willing to compromise on matters that are important to both sides. However, by positioning yourself in this way, you also appear to be willing to sacrifice women like Taylor and me as some kind of disposable bargaining chips in order to win the presidency. As a woman yourself, how can you be willing to do this, Hillary? What if Chelsea was in need of a late-term abortion, and was denied one by the state as Taylor Mahaffey was? Would you still be in favor of “pregnancy” regulations, or would you condemn them as the vile political ploy they actually are?

ROE V. WADE OPENED THE DOOR TO TRAGIC FORCED BIRTH SCENARIOS

Roe says the state can pass late-term regulations to “protect” the fetus, which on its face seems reasonable. Forced birthers have been trying to exploit this provision by spreading false, horrible propaganda that is purposely designed to inflame the passions of those who hear it — worse yet, their lies seem to be leaving a mark. Visions of slut-women dance in our heads: irresponsible beings who would callously murder innocent babies rather than suffer any consequences for their loose-woman ways. For example, listen to what Marco Rubio said at the Republican debate on Feb. 6, 2016:

Here’s what I find outrageous. There has been five Democratic debates. The media has not asked them a single question on abortion and on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child.

Has anyone ever met a woman such as Rubio describes, someone who waddles up to the hospital on their due date and tells the doctors she is ready for her abortion now? Of course not, the idea is ludicrous. One reason why these false notions persist is that the real women who have had these medical procedures avoid talking about them because of the painful memories. The silence that comes directly out of our grief makes us perfect scapegoats. We are falsely painted as monsters by ruthless politicians who have discovered there are large political rewards to be reaped by demonizing us.

Perhaps many do not realize it, but Roe opened the door to scenarios that the justices who decided it may not have envisioned:

• Women in (heavily forced birther) states can be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy, because state politicians have collectively agreed that such actions are smiled upon by God.

  Let’s call this the God Is Great Scenario.

  There are many in this country who believe abortion is wrong in all cases, even in the case of rape and incest, and even when a child has severe birth defects. Consider this story from the forced birther community: Baby Marley Born With Anencephaly Gives Hope to Others. Visit the wiki page for Anencephaly to see examples of other “imperfect” babies, who survive days at most after birth. But I warn you, the images are disturbing.

• Women in some states can be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy because legislation is badly written in a couple of different ways:
  1. Perhaps politicians simply did not realize that the life and the health of the fetus was something that needed to be addressed in the bill, and thus exceptions have not been provided. Oops.

     Let’s call this the Dumb and Dumber Scenario.

  2. The life and the health of the fetus may have been considered, however certain medical situations were not anticipated and thus exceptions have not been provided for them.

     Let’s call this the Close But No Cigar Scenario.

     Or maybe the Taylor, Please Accept Our Humble Apologies Scenario.

What I have seen is that even “well-intentioned” late-term “pregnancy” regulations have the tendency to fall into the Close But No Cigar Scenario — politicians and voters simply do not understand the true consequences of the bills.

Which is not at all surprising because … Politicians are not trained doctors! They don’t have a license to practice medicine! The likelihood that they will pass “good” legislation that makes exceptions for all possible medical scenarios is extremely low.

On the other hand, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to uphold ethical standards and provide appropriate medical care to all of their patients. No respectable doctor would be an accomplice to infanticide if a baby is viable; they would induce labor instead. Roe v. Wade does not require doctors to comply with murderous requests from their patients.

Late-term “pregnancy” regulations are actually a tremendous insult toward those in the medical profession:

• Regulations take medical decisions out of the hands of trained doctors, and
• Regulations force trained doctors to take actions other than ones they deem to be medically appropriate.

Politicians should not be allowed to “play doctor” with the LIVES of WOMEN in this way.

Why can’t we just let doctors be doctors, so they can give each and every patient the appropriate care that they need? Not only is that the BEST solution, it is also the EASIEST solution.

Being open to late-term “pregnancy” regulations is almost like lifting the lid of Pandora’s box: we cannot comprehend all the evils that will come rushing out once the box is opened.

Isn’t it better to simply keep the box closed, which has always been the official Democratic party position? If we never create “pregnancy” regulations, we can be 100% certain that we won’t create FLAWED “pregnancy” regulations that make innocent women suffer in the way that Taylor did.

PRO-CHOICE? OR PRO-ROE?

Hillary, you appear to be playing around with the definition of the word pro-Choice. Your stance is simply not the same as the one that has been used as a litmus test by feminists for — I don’t know, forever? — when giving their support to political candidates. Litmus test, as in: a feminist will not give a vote to any politician that does not believe that women have the right to make this choice for themselves.

Pro-Choice verbiage has been a plank in the Democratic National Platform for years, including the latest one from 2012:

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

Merriam-Webster defines pro-Choice this way:

In the past, the meaning of pro-Choice has always been very clear:

Hillary, based on your willingness to impose late term restrictions as allowed by Roe v. Wade, I think your position would more aptly be called pro-Roe — which is something very different:

Roe is silent regarding doomed pregnancy, so your pro-Roe position terrifies me.

1. Roe does not require States to provide exceptions for the life and health of the fetus.
2. You are also silent on doomed pregnancy. Please tell me: where do you stand?

• Taylor’s life and health was never at risk.
• It was only the life of her fetus that was at risk
• My life and health were also never at risk.
• It was only the life and the health of my fetus that were at risk

The bottom line: pro-Roe is a STEP BACKWARD from pro-Choice.

Pro-Roe puts women like Taylor and me at the mercy of state politicians, who can accidentally or intentionally write laws that force us to carry doomed pregnancies against our will.

Pro-Choice protects women like Taylor and me: it protects our right to choose what is best for us.

Hillary Clinton: I Could Compromise on Abortion If It Included Exceptions For Mother's Health:

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action. — Hillary Clinton, September 2015

Such a stance makes my blood run cold. You are considered to be a great and mighty feminist, Hillary, yet you are willing to compromise on abortion? WTF? Am I living in some kind of parallel universe? Consider this response, which speaks for me:

I’m totally cool with the idea of compromise … But you know what I’m not cool with? Politicians compromising on issues that have a) already been settled and b) offer no good trade off in return. So when I hear that Hillary Clinton is telling people she’d be willing to compromise on abortion as long as protections for the health of the mother are written into any new legislation, it about makes me want to eat my hat.

You are simply wrong on this issue, Hillary. Don’t compromise on issues that have already been settled! Don’t move the cause of feminism backward! Please don’t play around with what it means to be pro-Choice. Why on earth would you consider doing this? That is one hell of a concession — for what greater cause are you willing to make it?

Choice means choice! Please protect every woman’s right to choose, especially women like me whose only crime is that we want to be mothers. Please don’t sacrifice us in the name of “getting things done.”

STEADFAST CHAMPION? EXPAND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

Hillary, when Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) endorsed you in January, they said:

Let’s be clear — when it comes to issues like birth control, abortion, and access to services at Planned Parenthood, both leading Democratic candidates for president have great records, and would make a great president. In fact, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both rated 100% on Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s congressional scorecard fortheir perfect voting records on women’s health and rights, and have been strong defenders of Planned Parenthood.

They also said

With so much at stake in this election, we need someone who will do more than just defend reproductive rights — we need a steadfast champion who will fight to expand them, and do so not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.

Hillary, I submit that when you and Bernie Sanders agreed to speak before the Fox News audience in March, you were walking into a bit of a lion’s den. Preaching before the choir is easy. Preaching before lions is not. We all know this. So you and Bernie were both put to a bit of a test that day.

In that setting, Bernie proved himself to be a true and steadfast champion of women’s rights. He told the snarling lions that he firmly stands behind a woman’s right to choose. You on the other hand? Hillary, you wavered. Pema Levy at Mother Jones describes what happened this way:

On one issue in particular, the difference between Sanders' unmistakable stance and Clinton's qualified one is becoming increasingly apparent—and it's an issue that's as close to a litmus test for Democratic voters as any: abortion. [...]

But her stance leaves open the question of whether a woman's right to an abortion would be protected if a fetal abnormality is detected late in her pregnancy that does not threaten her life or health.

Hillary, you have not even become the official Democratic nominee, and already you have demonstrated your willingness to cede ground to forced birthers. And you have done this voluntarily, in other words, “when it’s easy.” WTF will you be willing to cede “when it’s hard”?

Very simply, you are not the “steadfast champion” that Planned Parenthood portrays you to be. Shame on you, and shame on Planned Parenthood for either not understanding your views on this issue, or choosing to overlook them for their own political reasons.

What happened to Taylor could have happened to me. It fucking could have happened to me. I sincerely hope that none of your loyal supporters, or any woman that they love, ever finds themselves in need of a late-term abortion. These procedures are not nearly as much fun as they apparently seem to be, and if they live in a state that denies their request … I pray that heaven helps them, especially when or if modern “feminists” and “Democrats” are unwilling to do so.