Edwards: "Could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision" on abortion

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Statement On Supreme Court Ruling On Federal Abortion Ban
John Edwards for President
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/200700418-federal-ban/

[w4rma]

1. Very good. (nt)

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick (nt).

[rockymountaindem]

3. Good

At least not everybody has gone crazy, haircuts be damned.

[JNelson6563]

4. That's 3 very find statements

from three Dem candidates. Well said all! :toast:

Julie

[AzDar]

5. Kick...n/t

:kick:

[chimpymustgo]

6. Let's talk about what's real. k and r

nt

[The Count]

8. yeah! Like the roll call for the Senate bill and who could have SHOWN disagreement

but chose to duck! I mean, man, even Joementum had more spine!

[The Count]

7. Then why did you duck the vote for the bill? (abortion ban bill, that is?)Talk is cheap.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

[benny05]

15. He was out of town

As Kerry and Biden were, I suppose.

[The Count]

20. Aww, that explains it! Not even an "oops" needed for that I see...next time a woman dies

as a result of this "out of town" business you be sure to explain her (as I am sure you explain the IWR oops to those killed in Iraq). He was still cashing his Senator checks at the time, right? Ya' now, the position the people of his state elected him to, in order to represent him?
As I said:

FLUFF IN, FLUFF OUT AND OOPS ABOUT BOO-BOOS

[FrenchieCat]

25. I have to agree that if one didn't "bother" to vote on an issue which has now

become the Law of the Land; talking about it now really doesn't really "do" much to affect that policy. :shrug:
------------------
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 3 As Amended )
Vote Number: 51 Vote Date: March 13, 2003, 09:45 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 3
Measure Title: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 64
NAYs 33
Not Voting 3
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

Of those currently running for President who could have voted or did vote (Nay being the correct vote):
Biden (D-DE), Didn't vote
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Didn't vote

It would seem that those who didn't find this issue important enough to vote on it when they could have would serve themselves better to not have anything to say on the matter now that the Supreme Court has ruled.....cause it takes more than mere words to impact something that wasn't worth the effort at the time.....in particular, now that it is considered the law of the land.

[saltpoint]

9. Edwards is right once again. This time we all can decide if we

want a Republican to choose the next Supreme Court appointments or a Democrat.

I vote for the Democrat.

[The Count]

11. Even one that votes one way and talks another? You're easy to please!

I think after failing to vote against this (Lieberman voted,for goodness sake!), he should STFU on the subject!

[Mass]

13. This was during the campaign - How did he vote for previous votes?

(Though he did not vote for the conference report either, so you may be right).

[saltpoint]

16. As always, Count, you've captured the spirit of representative democracy

in just a few sentences.

Keep up the good work.

[saltpoint]

17. Any English teachers in the house?

Is yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court, no matter one's personal feeling about it, not the topic sentence/theme of the OP?

Just checkin'.

[citizen snips]

22. Actually Edwards has an outstanding pro-choice record

that is why he rated 100% by NARAL

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

[The Count]

26. Outstanding - by lack of voting? That's some trick! Politics are something else!

[citizen snips]

29. Ignore the facts

I really don't care

[The Count]

31. Which facts - the actual roll call? here it is - again:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

[Mass]

10. This is the minimum we can expect from a Democratic candidate.

Nothing extraordinary here.

[The Count]

12. Actually, I expect having voted against the ban as well. But that's just me.

I have this thing about integrity.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

[abburdlen]

14. I'm glad he's on the correct side

of this issue. If he becomes President I hope he does more to prevent such backward laws than he did as my Senator.

[The Count]

19. at least in rhetoric if not in deeds. As in all matters. happy, happy, joy, joy!

[JohnLocke]

18. Kick (nt).

[citizen snips]

21. John Edwards is rated 100% by NARAL

He has a good pro-choice voting record.

[The Count]

24. Obviously they forgot to read the roll call for this one....but hey, he's also

an "anti-war" candidate, so, why should I be surprised at this new disguise? I guess NARAL bought the "he was out of town" thinghie?

[FrenchieCat]

27. Since Edwards didn't bother to vote, the NARAL count doesn't "count" that non vote n/t

[The Count]

32. How conveeenient! And they say I don't COUNT!

They sure are appreciated it as well:

[abburdlen]

28. I stopped giving money to NARAL

when they endorsed Lieberman over Lamont.

[citizen snips]

30. Edwards supported Lamont

I don't see a correlation.

[abburdlen]

34. I still wholeheartly agree

with NARAL mission statement. Their goals and mine are the same.
but the organization's choice to endorse Lieberman rather than Lamont struck me the wrong way. On the pro-choice front Joe has done some good but it was obvious he was a Bush enabler and it would have been better for NARAL to have sat out the CT senate race at least.
But they didn't and it makes me question the organizations political wisdom.
A 100% NARAL is nice but I would have like Edwards to have voiced his strong objection to the law with a Nay vote when he had the chance.

fair enough?

[The Count]

33. That was asinine, but at least Joementum VOTED against the ban! I'll stop

supporting them now - over their Edwards endorsement.
As for Edwards' support of Lamont - it was in an "oops" way - like just about everything else is praised here...(anti-war, pro-choice, champion of the poor - all at odds with his actions)

Anyway, your point about NARAL confirms to me that their political stands are not always principled.

[The Count]

23. In case you forgot, the bill he failed to vote on was signed on this photo-op