Colorado Dem Mark Udall: Why yes, I support the right to late-term sex-selective abortions

posted at 5:51 pm on October 8, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via John McCormack of the Standard, you would think I’d have learned by now not to be surprised by anything a Democrat says about abortion, but here I am, surprised. I thought the curveball at the end of the clip below about sex-selective abortions would give Udall pause. It’s one thing to back late-term abortions as part of a frantic “war on women” campaign against Cory Gardner, but how do you square faux-concern for women with wanting to legalize abortions targeting little girls because they’re girls? That’s what the euphemism “sex-selective” means, after all. You would think Udall would have come prepared with some sort of feasibility dodge for that: “Well, of course sex-selective abortion is terrible, but any legal regime that permits abortion will have difficulty policing for motive. The solution to sex-selective abortion is cultural pressure and education, not criminal statutes.” But he can’t say that because it would have him expressing disapproval of abortion, however qualified, and 95 percent of his campaign at this point is about pandering to core Democratic single women voters to carry him over the finish line. (They don’t call him “Mark Uterus” for nothing.) The interviewer could have asked him how he’d feel about “abortion” via live birth followed by dropping the baby off a skyscraper and he’d mumble something about “choice” and move on to the next question.

According to one poll, 77 percent of Americans support bans on sex-selective abortions. Another poll shows 56 percent support for bans on abortion generally after 20 weeks, i.e. late-term abortion. Udall is, as a matter of simple math, far out of the mainstream in his opinions. But you’ll rarely see him called what he is — an extremist — in the media because abortion fanaticism is within most reporters’ personal Overton windows of acceptable positions for “mainstream” politicians to take. (Which is also why the media didn’t pick up the Kermit Gosnell horror show until pro-life writers like Mollie Hemingway and Kirsten Powers embarrassed them over it in op-eds.)

Anyway, here’s the guy whom John McCain won’t campaign against because his dad was super-nice to a young Maverick years ago. Onward to victory.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Udall must be Blanche Lincolned!

Schadenfreude on October 8, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Judgment awaits you Mr. Uterus.

hillsoftx on October 8, 2014 at 5:55 PM

desire for power and evil will eventually walk hand in hand right into the hand basket.

ledbylight on October 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Thanks for reminding me what a disgrace McCain is, although it doesn’t matter whether or not he campaigns, because no one listens to him anymore anyways.

Tom Servo on October 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM

How about late term sexuality-selective abortions, Mr Udall?

HumpBot Salvation on October 8, 2014 at 5:57 PM

I’ve been saying for awhile – this guy’s whole campaign is nothing but abortion and birth control.
He’s got nothing else.

dentarthurdent on October 8, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Seems like a really nice guy. Principled.

butch on October 8, 2014 at 5:57 PM

That’s my senator, Mr “I’m the last person the White House wants to see walking up their lawn.” *Sigh*

RblDiver on October 8, 2014 at 5:58 PM

but how do you square faux-concern for women with wanting to legalize abortions targeting little girls because they’re girls?

His campaign is being pumped with chinese money and he will repay them chinese once he is in office ?

burrata on October 8, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Did you notice the name of the establishment in the foreground as the video starts?

“Butcher”

How apropos……

Opposite Day on October 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Problem is that the GOP is afraid to attack Dems on late term abortion because they would rather avoid abortion altogether. They think it’s an issue they can’t win on. Don’t expect the GOP to use late term abortion against Clinton in 2016 even though it is the ideal issue to push back on.

Mark1971 on October 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Could this be Udall’s, Aiken or Mourdock moment?

Tater Salad on October 8, 2014 at 6:03 PM

How about late term sexuality-selective abortions, Mr Udall?

HumpBot Salvation on October 8, 2014 at 5:57 PM

James O’Keefe, you wanna help out here ?
:O

burrata on October 8, 2014 at 6:04 PM

A GOP candidate could even be pro-abortion and not be this crazy.

Tater Salad on October 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Colorado Dem Mark Udall: Why yes, I support the right to late-term sex-selective abortions

Used to be called Eugenics

workingclass artist on October 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM

But, but, but, Cory Gardner is the real extremist when it comes to abortion or something.

Resist We Much on October 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Could this be Udall’s, Aiken or Mourdock moment?

Tater Salad on October 8, 2014 at 6:03 PM

That it may not be tells us how far over the cliff we’ve gone as a nation.

Bitter Clinger on October 8, 2014 at 6:07 PM

The REAL War On Women finally comes to light.

I may be mistaken but I believe ONLY SIX STATES prohibit sex selective abortions.
A disgusting practice to be sure – what are we the freakin Chinese?

FYI…

Sex-Selection in America: Part 3 – Undercover in Arizona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q6_Nx3f4EU

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 6:07 PM

“I support Roe v. Wade” – Mark Udall

“I do support the protections provided by Roe.” – Noah Rothman

Pork-Chop on October 8, 2014 at 6:08 PM

James O’Keefe, you wanna help out here ?
:O

burrata on October 8, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Here:

Sex-Selection in America: Part 3 – Undercover in Arizona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q6_Nx3f4EU

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 6:08 PM

What happened to the liberal line of “abortions should be safe, legal, and rare”.

Tater Salad on October 8, 2014 at 6:09 PM

This morally corrupt hack should be aborted, politically.

vnvet on October 8, 2014 at 6:11 PM

To bad his Mom couldn’t make the decision, I think she really wanted a girl.

Sven on October 8, 2014 at 6:11 PM

I support orientation-selective abortions. ;)

p0s3r on October 8, 2014 at 6:12 PM

To bad his Mom couldn’t make the decision, I think she really wanted a girl.

Sven on October 8, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Maybe she could choose that option now – just call it a very late-term…..

dentarthurdent on October 8, 2014 at 6:16 PM

What happened to the liberal line of “abortions should be safe, legal, and rare”.

Tater Salad on October 8, 2014 at 6:09 PM

It’s in the same place as “If you like your Doctor or your health insurance plan, you can keep them. Period.”

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Quick, someone ask him about 4th trimester abortion.

talkingpoints on October 8, 2014 at 6:18 PM

So, where is the headline that states:

Colorado Senator Mark Udall Supports Eugenics

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:23 PM

According to one poll, 77 percent of Americans support bans on sex-selective abortions.

Why? If abortion isn’t murder, what earthly reason would there be to proscribe its use for selecting the sex of your future jeeter? Could it be that most Americans, deep in their little moral hidey-holes, know that abortion is murder but are only disquieted by it when it is committed for what boils down to sexist eugenics?

jbspry on October 8, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Another DIMocrat “winner”…

Khun Joe on October 8, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Udall caucuses with the devil to support the essence of evil.

Dusty on October 8, 2014 at 6:25 PM

anyone ask China how the sex selective abortions are working out for them??

RonK on October 8, 2014 at 6:25 PM

With Democrat Politicians abortion is an all or nothing policy. They dare not utter one anti-abortion word that could potentially be used against them.

Democrats, the Party of Death to the innocent.

Johnnyreb on October 8, 2014 at 6:30 PM

How appropriate that the good Senator is being interviewed with the word “Butcher” in the background.

Longing4Lincoln on October 8, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Another reason it was stupid of Udall is that Gardner is running left of him on Amnesty (believe it or not) – I won’t link it because after this Udall comment I am actually forced to root for the more pro open borders candidate (Gardner).

All Udall had to do was sthu and leave the repub base down and demoralized but this comment is going to get the Socons(or as I call them the SaneCons) voting(and it should). Unless the dope smoke decides the election in CO I’m betting on Gardner to beat the Atheist Eugenicist(Udall) – and yesterday I didn’t care who won.

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM

You know how the democrats and the press (yes, I know…) always ask republicans candidates about abortion for rape victims? They should in term ask democrats what’s their position on sex-selective abortion…

ujorge on October 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Ughh you socons and your loser social issues.

CW on October 8, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Colorado, I beg of you… do the right thing! Send this lunatic packing! He has no business making laws for the rest of us. I can guarantee you that this kind of Democrat Senator is the worst news for Colorado and for America.
.
Please! Sit him down!

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Too bad post-partum abortions on CO democrats isn’t legal…yet

john1schn on October 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Ughh you socons and your loser social issues.

CW on October 8, 2014 at 6:48 PM

I’m no SoCon.
But you’re obviously morally bankrupt if you agree to sex selective LATE TERM abortions.
Might wanna take a look in the mirror there pal

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM

That’s what the euphemism “sex-selective” means, after all.

It’s interesting that the Daily Beast’s headline, in the link AP uses for the definition, uses the term ‘sex-selective abortions’ yet, within the article, the terms ‘gender-selective abortion’ and ‘gender-based terminations’ are used.

To me, it would seem that to call this vile practice ‘gender-based’ or ‘gender-selective’ would be far more powerful than to use the term ‘sex-selective’, particularly given the whole war on women / gender discrimination schtick that is so core to the progressive campaigns.

Given the link is from the Daily Beast, I’m not surprised at their attempt to lessen the negativity of the practice by using the term ‘sex-selective’ as opposed to calling it what it is – gender-based abortions and the practice of eugenics.

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:57 PM

How about if we figure out which gene makes a child gay and selectively abort homosexuals?

You know what? Anyone who supports late term abortion is a freaking monster.

magicbeans on October 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Waaay back in the day..early 80’s. My sister and her husband moved to Denver…He was originally from Maine…

I remember him always complaining about ‘invaders from Texas’…and no..not the Mexican kind…

What a difference 30 years can make….

BigWyo on October 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM

It’s in the same place as “If you like your Doctor or your health insurance plan, you can keep them. Period.”

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Jesus!

Cut…jib..newsletter….

Nice.

BigWyo on October 8, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM

CW was being sarcastic.

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Udall is, as a matter of simple math, far out of the mainstream in his opinions. But you’ll rarely see him called what he is — an extremist — in the media because abortion fanaticism is within most reporters’ personal Overton windows of acceptable positions for “mainstream” politicians to take.

Yes, exactly. It drives me nuts that abortion extremists like Udall get a pass while people like Gardner are hammered on their pro life views non stop.

And thank you Allah for calling it ABORTION, instead of the stupid “women’s health care”.

Please Colorado defeat this leftist clown.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Colorado, I beg of you… do the right thing! Send this lunatic packing! He has no business making laws for the rest of us. I can guarantee you that this kind of Democrat Senator is the worst news for Colorado and for America.
.
Please! Sit him down!

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Hear! Hear! I totally agree.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM

CW was being sarcastic.

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 7:06 PM

When I first read it, I said to myself, “what has gotten into CW?” Then I read it again and detemined it had to be sarcasm.

jya lai on October 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Udall is a dim, which means he’s for open borders, whether he admits it or not.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 6:57 PM

.
Exactly… too many people conflate gender and sex.

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2014 at 7:24 PM

It’s one thing to back late-term abortions as part of a frantic “war on women” campaign against Cory Gardner, but how do you square faux-concern for women with wanting to legalize abortions targeting little girls because they’re girls?

Udall, leading the Democrats’ war on baby women.

How did that work out in China, where 20% of young men can’t find a wife?

Let’s pass a gigantic bong to all the libs in Colorado on November 3, and hope they’re too high to vote on the 4th.

Steve Z on October 8, 2014 at 7:26 PM

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM
Udall is a dim, which means he’s for open borders, whether he admits it or not.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Sure, I just won’t get excited for an R candidate that is in it for the COC**. I would never back Udall. Besides I’m not in CO so…but I have sent checks out during senate season. If it’s close I might even send Gardner one(with a note lamenting his open borders position).

** unless, as in this case, his opponent is a true sicko.

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 7:27 PM

(Which is also why the media didn’t pick up the Kermit Gosnell horror show until pro-life writers like Mollie Hemingway and Kirsten Powers embarrassed them over it in op-eds.)

Kirsten Powers is NOT pro-life, but Gosnell’s butchery of babies old enough to survive outside the womb was too gruesome for Powers’ bleeding lefty heart.

Steve Z on October 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 7:27 PM

I’m not in Colorado either, but certainly hope Gardner defeats this pro abortion extremist.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I wonder, if we had a way to tell the sexual orientation of a child lte term, would it be ok to abort a child destined to be gay?

KCB on October 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM

CW was being sarcastic.

BoxHead1 on October 8, 2014 at 7:06 PM

My sincere apologies!
Sending my sarcasm filter out for repairs immediately

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Like they do in the People’s Republic of China Mr. Udall(D)?

diogenes on October 8, 2014 at 8:03 PM

House defeats bill to ban gender-based abortions
Published May 31, 2012

The final vote was 246-168. Though a majority voted in favor of the bill, this particular proposal required a two-thirds majority to pass — supporters of the bill fell 30 votes short.

The proposal would have made it a federal crime to carry out an abortion based on the gender of the fetus. The measure takes aim at the aborting of female fetuses, a practice more common to countries such India and China, where there is a strong preference for sons, but which is also thought to take place in the U.S.

“It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president can refuse to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said Thursday.

LOL

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/debate-heats-up-over-proposal-to-ban-gender-based-abortions/

Pelosi Schmelosi on October 8, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Why I like reading Allahpundit.

Cleombrotus on October 8, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I support orientation-selective abortions. ;)

p0s3r on October 8, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Whether you meant political or sexual orientation, they are both coming. I wonder what the proggies will think when it becomes possible to abort your baby if you find it is going to be homosexual?

slickwillie2001 on October 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM

I wonder, if we had a way to tell the sexual orientation of a child lte term, would it be ok to abort a child destined to be gay?

KCB on October 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Whether you meant political or sexual orientation, they are both coming. I wonder what the proggies will think when it becomes possible to abort your baby if you find it is going to be homosexual?

slickwillie2001 on October 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM

…and the rest of the gleeful anti-gay zealots looking forward to cheering on abortions of gays:

Do you nincompoops even realize that the pro-abortionists are looking forward to that day, as much, or more, than you guys are (not that it will ever come, because gayness isn’t genetic)?

They look forward to it, because the idea of all you bible bumping hypocrites aborting your fetuses because they are destined to be sinful homosexuals makes them extremely happy. Like you, all they care about is team politics and trying to embarrass their political opponents (in reality both teams mainly just embarrass themselves). Doing a 180 from anti-abortion to pro-abortion so long as you are sticking it to the gays is quite a bit more embarrassing than suddenly finding restraint towards abortion when you realize that “victims of discrimination” are being discriminated against before they are even born.

You guys don’t know jack about narratives.

Daikokuco on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 PM

…and the rest of the gleeful anti-gay zealots looking forward to cheering on abortions of gays:

Do you nincompoops even realize that the pro-abortionists are looking forward to that day, as much, or more, than you guys are (not that it will ever come, because gayness isn’t genetic)?

They look forward to it, because the idea of all you bible bumping hypocrites aborting your fetuses because they are destined to be sinful homosexuals makes them extremely happy. Like you, all they care about is team politics and trying to embarrass their political opponents (in reality both teams mainly just embarrass themselves). Doing a 180 from anti-abortion to pro-abortion so long as you are sticking it to the gays is quite a bit more embarrassing than suddenly finding restraint towards abortion when you realize that “victims of discrimination” are being discriminated against before they are even born.

You guys don’t know jack about narratives.

Daikokuco on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 PM

You are such a fool. Do you realize that the parents that will accept a homosexual baby will be the anti-abortion conservatives, the Christians, the Sarah Palins of the world?

Those that will abort the homosexuals are your straight liberal friends, who welcome your vote and your advocacy for Democratic causes, but don’t really want homosexuals in the family. For themselves, they want normal children and grandchildren.

slickwillie2001 on October 8, 2014 at 11:41 PM

OOPS.

KCB on October 8, 2014 at 11:50 PM

Daikokuco on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 PM

LOL, you’re a fukking moron. Nuff said.

HumpBot Salvation on October 8, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Test

KCB on October 9, 2014 at 12:38 AM

So use Gosnell in and ad… show people what we are really talking about here.

Show pictures of sweet little newborns… and the ones in a bottle.

This is flat out murder of little children. But mostly girls.

I guess you have to be pretty careful, you don’t want to play into their hands by doing the stereotypical ad, because they have successfully convinced people that means you don’t like the pill. Eyeroll, what is wrong with those girls? Can’t they tell when they are being manipulated? Idiots!

Gardner will play it well though. He seems pretty savvy.

petunia on October 9, 2014 at 12:51 AM

Daikokuco on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Oh sweetie, we are just waiting to isolate that “gay gene” and just a little bit more science that can fix genetic defects before they are “born that way”. We can just fix what’s wrong–every body is happy. And no body dies.

How’s that for narrative?

petunia on October 9, 2014 at 12:55 AM

You guys don’t know jack about narratives.

Daikokuco on October 8, 2014 at 11:17 PM

You don’t know jack about logical argumentation.

Pro-life people are not suggesting that if a “gay gene” is found they will start aborting future gays. They are saying that under the logic of the pro-aborts (who are also supporters of gay rights), they would be perfectly justified in doing so, thus hoisting the Moloch worshipers on their own petard.

Oh, and if you think that pro-lifers are suddenly going to become pro-abortion in order to kill future gay babies, you know jack about the pro-life movement. So shut your pie hole.

Athanasius on October 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM