Wikileaks' Hillary Emails On Planned Parenthood

From the Wikileaks website, one can search by word and see the issues and email exchanges from Hillary's camp. Using the search phrase "planned parenthood", here are some core emails.

FINAL: INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING BUDGET STATEMENT

From: Cheryl Mills To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2010-02-02 22:26 Subject: FINAL: INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING BUDGET STATEMENT

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05766945 Date: 08/31/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.go> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 5:26 AM To: Subject: Fw: Final: International Family Planning Budget Statement Attachments: Statement - International FY11 Budget.doc From: Rubiner, Laurie To: jenklein.dc pverveer Mills, Cheryl D; Abedin, Huma; Reines, Philippe I Sent: Tue Feb 02 17:35:11 2010 Subject: Fw: Final: International Family Planning Budget Statement You guys are totally great. Please thank Secy Clinton for us - we know it wouldn't have happened without her and all of you. We are also posting a video from Cecile on our website about this. Best, Laurie From: Jordan, Brannon To: Natl Communications Division; McHugh, Lorne; Rubiner, Laurie; Meer, Jeff; Chaney, Joi; Taylor, Amy Sent: Tue Feb 02 16:05:36 2010 Subject: Final: International Family Planning Budget Statement Statement below and attached just sent to reporters. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: PPFA Media Relations 202-973-4882 February 2, 2010 STATEMENT FROM CECILE RICHARDS ON INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BUDGET WASHINGTON, DC —The women of the world have true friends in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Obama administration. After years of inadequate funding during the previous administration, yesterday's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for an increase in international family planning is a critical step forward in demonstrating our nation's renewed commitment to ensuring that women worldwide have access to safe and effective reproductive health care. The Obama administration has sent a strong signal that the status quo is unacceptable. Every year more than half a million women — nearly all of whom live in developing countries — die of pregnancy-related causes. Moreover, one in three deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth could be avoided if women who wanted effective contraception had access to it. To strengthen our working relationships with partners around the world, as well as our image, the United States must increase access to family planning. By ensuring that women have increased access to the family planning they need, our nation is working to make good on its commitment to promote the health of all women and their families. An investment infamily planning is an investment that reaps significant dividends. By providing education, counseling and contraceptives to women and couples, we are working to strengthen families worldwide. We also will help achieve major reductions in infant and maternal mortality, HIV infections and global poverty. As Secretary Clinton has said, "There's a direct connection between a woman's ability to plan her family, space her pregnancies, and give birth safely, and her ability to get an education, work outside the home, support her family, and participate fully in the life of her community." UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05766945 Date: 08/31/2015 Planned Parenthood works with partners across the globe to eliminate barriers to basic reproductive health care that is essential to the health and well-being of women, men and children everywhere. Limited access to health care, lack of political will, legal and regulatory restrictions, cultural taboos, and harsh gender inequality all put women at risk of unintended pregnancy, unsafe abortion and childbirth, and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. The commitment of Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration to international family planning will further the efforts of Planned Parenthood and others to help women overcome barriers to accessing needed reproductive health care. As the Fiscal Year 2011 budget and appropriations process moves forward, we look forward to working with Congress to build on this request so that we may adequately address the global health challenges facing women worldwide. #4:# Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 840 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05795194 Date: 02/19/2016 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:14 PM To: 'Russorv@state.gov' Subject: Fw: My TNR column on contraception Pis print. From: Neera Tanden [mailto:r Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 01:51 PM To: H Subject: My TNR column on contraception Is below. And I was on MSNBC today discussing these issues writ large.... Loved your speech at wotw; you were great on Fri. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/101567/neera-tanden-contraception Th Os t ii1 F t C o tr c IIattic Neera Tanden March 12, 2012 I 12:00 am 5 comments Share on redditShare on twitterShare on stum bleuponlM ore Sharing ServicesM ore Print MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR Romney's Stupidest Idea of the Week Tanden: Paul Ryan's Health Care Hypocrisy Tanden: How Ryan and the GOP Are Misreadino the American People UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05795194 Date: 02/19/2016 In January 1998, in the run-up to the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton held a meeting in the Map Room of the White House with leaders of women's groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to the National Women's Law Center. The meeting took place in the aftermath of the painful and polarizing debate on late-term abortion—a debate in which conservatives capitalized on a seemingly extreme abortion position in order to bludgeon progressive leaders. In that meeting (I was there, as a staffer for the First Lady), Clinton pushed the groups to develop a proactive agenda around women's health, one that would shift the debate away from a rarely used procedure and back toward the reproductive health needs of women. And if that debate took place in a way that demonstrated the extremes of the anti-choice position—so be it. Over the course of the discussion, Clinton and the leaders in the room hit on the issue of contraception: specifically, promoting contraceptive coverage in health care plans. Fourteen years later, the strategy formed in the White House in 1998 is being tested on the national level, as we debate the Obama Administration's contraceptive coverage proposal. But today's debate differs from the one that took place in the '90s—when many states passed laws mandating contraception coverage—in one troubling way: the vociferous opposition by religious groups. The past few months have seen the issue of contraception coverage turned into a question of religious liberty. And, initially at least, that rhetorical shift by conservatives made an enormous political difference. Before it was made into a religious issue, contraception was a subject where the majority of Americans were firmly on the side of women's rights: Most people viewed it as a basic health protection, not a controversial issue. And that's why it was also successful as a political cudgel, helping isolate extreme anti-choice advocates from the mainstream. Indeed, it was a Republican Senator, Olympia Snowe, who introduced the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (which lacked any sort of "conscience exception") in 1999, and plenty of Republicans co-sponsored it. That extent of mainstream sympathy for contraception coverage was especially evident on the state level. At the time, state affiliates of women's organizations started pushing contraceptive coverage in state legislatures—and in many places, they passed. One such organization was NARAL-NY, which advocated for the Women's Health and Wellness Act in New York in 1999 and 2000. The legislation—like the original Obama policy—only allowed an exemption for houses of worship, not religiously affiliated hospitals or colleges, perhaps because its authors recognized that the vast majority of employees at these institutions are not Catholic: But the Catholic Church did not actively resist, or try to prevent the bill's passing. At the time, the Church said that, in its affiliated hospitals, it would "continue for the immediate future providing the contraception coverage under formal protest." This was far from the cries of "religious coercion" that we see today. And, in some states, religious groups were silent altogether. In 1999, New Hampshire passed a law requiring contraceptive coverage in all prescription drug plans(The law was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic governor.) Both lawmakers and religious groups never raised the issue of religious liberty during the legislative debate; in fact, there was not a single discussion on that issue according to the legislative history. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05795194 Date: 02/19/2016 How could it be that the Catholic Church did not object, and did not threaten to spend millions of dollars defeating political opponents? Simply put, contraception coverage was seen as part and parcel of health care access. And, if Obama's rising approval rating among women is any indication, it still is today. Moreover, after some initial uncertainty surrounding the politics of the contraception measure, it is now clear that a solid majority of Americans (63 percent) support it. Fourteen years ago, leaders of the women's movement saw contraception as a unifying issue, one that the vast majority of Americans would support. They strategized that those who opposed contraception would be seen as extreme. In the past several weeks, they were proven right. Neera Tanden is president of the Center for American Progress.

From: To: Date: 2009-11-09 14:45 Subject: -

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05765606 Date: 02/29/2016 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: Neera Tanden Sent: Monday, November 9, 2009 9:45 PM To: Subject: From Gibbs' briefing Sorry to bother you, but I don't know really who to send something like this to. While the women groups are somewhat livid about the Stupak amendment that passed pretty easily, the abortion deal really was the cost of moving the bill out of the House, in Pelosi's judgment. But given the angle reporters are pursuing (and the groups are probably pushing), you may hear more about this so I thought I'd sent it along. Today's WH Briefing - midway through after a few q's on abortion already: Q Okay. And back on the abortion question. Candidate Obama campaigned as a pro-choice Democrat. This was a big debate between he and Hillary Clinton, who was more pro-choice. MR. GIBBS: I don't completely remember that debate, but go ahead. Q But anyway, he was a pro-choice Democrat and now he's -- the House has passed some of the strictest legislation restricting abortion that we've seen in a very long time. I mean, can Barack Obama, who campaigned as a pro-choice Democrat, sign legislation with this language? MR. GIBBS: Well, Jonathan, we'll -- ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year. (And a few minutes later:) Q To revisit Iowa briefly and the pro-choice debate that went on there, there were those in the Hillary Clinton camp who said because then-state senator Obama voted "present" on some votes, he was insuffiently pro-choice, and that was sort of fought out a little bit -- MR. GIBBS: Oh, that's what you're talking about. I mean, I think that was -- UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05765606 Date: 02/29/2016 Q I'm just saying it came up. MR. GIBBS: I think that was handled by people that the President had worked with, representing those groups, which largely dismissed that argument. Q Which leads me to the question now -- some of those groups -- NARAL and Planned Parenthood -- have condemned the language in the House bill and want it repealed. Does the White House agree or disagree with NARAL and Planned Parenthood's interpretation of the bill currently? MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get deeply into this, except to say that we will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground. Q In pursuit of what -- just passing the bill? MR. GIBBS: Health care reform. Q Okay. But not resolving abortion to the satisfaction of NARAL or Planned Parenthood? MR. GIBBS: I think this obviously is something that will have to be addressed in order to get to that point.

From: To: Date: 2011-04-07 04:58 Subject: -

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05780513 Date: 02/26/2016 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov > Sent: Friday, April 8, 2011 11:58 AM To: Subject: Fw: Left you vox Original Message From: Smith, Jeannemarie [mailto Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:30 AM To: Mills, Cheryl D Subject: RE: Left youvox Believe it or not, it is still a 50-50 chance. Worked through the night on the numbers -- although without any clarity about whether there was an actionable agreement or not. Riders have boiled down to one thing -- defunding of planned parenthood, naturally funding for women. The battle is continuing this morning --- both sides saying something else is the prob. R say it's the policy issues (code for funding planned parenthood), Dems say it's the lack of agreement on the numbers. Will keep you posted on the people magazine blow-by-blow. Jack showed me your email -- he said it was the first thing that was on his email this morning and made all the difference in the world to him today. You are a good friend. xo Jeanne Smith Senior Advisor Office of Management and Budget Original Message From: Mills, Cheryl D [mailto:MillsCD@state.gov] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:46 AM To: Smith, Jeannemarie Subject: Left you vox

KENYA

From: Huma Abedin To: Laurie Rubiner Date: 2009-07-30 15:09 Subject: KENYA

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05764008 Date: 07/31/2015 RELEASEINPART B6 From: Abedin, Huma<AbedinH@state.gov > Sent: Friday, July31, 20098:09PM To: Rubiner, Laurie; H Cc: preines pverveer B6 Subject: RE:Kenya Laurie—Sheisn't doingany specific healthor womens events inKenyabut I'vealsosharedyour email withpolicy team at state and embassy staff in Nairobi helping to plan the trip to see if there is any way to address this. From:Rubiner, Laurie Sent: Friday, July31, 10091:26 PM To:hdr22@clintonemail.com Cc:Abedin,Huma;preines pverveer Subject: Kenya SecretaryClinton— I understand you are going to Kenya next week and while I know the trip is primarily focused on trade issues, I wanted to flag an issue for you because I know it is near and dear to your heart. Kenya has one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in Africa —it is illegal unless a woman's life is at risk and criminalizes both the woman and the provider. Two years ago, Kenyan authorities imprisoned a doctor and two nurses, falsely accusing themof providing illegal abortions. After a year in prison, the providers were found innocent and released, but it galvanized the legal and provider community who formed a coalition to make abortion less restrictive. It will come as no surprise to you that, as a result of their abortion law, Kenya has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in all of Africa, with an estimated 800 women a day seeking the procedure, often through dangerous means. Kenya is restarting a long-stalled constitutional review process and they hope to produce a final Constitution by next year. Religious groups are on a concerted crusade to include newlanguage in the Constitution which would codify that "life begins at conception". The current Constitution is largely silent on the issue. If this fetal personhood amendment goes forward, it would place Kenya in the small community of nations with such a provision. It would clearly mark Kenya as out of stop with countries attempting to institutionalize the African Union's Maputo Protocol, one of the most progressive regional documents on women, development and reproductive rights, and with the vast majority of African countries in general. For a country trying to regain the momentumof stability and success it enjoyed until recently, such a policy imposition would be a regression for women's rights and for the country writ large. I went to Kenya last month to work with the coalition that has formed to strategize against the Constitutional amendment and to work toward a less restrictive abortion law. I also visited several of our clinics and providers in Nairobi and in nearby villages where Planned Parenthood has programs to train providers in post abortion care. You have seen this a million times in your travels around the world, so I don't need to tell you how poignant the stories were of the lives saved and lost, the bravery in standing up to constant government harassment, and the fear of what this potential Constitutional amendment will mean to the provision of safe medical services. I know it is asking a lot, but if there is any way that you could draw attention to this issue when you are in Kenya, you would be even more of my personal hero than you already are. It is our hope that 348 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05764008 Date: 07/31/2015 if Kenya knows the world is watching they may be more careful in how they proceed. Of course we would be happy to help you in any way if you decide you want to do something on this while you are there. There is also a Congressional delegation going to Kenya the week of August 8thand we are working on them to have a side meeting on this issue as well. As always, thank you so much for all you do. We are all so grateful that you are there! All best, Laurie Laurie Rubiner Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Planned Parenthood Federation of America (202) 973-4863 office 349

KUDOS AND KIDS UPDATE

From: Hillary Clinton To: Robert Russo Date: 2012-07-01 01:37 Subject: KUDOS AND KIDS UPDATE

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794970 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com > Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 8:37 AM To: 'Russorv@state.gov ' Subject Fw: Kudos and Kids Update Pls print. From: Doug Hattaway Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:37 AM To: H Subject: Re: Kudos and Kids Update Welcome back from what seems to have been a good tour. Your coverage was phenomenal. I though you might like to know about recent work I've been doing, which might be of interest to you moving forward. I've continued working on issues affecting women and girls, but with a more domestic focus (such as a campaign with Planned Parenthood NYC to reduce the 60% unintended pregnancy rate in the city). I'm now embarking on an ambitious effort funded by the Woodcock Foundation (which I'm sure will attract interest from other funders) to develop a new, aspirational narrative about gender equality in America that will motivate the Millennial generation to embrace it as their issue. We also hope to create a communications and advocacy center to arm movement leaders and grassroots activisits with knowledge, skills and tools to be effective communicators for the cause. The MillenniaIs' hearts seem to be in the right place on social justice issues, but the leaders we've talked to think the movement is not connecting with them in a way that will inspire and engage both women and men. They'll be the dominant voting bloc over the next two presidential cycles, and it's time to get them on board and activated. We're engaging a great group of thinkers and doers to inform the research and development, to ensure that it provides maximum benefit to people working on all sorts of issues for women and girls. If at any time you would be interested, I'd love to get your thoughts about it. All the best, Doug On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Doug Hattaway wrote: Hello Madame Secretary, I hope you're well. I just wanted to send thanks and kudos for Cheryl and Nora, who helped sort out a mistake at the national passport center that threatened to . I brought it to derail _ , Cheryl's attention, and within a few hours Nora had it resolved. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794970 Date: 11/30/2015 I thought you might like to know how they're doing. And of course, please let me know if there's ever any way I can be helpful to you. All my best, Doug

ON THE OFF CHANCE

From: Gina Glantz To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-11-29 07:33 Subject: ON THE OFF CHANCE

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796605 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: Gina Glantz < B6 Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:33 PM To: Cc: Huma Abedin Subject: On the off chance WOW. Last time I saw you was three years ago this month. So much extraordinary work since then! I can't imagine you have a minute or that you might be in DC next week but figured if I didn't ask I wouldn't know. I am in DC next Friday - before starting to drive This email is as much to say happy holidays (if you get to even notice there are holidays) as it is to think we might say a quick hello in person. Much affection, Gina P.S. Bumped into and am trying to convince her to think about going on the Planned Parenthood board. The future of women's health is in our hands. Join me in making a special gift to Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Click here to give: http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/actionfundsupport Gina Glantz

GETTING MORE AND MORE OUT OF HAND....

From: Cheryl Mills To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-03-14 02:19 Subject: GETTING MORE AND MORE OUT OF HAND....

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789555 Date: 10/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:19 AM To: Subject: FW: getting more and more out of hand.... March 14, 2012 Women Figure Anew in Senate's Latest Battle ByJONATHAN WEISMAN WASHINGTON — With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama's contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives. The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March. Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence. "I am furious," said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. "We're mad, and we're tired of it." Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women's issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday. Some conservatives are feeling trapped. "I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition," said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. "You think that's possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn't support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?" The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789555 Date: 10/30/2015 would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence. Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say. Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions. "Obviously, you want to be for the title," Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. "If Republicans can't be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative." The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month. As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats' timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration's contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds. Polling appears mixed over which side gained political ground on the fight, but Republican lawmakers are not eager to revisit it. State efforts in Virginia and Ohio to mandate ultrasounds before an abortion or ban abortions once a heartbeat is detected have further inflamed passions. And the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday pounced on a suggestion by Mitt Romney that he would eliminate federal financing for Planned Parenthood. "There are lots of other issues right now that could be dealt with other than this one," said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who is responsible for Republican messaging. "I suspect there's a reason for bringing it up now." But if Republican lawmakers are not eager to oppose a domestic violence bill, conservative activists are itching for a fight. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the conservative Concerned Women for America, said her group had been pressing senators hard to oppose reauthorization of legislation she called "a boondoggle" that vastly expands government and "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." Last month on the conservative Web site Townhall.com, the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund "used to fill feminist coffers" and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men." The third reauthorization effort of the legislation started off in November the way the previous efforts had, with a bipartisan bill and little controversy. The measure, authored by Senators Crapo and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, attracted 58 co-sponsors, including Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Ms. Murkowski, Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois and Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts. But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, found multiple reasons to oppose the bill when it came up for a formal consideration last month. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789555 Date: 10/30/2015 The legislation "creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims, period," Mr. Grassley said when the committee took up the measure. After his alternative version was voted down on party lines, the original passed without a Republican vote. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, one of two women on the judiciary panel, said the partisan opposition came as a "real surprise," but she put it into a broader picture. "This is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on rights and services to women," she said. "We've seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services for women. This seems to be one more thing." Republicans say they see that line of attack coming and will try through amendments to make the final version more palatable. But if Democrats dig in, Republicans will stand their ground, Mr. Blunt said, pointing to a new New York Times/CBS News poll that showed Americans supporting an exemption to the contraception mandate for religiously affiliated employers 57 percent to 36 percent. By 51 percent to 40 percent, Americans appeared to back Senate efforts to grant employers an exemption on religious or moral exemption grounds. "Our friends on the other side are in serious danger of overplaying their hand on this one," Mr. Blunt said.

EVEN BETTER PIECE -- READ IT

From: Hillary Clinton To: Lissa Muscatine Date: 2011-02-27 03:09 Subject: EVEN BETTER PIECE -- READ IT

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792026 Date: 10/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:09 AM To: 'Lmuscatine Subject: Re: Even better piece -- read it She is so good. Do you know her? From: Lissa Muscatine Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:21 AM To: H; Cheryl Mills <MillsCD@state.gov > Subject: Even better piece -- read it This is a very smart response to Kissling from the young writer for Saion.com (Rebecca Traister) who I like so much and who wrote the best stuff on gender politics during the campaign. She is really, really thoughthal and smart. Also, Hillary, your exchange with Chris Smith from a coupie of years ago has gone viral. It's all r he Internet again and • is a good examE‘le of how. if you follow Traister's argument, we should be framing the debate. ''AR. t1.00N1 This is what "pro-life" means? REBECCA TRAISTER Re72. Jackie As part of their stated mission to focus on jobs (specifically, the job of preventing women from getting healthcare), House Republicans this afternoon voted 240-185 to bar federal funding for Planned Parenthood. This is a big win for Rep. Mike Pence, the Indiana Republican whose deficit-minded crusade against Planned Parenthood hinges not on the argument that taxpayer money shouldn't pay for abortions (the Hyde Amendment put a stop to that in the mid 197os), but on the conviction that taxpayer money should not go to organizations that provide abortion services, regardless of what else they might do. Pence's plan, which will likely stall in the Senate, would mean the end of federal support for an organization that each year provides more than Soo,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and 2.5 million people with contraception, which, not for nothing, is the stuff that prevents unintended pregnancy, and thus abortion, to begin with. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792026 Date: 10/30/2015 In Friday's Washington Post, former Catholics for a Free Choice president Frances Kissling suggested that the current, harrowing onslaught against reproductive rights should force the pro-choice movement to alter its path and redirect what has indeed become a slightly stale message. Though I'm not sure I see eye-to-eye with Kissling on which particular path to take, I agree that now is the time for women and men who believe in women's rights, health and liberty to reclaim the language of morality and life, long coopted by abortion foes, as our own. Because what the Republicans have made clear in the weeks since they took over the House is that there is most certainly morality at play here, there are most certainly lives at stake: the lives and the moral value not of the unborn, but of the living, breathing women of this nation. Pence and his fellow Republicans are not simply taking aim at a particular medical procedure -- one that, I would nonetheless submit is an integral component in women being able to control their bodies, their health, their careers and thus their economic, social and political freedom. But this isn't simply about the question of abortion itself. What Pence and the House of Representatives did today was devalue women's lives, women's rights and women's ability to participate fully in the democracy. The excuse used by Republicans is that we are saving taxpayer money. Saving money in exchange for breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, STD testing and care: Welcome to the movement that has long billed itself as "pro-life." In the midst of the House battle, two congresswomen underscored precisely these points, and in doing so, offered vivid evidence of why, exactly, it makes a difference to have a governing body that includes members of differing genders, races, classes, perspectives and experiences. In response to Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, who had taken to the floor to read aloud a description of a second-trimester abortion procedure he'd found in a book, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California described a second-trimester abortion procedure she'd had in her life. Speier told of a procedure she'd had at 17 weeks pregnant, when something went wrong with her pregnancy. "For you to stand on this floor and suggest that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought, is preposterous," Speier said, directing her comments at Smith. "Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide services for family planning. Planned Parenthood has a right to offer abortions. The last time I checked, abortions were legal in this country ... I would suggest to you that it would serve us all very well if we moved on with this process and started focusing on creating jobs for the Americans who desperately want them." Meanwhile, late Thursday night, Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun had trotted out the old canard about Planned Parenthood being a bunch of eugenically motivated abortion enthusiasts, pointing out that "there are more black babies killed through abortion proportionally than there are white babies or any other colored babies." Responding to Broun's deep concern for the well-being of black babies (a concern that apparently ends when those black babies grow up to need breast exams or cervical screenings) Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore said, "I know a lot about having black babies. I've had three of them. And I had my first one ... at the ripe old age of 18. An unplanned pregnancy." Moore told the story of her labor, of not having had a phone or a cab or the money for a cab to the hospital. She went on, "I just want to tell you a little bit about what it's like to not have Planned Parenthood. You have to add water to the formula UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792026 Date: 10/30/2015 to make it stretch. You have to give your kids Ramen noodles at the end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they won't cry ... It subjects children to low educational attainment because of the ravages of poverty. You know, one of the biggest problems that school districts have in educating some of these poor black children who are unplanned is that they are mobile; they are constantly moving because they can't pay the rent ... [P]ublic policy has treated poor children and women who have not had the benefit of Planned Parenthood with utter contempt. These same children, it has been very difficult to get them health insurance through CHIP." This is rhetoric that must now be blasted from the rooftops. Those of us who have been raised on and come to rely too heavily on the limp language of choice must listen and then yell it as well. Opponents of reproductive rights are working -- successfully, today -- to prevent women from receiving the healthcare that they and their families require; they are working against the well-being of women. Morality is not the exclusive domain of the unborn, whatever we have been told for decades. Morality is on the side of women, on the side of children, on the side of a society that offers aid to its impoverished and to its young and does not discriminate against half its population. In Moore's words, "Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it's healthy for children, and it's healthy for our society."

IN CASE YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS

From: Hillary Clinton To: Lauren Jiloty Date: 2011-02-27 03:05 Subject: IN CASE YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792023 Date: 10/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:05 AM To: 'JilotyLC@state.gov' Subject Fvv: in case you didn't see this PIs print. From: LissaMuscatine[mailto Sent: Sunday, February 20, 201105:50PM To: H; Cheryl Mills <MillsCD©state.gov Subject: in case you didn't see this Food for thought.... Abortion rights are under attack, and pro-choice advocates are caught in a time warp By Frances Kissling Friday, February 18, 2011; 7:54 PM In the nearly four decades since the Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to decide to have an abortion, the opposition to legal abortion has increased dramatically. Opponents use increasingly sophisticated arguments - focusing on advances in fetal medicine, stressing the rights of parents to have a say in their minor children's health care, linking opposition to abortion with opposition to war and capital punishment, seeking to make abortion not illegal but increasingly unavailable - and have succeeded in swinging public opinion toward their side. Meanwhile, those of us in the abortion-rights movement have barely changed our approach. We cling to the arguments that led to victory in Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a private decision, we say, and the state has no power over a woman's body. Those arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us, and focusing on them only risks all the gains we've made. The "pro-choice" brand has eroded considerably. As recently as 1995 it was the preferred label of 56 percent of Americans; that dropped to 42 percent in 2009 and was 45 percent in 2010, according to Gallup polls. And abortion rights are under attack in Congress. The House passed a bill on Friday that would strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, one of the most important providers of reproductive health services for poor women. Another proposed House measure would make it impossible to buy private insurance covering abortion.Anti- choice Republicans are so secure that Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, a leader of this wing, has introduced an act which will allow hospitals to deny an abortion even if the pregnant woman's life is at risk. Meanwhile, 29 governors are solidly anti-abortion, while 15 states passed 39 laws,most of them restrictive, relating to abortion in 2010 alone. Pro-choice advocates have good reason to oppose legislation that restricts abortion in any way, but unfortunately we're not going to regain the ground we have lost. What we must do is stop holding on to a strategy that isn't working, and one that is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable than ever before. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792023 Date: 10/30/2015 We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible. We can no longer seek to banish the state from our lives, but rather need to engage its power to improve women's lives. We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at six weeks. These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution. The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century. We know more than we knew in 1973, and our positions should reflect that. The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value. It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event. Very few people would argue that there is no difference between the decision to abort at 6 weeks and the decision to do so when the fetus would be viable outside of the womb, which today is generally at 24 to 26 weeks. Still, it is rare for mainstream movement leaders to say that publicly. Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is. We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases. Exceptions include when the woman's life is at immediate risk; when the fetus suffers from conditions that are incompatible with a good quality of life; or when the woman's health is seriously threatened by a medical or psychological condition that continued pregnancy will exacerbate. We should regulate post-viability abortion to include the confirmation of those conditions by medical or psychiatric specialists. Those kinds of regulations.are not anti-woman or unduly invasive. They rightly protect all of our interests in women's health and fetal life. Even abortions in the second trimester, especially after 20 weeks, need to be considered differently from those that happen early in pregnancy. Women who seek abortions in the second trimester generally have special needs and would be helped by more extensive counseling than that available at most abortion clinics. Women who discover their fetuses have anomalies, teens who did not recognize they were pregnant, women who could not make up their minds - these are not routine circumstances. Mandating and funding non-directive counseling on all options is a good thing. Finally, the abortion-rights movement needs to change the way it thinks about the state. Right now government is mainly treated as the enemy - and it does neglect women's needs. The new ultra-conservative members of Congress are fighting to get rid of the legal right to choose abortion. The public is ambivalent about abortion. It wants it to be legal, but will support almost any restriction that indicates society takes the act of abortion seriously. For the choice movement to regain popular support and to maintain a legal right to abortion, it has to work with the state. Society and the state do have a stake in abortion policy. Reproduction is a private matter with public consequences. Women get to decide, but we all get to weigh in on what the policy should look like. We need to fight to get government to provide resources that women need, from subsidized birth control to better prenatal care. We also need a real effort to reduce maternal mortality and pregnancy complication rates in this country, which Amnesty International has called "shocking." If the state wants to weigh in with advice and information on abortion, the least it can do is emulate the European system, which has some regulations but then pays for women's abortions and offers good alternatives such as child care, parental leave and health care. We have been demanding that the state mind its own business. That lets government abdicate all responsibility for funding reproductive health care. We need more responsible and compassionate state policies. But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort. Too often, the movement sounds as we think women have only rights and the state has only rpsnnnsihilitips UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05792023 Date: 10/30/2015 The moral high ground on abortion is not to be found in asserting an absolute right to choose. Instead, it is to be found in the movement's historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer. The abortion-rights movement needs to focus our work on restoring federal and state funds for abortion for women in the military and on Medicaid, a benefit that Congress cut off as early as 1976. We should also work to sensibly regulate abortion facilities - not to prohibit access, but to ensure safety. Some of my colleagues in the abortion-rights movement will resist even this modest shift on post-first trimester abortions, fearing that any compromise reflects weakness. Give the opposition an inch and they will take a yard. I believe most in the movement share my concerns and hold more moderate positions on abortion than their rhetoric or silence implies. These shifts I am suggesting are not about compromising or finding common ground with abortion opponents. Compromise assumes that there are two parties prepared to give up something in return for settling an issue. Neither opponents nor advocates of legal abortion are willing to do that. But, for pro-choice advocates, standing our ground will mean losing ground entirely. For too long, abortion has been treated in black and white. Any discussion that deviates from legal or illegal, women or fetus, faces criticism from the twin absolutes of choice or life. If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don't suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies - and, eventually, no choices at all. Frances Kissling is the former president of Catholics for Choice and a visiting scholar at the Center fo Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.