The piece continues, “No one except Justice Stevens, of course, knows whether he is inclined to retire, and even if he did, no one knows whether the five votes would emerge to overturn Roe cleanly. (For what itâs worth, I wouldnât bet on Chief Justice Robertsâs siding unequivocally with the anti-Roe forces.) But serious people on both sides of the abortion divide are girding themselves for the fights in Congress and the state legislatures that they believe will erupt once Roe is finally uprooted. And states like South Dakota are so convinced that Roeâs demise is imminent that they are racing to pass sweeping bans on abortion designed to encourage the Supreme Court to administer the last rites. So letâs assume, for the sake of argument, that the activists are correct and the long-anticipated moment has finally come to pass: Roe v. Wade is no longer on the books. What happens next?”
<
p>
Bush did not “appoint” Roberts and Alito he nominated them and they were confirmed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
<
p>
Democrats had enough votes to filibuster both nominations but refused to do so. If Roe “dies” it is as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans. Even moreso as Democrats are forceably removing the pro choice plank from the platform by nominating themselves and clearing the primary slates for as many anti choice Democrats as they can find.
<
p>
Frankly, I think this is the real reason for Begala’s lashing out at the 50 state strategy. The DLC have promised the GOP corporate backers defunct state Dem parties with no fight left in them (yunno, since Clinton), and they were promised their party back. The DLC was established by disgruntled southern whites who… as in the words of their illustrious alumni Zell Miller “out niggered” out of THIER own party.
<
p>
Killing Roe will send it back to the states ALL 50 OF THEM</b>… having intact and active state parties will make it that much harder for the GOP/DLC to ram through their regressive oppresive laws that harken back to pre civil war USA. The Democratic party wants to return to the party of Bull Connors and Dixiecrats and abandon the post civil rights base ie women, blacks, gays etc. Having Mississippians running around “picking their nose” will make their job that much harder.
<
p>
The debacle in PA with the Dem nomination of righteous wingnut Casey who is clearly a Democrat in Name Only does not lead me to believe that Democrats are “innocent” in the death of Roe… they have been aiding and abetting this crime for a long time. When the Democratic Sentator of Nebraska openly admits that he calls “Rev.” Dobson for “spiritual advice” before he votes… there can no longer be any doubt that the Democratic establishment has happily “Gone Along, to Get Along” with the death of Roe… and it is ok with them regardless of the fact that that Dem base is 60% women.
<
p>
Dems should be worried because the death of Roe may perhaps ALSO signal the Democratic Party’s own death knell at the hands of it’s betrayed base.
<
p>
Wow, talk about a false equivalence.
<
p>
Last I knew, it wasn’t the Democrats with a rabid fundamentalist base. And last I knew, when Democrats are in control of legislatures (state and federal), generally no abortion legislation moves at all, even if it is introduced.
<
p>
You can be angry about the Democrats’ political calculations on the Supreme Court nominees, fine. But your comment about Roe’s death being “as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans” is ridiculous.
The first angry comment really doesn’t add much to any reasonable discussion of this issue. Last time I looked Bill Clinton, the DLC darling, was pro-choice.
it is useless to discuss this under false assumptions.
<
p>
Tell that to the southern states where DEMOCRATS are introducing legislation to ban abortion.
<
p>
<
p>
The Dems are so eager to throw off the pro choice label, hence Kaine, Casey, Ritter… the NEW Dem future of the party. They were even trying to get the wacko Langevin to run against a so called “pro choice” GOP.
<
p>
Since Clinton/DLC takeover of the party there has been constant “distancing” of the party from the pro choice plank in the platform. The Centrist aka Moderate Republicans urge “Big Tentism” without regards to the traditional values and principles of the party. Now with an anti choice Dem leader in the Senate the pace has quickened. Remember they also wanted Roemer anther anti choicer to chair the DNC. Pelosi’s time is limited and most likely she will also be replaced by an anti choice Dem. The majority of Emanual’s “Fighting Dems” are anti-choice…
<
p>
What part of Democrats aiding and abetting the GOP wingnuts push to kill Roe don’t you understand??? To act innocent as though the Dem have actually fought back and stood up to the GOP is disengenous at best… actions speak louder than words and when you see Emanual and Schumer run thru the Democratic primaried mowing down any candidates that hints at liberalism or progressivism… even a blind man can see that the Democratic party is in cahoots.
<
p>
There is nothing false in the statement that Democrats willingly supported the confirmation of two of the most right winged SC judges in history. Lieberman the DLC darling went so far as to neuter the Dems filibuster prospects for Roberts and the anti choicer Reid didn’t even bother to refused to even organize any efforts to oppose Alito.
“Lieberman the DLC darling went so far as to neuter the Dems filibuster prospects for Roberts and the anti choicer Reid didn’t even bother to refused to even organize any efforts to oppose Alito.”
<
p>
I kept hearing things like that from the Kamikazi wing of the Democratic party, but I never understood it. Explain this to me like I’m four. I dont want to get into Roberts Rules and all that, it’ll bore me to tears. But your advice to Democratic leadership would have been: Fillibuster!!!…and then…what?
<
p>
At some point a filibuster fails. Either because those doing the filibustering get tired, or public pressure against political gimmics comes into play. The Republicans nominated two jurists who weren’t completely dispised by the American public. A filibuster would have hurt the party and they’d have been nominated anyway. The bottom line is, we didn’t have the votes to block these guys. Eventually, if the American people keep electing presidents with right-wing agendas, they get jurists who might also have right wing agendas.
That is how you count votes.
<
p>
For two straight years the Dem base (even the Kamikazi wing of the Democratic party…I guess you are talking about the DLC ones who have lost the Democratic power [House, Senate, SCOTUS, Governorships] consistently for the last 16 years) have had one mantra beaten into their brains… THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUT LIFETIME… oh really… so someone should had told that to Reid.
<
p>
Funny, how the so called Democratic leadership EXPECTS the voting Dem base to “DO THE RIGHT THING” ie vote for any semi warm blooded creature with a pulse and a ‘d’ behind it’s name… however… when it comes time for THEM to be accountable… you better duck… because the crappy excuses start flying wild and furiously.
<
p>
Gee, it is too bad that Reid and company did not also see that THEIR votes were the most important votes in OUR lifetime… but damn he sure does have a ton od dry powder… which incidently Reid DID threaten a filibuster if the GOP did not include an indentured servatude clause in the immigration bill…. go figure.
<
p>
So again, it is a lie and it is disengenous to pretend that the Democratic party leaders have been innocent bystanders while the GOP dismantles Roe. <a href="http://www.democratsforlife.org/
“>Democrats for Life,
<
p>
“One, Two, Three…
That is how you count votes.”
<
p>
That’s really annoying.
<
p>
This is not what you originally said. Don’t try to run from it now. You stated that if Roe dies, it is “as much the fault of the Democrats as the Republicans”.
<
p>
Then you go on to introduce a lot of noise into the conversation that goes nowhere to advance your point. You note that the Democrats for Life of America praised the SD abortion ban. Duh! Do you think they represent the party as a whole? No!
<
p>
You did nothing to attack my contention that when Democrats are in control of the legislature, anti-abortion legislation is far less likely to pass. Do you seriously believe that this is not true? If so, then no offense, but you are clearly wrong.
<
p>
yup and I stand by that statement acknowledging that without the blessings of Democrats this issue would NOT be STILL up for debate.
<
p>
<
p>
You are right because it is a LIE. Ask Barney Frank about the bill he is co-sponsoring now, to ban late term abortions that are necessary when discovered that a fetus is non viable or even dead.
The issue has, for too long, been a source of unlimited energy to the GOP, and the cause of ennervating intellectual dissembling by Democrats attempting to justify a constitutional right that was conjured out of thin air.
<
p>
So what if South Dakota bans it? New York won’t. It’s a complex issue of competing rights, the ethics of which– at least in the abstract (hence the complexity) accordingly fall pretty squarely in the gray.
<
p>
Better still if the “pro-life” side, particularly on the national level, must actually answer to either the Christianist right, or the moderate middle.
for making I point I have always held that Massachusetts is NOT a bright blue librul state.
<
p>
Here there are as many Democrats who do not care a wit if women die by the thousands because of political opportunism on both sides of the aisle to fundraise and demogogue. Yet, these are the same people hemming and hawing over whether or not to give women paid maternity leave…
<
p>
Why you think that this will be a “boon” for Democrats when the Democratic base is 60% women is beyond me. If that is the strategerie well then the Democrats should no oppose anything that might upset the GOP… oh… but they are doing that now.
I am pro-choice. I acknowledge that each specific choice for abortion is a terrible tragedy, and therefore favor policies that would make them, even if legal, rare. I also acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is an intellectual and legal disaster that, together with Griswold, created a “right of privacy” without foundation in law, tradition, or culture. The decision is simply indefensible on legal grounds. The rather convincing policy in favor of legal abortion, which you rather inelegantly allude to above, are good reasons that abortion should be legal. They do not, however, support the reasoning in that decision.
<
p>
This, evidently, makes me not care a whit if “women die by the thousands.” How can I sleep at night, being so thoroughly evil and all?
<
p>
Roe has been no boon to Democrats, else they would not be the minority party forever being skewered by an increasingly Christianist Repuplican party.
<
p>
Roe has politicized the judiciary, to that institution’s great cost. Once you have a politicized judiciary, you have polticians for judges. All of the non-culture war business before those courts must pay the price.
<
p>
Roe has been a huge boon to the Republican party; I would bet that Roe has been the among the most consistent motivating factors behind the Republican base since the decision in 1973. Pro-life Republicans get to thunder endlessly on about dead babies, without ever having to do anything about it. It gives them a perpetually energized base, but they have never had to take a direct stand on the issue; they just have to advocate a “non-activist judiciary.”
<
p>
Meanwhile, the Democrats can cower behind Roe. Judge Roberts, what do you think of super-precedent? Democratic discussion of the issue is couched in sniveling code words: super-precent, etc. The issue, which ought to be a political winner for a pro-choice Democratic party, gets lost in the judicial nominations, which are, except for the Very Committed, a snooze to the electorate.
<
p>
What will these pro-life Republicans do if they are suddenly able to put their money where there mouths are? The Christianist base wants criminalization of young girls. Republicans can alienate their base, or they can alienate the majority of moderate voters, who are likely uncomfortable with the morality of the decision, but who nevertheless think the option must be available. If the Republicans actually cater to their base on this issue, then we will all learn what the phrase “political realignment” means.
<
p>
You make it sound as if the overturning of Roe would be the equivalent of a ban on abortion, which is not true. Indeed, the only states likely to ban have already regulated abortion almost out of existence under Casey. In other states the option would remain available. Big deal. So a woman who has made the “choice” would have to travel to exercise that choice, which she must do now anyway.
<
p>
So jetiison this albatross, and be done with it. Abortion as a legal issue has been a political loser for 30+ years. Abortion as a political issue would be a winning issue, if only the pro-choice Democrats were not afraid of the political arena.
The GOP made this an issue and the Democrats went along with it. Now with a anti-choice Senate leader the DSCC and the DCCC are pushing anti-choice Dems to the forefront.
<
p>
Pro-choice isn’t just a label when YOU think is it politically convenient. So to say quote” Good Riddence” to Roe in one breath then to beat you chest in the next and say that you are “Pro Choice” is a wee bit disengenuous.
<
p>
<
p>
So says you a supposed Pro Choicer… however, in these “Lost 30 years” MILLIONS of women have had safe and leagal abortions.
You seem concerned that Democrats are insufficiently energetic in their defense of abortion. But the problem is that they must, at present, put their energy into defending judicial opinions. Thus ensues your engaging and exciting discussion about the details of Senate rules on the filibuster, the nuclear option, etc. Exciting stuff, unless you are a swing voter in a swing state, in which case it seems to be an unseemly gimmick. Worse, it puts a single-issue litmus test on nominees, degrading the judiciary for the other 99.999% of its business, and the voters recognize this.
<
p>
That is how, depsite a 60% pro-choice majority, the issue becomes a loser.
<
p>
Defending Roe is, and continues to be, a neat way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But at least you are ideologically pure.
<
p>
How nice that so many women have had abortions. What a horrible tragedy that they were in that situation at all.
is useless and very stupid in this debate.
<
p>
What part of women will die don’t you seem to comprehend?
<
p>
What part of Roe has saved tens of thousand of women’s lives don’t you get?
<
p>
What part of millions of women have had safe legal abortion since Roe doesn’t compute in your head?
<
p>
So don’t bother me with spliting hairs and rhetorical game playing.
<
p>
<
p>
This is utter bullshit. No Dem has every lost because they were pro choice. Hackett nearly won in a bright red district against not only a conservative (ie bigotted) GOP be she was also president of the local Anti-Choice league.
<
p>
Ask any American if they want to see women and doctors go to jail for having or performing abortions and the % goes up to 80% pro choice.
You’re right, Roe is little more than a rhetorical game.
<
p>
That is why its significance to the actual availability of legal abortion is nil. Zero.
<
p>
What part of saving thousands of lives don’t you understand? What part of millions of lives…
<
p>
In my opinion, the winds of change were blowing toward available, legal abortion, even without Roe disrupting the process. But I will accept, since I was but a tyke in 1973, that without Roe, there would be no abortion available in the USA. Even if that was true, it no longer is. The decision is obsolete.
<
p>
If Roe is overturned, there will be abortions available to those who seek them. Therefore the continued viability of this flawed and already undermined decision is barely relevant to the things that you obviously hold very dear. Once it is let go, it will be a releif to discover that it wasn’t needed anymore.
<
p>
Your contention that no Democrat ever lost for being pro-choice conveniently overlooks that this issue administered the coup de grace to the New Deal coalition under which the Democrats governed for a 60 years.
<
p>
Your blithe equation of convervatism with bigotry reflects the problem that makes true-blue anybodies so repellent to moderates, particularly in flyover land.
<
p>
ABSOLUTE LIE
No good argument = CAPITALIZED SHOUTING. I think you’re losing this particular exchange TBD.
… an absolute lie and too ridiculous to even merit a rebuttal.
<
p>
I wasn’t adding up points. But if you call lying to prove a point winning… then yeah I lost. As for commenting and civility I find it interesting that you would rather hold my “manners” accountable than the absolute UNTRUTHS being told here.
<
p>
And this is supposed to be of some comfort to the women of S. Dakota? It’s nothing to get to New York for an abortion, sorta like a trip to the corner Cumberland Farms for some milk.
<
p>
Your insensitivity is stunning but not surprising.
<
p>
Real women, real girls, real lives, “Dad.”
<
p>
Ugh.
Should getting an abortion ever be like stopping off to get some milk? Does anyone make such a decision so cavalierly?
<
p>
Your insensitivity is stunning but not surprising, and is Exhibit A as to why such an absolutist position tends to alienate even those who mostly agree with you.
If you read my comment carefully, you will note that I did not compare getting an abortion to buying milk–but I know that’s inconvenient for you and doesn’t quite set up your snappy response with the same joie de vivre.
<
p>
Your insensitivity is the issue here, not mine. I note that you did not actually address my point: that there are real women and real girls whose lives are at stake here. Girls and women in conservative midwest states still have access to abortion even though they must travel far within their respective states. Again, since you missed my point the first time: a trip to New York is not an easy thing to arrange. You are the one implying that a trip to New York from the Dakotas is not a big deal, not I. Forcing women and girls to arrange such trips to get an abortion is an unreasonable burden, but, then again, I’m sure that doesn’t both you one bit. Pro-choice, my ass.
If I implied that it wasn’t, I didn’t intend to, and plead the ungodly hour the posts were made.
<
p>
What I was aiming at (which will set me yet further off from your view, I suppose) is that an abortion is among the most significant and life-altering decisions one can make. Things that emphasize the bigness of the deal are perfectly acceptable. If that means an inconvenient trip to NYC or CA, so be it.
<
p>
If that makes me pro-life, or evil incarnate, or whatever, in your view, ‘sOK. I was under the impression that pro-life implied an opposition to people having any opportunity to have an abortion at any time. Now it means, an opportunity to have an abortion, but not necesarily at your convenience. Democrats for a small tent!
<
p>
On differently winged blogs, I am regarded to be a Massachusetts liberal surrender monkey.
<
p>
I’m content to be neither a real Democrat or a real Republican; thats why I identify as Independent.
<
p>
There’s a punitive tone to much of what you suggest. “An inconvenient trip” is only, I’m afraid, indicative of a desire to punish less affluent and mobile girls and women. So not only do you suggest that it is reasonable to make abortions onerous to get, but if you have the unfortunate life circumstances to be less affluent or have other children and responsibilities, you get double punishment by having to finance not only the abortion, but also a burdensome trip across the country to get one. What are you hoping for? Tell me what positive outcome you expect from that sort of system?
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t know why you’re playing these semantics games with labels. If you wish to make abortions extremely difficult to get for poor women and girls, for crying out loud, just say so. Why are you mincing words? If you think abortion should represent a punitive burden to any female who wants one, why don’t you just say so directly? All this wordplay about what defines “pro-life,” pro-choice, and “small tents” is simply gibberish.
<
p>
Your tone belies your sentiments quite clearly, even if you are unwilling to articulate your feelings directly: you have no compunction about making abortion extremely difficult to obtain for certain economic classes in this nation. A female who is extremely affluent living in Fargo can always hop a plane to another location to end an unwanted pregnancy; it has ever been thus. But if you’re a poor female in Fargo, then it’s a coathanger for you. Why all the games?
<
p>
You may call yourself an “independent” until the cows come home, but there’s nothing particularly independent about your punitive and negative views concerning women and abortion. In fact, given your fondness for labels, I’ll give you one that sums up your views rather succinctly: you’re misogynist.
<
p>
Abortion paradise … for the wealthy.
<
p>
Too many so called Pro choice Dems have read too much of the anti-choice propoganda and BELIEVE in Abortion on Demand… yunno that on your luck break… women can “choose” to go shopping for shoes or have an abortion.
<
p>
And I guess our pro choice Dem will gladly volunteer pay and escort women from South Dakokta to NY…
Roe has exactly zero to say about the expense of the procedure, so I’m not sure what your point is.
<
p>
So, its expensive. It is today. Overturning Roe won’t change that one whit.
<
p>
Travel expenses? They already exist, because there are no willing abortion providers in many parts of the country. And this is 2006. It just isn’t that hard to travel.
<
p>
And there are many kind people, especially in NYC, who provide women with shelter while in NYC, and help with transportation, etc. No, I’m not one of them, nor, I think, could I be, and sleep at night.
<
p>
or
<
p>
<
p>
Gee why didn’t I think of this?
<
p>
<
p>
Perhaps beacuse it is a lie… to make you sleep better at night… god forbid… dying women interupt your restful sleep….
I’m sick of the Abortion Wars, and sick of both polarized sides. Most Americans support a reasonable middle ground which allows for abortions early on (first trimester? first half?) but becomes more restrictive in the last. I can’t cite the polls (lots of them) but I recall approval of this compromise in the high-60% range. Legislatively, it’s a winner.
<
p>
Both sides on this issue have adopted “mutual assured destruction.” This being a left-leaning blog, you have to ask yourself if you’re willing to allow the pro-abortion absolutists to bet all your chips. Are you willing to lose the whole issue? The pro-choice absolutists have brought this on themselves. And on you.
<
p>
The far-right pro-lifers have nothing to lose; they will keep trying until they win. You have everything to lose, and you only have to lose once.
<
p>
Too bad the left staked their strategy 30 years ago completely outside the legislative process, relying instead on judicial activism. Had this fight been fought in the public square, rather than in chambers, you wouldn’t be staring into the abyss today.
<
p>
You can complain all you want about “right wing judges” but those are the rules of the game…get elected President, and you get to nominate judges. One has to believe the pro-choice absolutist plank demanded in every Democratic presidential platform has contributed mightily to Republican victories.
I agree and would add…
<
p>
The real issue we should all be working on is how to solve the socio-economic conditions that lead to most abortions.
<
p>
FYI:
I am pro choice (first trimester)
Against partial birth abortion (for health exception)
For teaching sex education and abstinence
I just took a postiion on abortion. There goes my dream of becoming a Supreme Court justice!!
you’re very electable in states of either color. Run, Jim, run.
let’s think about policies that make abortion rare.
<
p>
The unwillingness to do this convinces me of the fundamental unseriousness with which socially conservative Republicans approach this issue. If you are against abortion, why support policies that cause more of them?
is a contraceptive and NOT and abortificant. It uses the same hormone women release while breast feeding. Making this an over the counter drug will reduce by 50% the 3 million annual abortions each year in the US.(whick btw is a higher rate than any developed country). Where are the Democrats on this issue?
<
p>
They are too afraid to be labelled by the val yoohz voters as being immoral so they hide. It has come to the point that the ineptitude of BOTH parties to take proactive action is paralysed.
<
p>
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have had to take matters into their own hands because of the politization of reproduction by BOTH parties.
<
p>
<
p>
These are grown ups. The GOP are too busy discussing whether or not a wingnut phramacists rights are impugned upon if they have to distribute contraception. Lieberman goes so far as to annouce that a rape victim can “shop around” for contraception if the hospital she is treated in redused to dispense emergency contraception.
<
p>
There is NO LEADERSHIP in either party and both are happy to let the wingnut set the agenda.
I was under the impression that Plan B is a contraceptive in a manner similar to an IUD. Which is to say, reasonable people can differ.
<
p>
I agree that there has been insufficient energy devoted to this issue. I beleive that this is because Democrats fear the polical arena on reproduction issues because their politics have been wildly distorted by legal mumbo jumbo.
<
p>
I don’t see why the government needs to require anyone to sell something they don’t want to sell. Sounds like a manufactured issue, anyway. If there’s money to be made, they’ll sell. They’re in business after all.
<
p>
It is called the FDA, the Food and Drug adminstration, that was set up to ensure safety standards.
<
p>
However, like everything else it has been politized and regilgois wackos have been put in charge. The last one publically announced that God had placed him in the FDA to “do God’s work”… never mind that he was divorced by his wife due to his excessive penchant for anally raping her when she passed out due her medical condition.
<
p>
He was over the Plan B trials, after the wife accusations were made public all of the female reproductive drugs were then taken over by a veternarian… no lie.
<
p>
And praytell… how did they do that??? Because they are tired women dying then and as they are beginning to NOW. Just last year a 17 year old girl in Texas had her boyfriend kick her in the stomach several times to force an abortion. That is what the “Absolutionists” are betting there chips on stopping….what do you stand for????
You “Absoltionists” cannot protect dumb people from doing dumb things. The girl in Texas could have had an abortion. She waited five months, but couldn’t wait another day, and so attempted something like that. Roe didn’t protect them from doing a very dumb thing.
You “ignorant people” will always be ignorant and there is no need to keep wasting energy trying to convince you otherwise. I’r rather put my energy into saving real human lives.
<
p>
FWIW the reason why this girla and many others like her find themselves in this predicament is because the “abortion counseling” by CPC Crises Pregnancy Centers are there only to shame and coerce women into keeping the pregnancies and they do everything imaginable to delay care to push the girls beyond the safe and legal date for abortions.
<
p>
There is a recent case where a CPC went on an all attack harrassement of a girl even showing up at her high school and telling other students that she wanted an abortion.
<
p>
BTW these fake clinic are part of the Democrats for Life plan on reducing abortions. They want more federal monies for this and for ultrasound machines so that unliscened activist can expose the fetus and shame the women into not aborting… this is the bases of the 95-10 bullshit.
<
p>
Hospitals are already preparing botched abortion wards reminiscent of the 30’s 40’s 50’s and 60’s… remeber their was a reason for the legalization of abortion and to get a glimpse of the past just go to any latin American country that has outlawed abortion and you will see that ten of thousands of women die every year needlessly… just for the arrogance of ignorant people.
So she actually went to a clinic, was convinced that abortion was the wrong decision, but then decided to have her boyfriend crush her abdomen with his foot in order to induce an abortion?
<
p>
Thanks for a nice evening’s chat. Time to end it before it decends into a flame war.
<
p>
Have you ever been to a CPC?? I can easily imagine a scared 17 year old being confronted with their hard sell “counselors”, forced to look at pictures of aborted fetuses and topped off by a federally funded ultrasound showing her the baby she wants to murder.
<
p>
What part don’t you understand? This is their typical MO.
<
p>
They pushed women until after the legal deadline for first term abortions… she could no longer have a legal abortion and resort to a homestyle abortion, which BTW is becoming more and more common.
<
p>
There also have been several cases where these CPC actually pretend to perform abortions and when the woman finds out it is too late to get a LEGAL abortion.
<
p>
As you noted many women have to travel far and wide to get access…CPC’s disguised as abortion clinics have a knack at “delaying” their abortion dates.
They are set up soley to give disinformation and to scare and shame women out of having abortions.
I a Republican. I am pro-choice. I am tired of the Melissa Koguts of the world pretending that this is a partisan issue.
<
p>
Think it was an accident that birth control for unmarried women was illegal in Massachusetts until 1972? Or that contraception only gained coverage as a medication in 2002? I don’t – because the male Roman Catholic Mass. Legislature is anti-choice.
<
p>
I remember when NARAL was pushing for Cheryl Jacques to win the primary for Moakley’s seat. She lost to Steve Lynch, a very pro-life Catholic, and they refused to endorse Joanne Sprague, a woman who had a perfect pro-choice record – becaue she was a Republican.
<
p>
Under the 1998 DOMA, if Roe is repealed, the law reverts to the states. Has abortion ever been decriminalized here? If Democrat leglators have to take a vote on it – WOULD they vote pro-choice?
<
p>
Seems to me we have a bigger problem in our own back yard – but all NARAL and Planned Parenthood can do is bash Bush.
<
p>
Easier than taking the beam out of their own eye.
So called Democratic librul bloggers (lead by Kos) have eviscerated NARAL and PP for supporting GOP pro choice candidates.
<
p>
For some reason they can not comprehend that this must be bi partisan issue and that putting all the chips into one party will offer no counterbalance nor incentive to the other party to take up this cause… hence the Sanatorum vs Sanatorum (Casey) Sen PA election…. if there is no difference with the candidates why would some one change…
<
p>
Today, PA women will be represented 0% by both challengers.
.
of their reproductive issues will be represented whether or not they vote for either of these fools.
<
p>
Santorum (R) and Sanatorum (D) have already agreed NOT to discuss any reproductive issues in any upcoming debates. Like I said 0% representation on this issue.
..by not (under the guise of civility) using euphemisms to discuss the subject of abortion.
<
p>
“Pro-choice” and “Reproductive Rights” are weasel words to cover the shame one feels for advocating a shameful procedure.
<
p>
“Pro-Life” is, likewise, a poorly worded and meaningless term. Anyone who isn’t an Islamofascist is “pro-life”.
<
p>
The correct terms for this debate are “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”.
I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice. Is anyone for abortion? You don’t raise your children and think, gee some day I hope my daughter has an abortion.
<
p>
Pro-Choice is the right word. I do believe my daughter should have the choice to have an abortion (although I would hope she wouldn’t, unless health was an issue).
<
p>
I don’t have a problem with term pro-life. I think it does articulate what they believe.
<
p>
is one of the earliest FRAMES used by the GOP.
<
p>
It automatically sets the frame the any one against them are Pro DEATH or anti-life that is why I do not use their choice of words. Also I do not believe that it adequately descibes their behavior as many “Pro lifers” such as Bush happily killed the most prisoners ever by one governor in the history of the US…. so I do not agree that they are “PRO” life… they are pro-opportunist. They also have no problem with the fungibles lives lost in Iraq on both sides of the conflict. Then they have the gall to get teary eyed regarding two cells smaller than a pin head… the hypocrisy is stunning. Don’t get me started on how these same “PRO” lifers snatch food out of live babies mouths, refuse to educated them or provide adequate health insurance.
<
p>
Was it Alabama??? (a Southern state) that just voted down a bill to ban abortion… seems like these holier than thou hypocrits “redefined” their definition of life when a Democrat attached a rider to the bill that if the bill passed to ban abortion the state must fund all unwanted children until the age of 18 years old… Xtains… weren’r so keen to defend actual live births nor were they willing to put their money where their mouths are… typical.
A ban on Roe would not be the end of the world, the majority of Americans support the right to choose and it would turn the whole ‘activist judges’ attack line on its head. Also it would mean that Roberts and Alito perjured themselves in Committee and would be subject to impeachment during a majority Congress (would be very politically damaging to impeach them, but there would be very valid legal grounds to do so). Also it would mean that most states would still retain abortion rights and states that want to ban, like South Dakota and Mississippi would ban.
<
p>
Once people see their health costs go up, their insurance costs go up, and their quality of life decrease with all the unwanted pregnancies, once people in those states see young women brutalized by primitive abortion procedures and people flea across state lines than most of those states will likely reverse their position.
<
p>
Personally I am opposed to abortion rights although I understand how real the horror show I described above would be for places that banned them, as much as I oppose the option much like I oppose doing drugs, the illegality of the action wont stop people who desperately want to from doing so. I believe that the Pro Choice and Pro Life lobbies together with bi partisan Congressman should put all their funds towards reducing the circumstances that create abortion rather than attack or defend the act itself. That said Roe v Wade is incredibly unsound legal precedence and I agree that the right to choose should be grounded in new precedence or other legislation. Perhaps an actual right to privacy in the Constitution rather than “implied rights”.
<
p>
Lastly (sorry for the huge post) I believe that Dems should stop being a staunch pro abortion party and become a true pro choice party, by in some instances opposing the act itself but supporting the right to choose it.
<
p>
<
p>
No but several THOUSANDS of women WILL DIE. I am not ready to take that chance because of political opportunist… in both parties.
<
p>
The main reason why I jumped in this thread was to clarify the article. Bush did NOT appoint Roberts and Ailto … he nominated them and they were confirmed with the blessings of the seated Democrats and Republicans. There fore your fantasy scenario that these same Dems will turn around when there is a majority and impeach Roberts and Ailto is nonsense.
<
p>
Roe must stay because once it goes there will be no going back. A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush… and your scenario is complete fantasy and conjecture based on not one iota of facts of substance.
<
p>
The majority of states who were clued into what the DC establishment (Dems and GOP) were doing already have taken steps to ban Roe in their states. 17 states still have abortions bans on their books pre Roe and those would take effect immediately, the rest are getting their eggs in a row to do so immediately. North Dakota “jumped the gun” and other states are being told to wait for the bell…ie when Roe is repealed.
<
p>
As per the “legality” those are just Rush Limbaugh’s talking points.
<
p>
Again, why people think that in the ultimate triangulation that Democrats who have not fought to support Roe since Clinton will be seen as the victors is beyond me. A blind man could see that if one’s base is 60% women that this is an issue that should be championed… but as everything in this party since Clinton… wrong is right and up is down if you triangulate enough.
<
p>
The first thing out of the gates for the 2008 campaigns… Kerry and Hilliary co sponsored a bill with SANATORUM (yeah that one) to make is legal for phramacist to discriminate dispensing drugs based on their personal religion. Hilliary has gone so far to advocate Absinence Only education… and these are the very same people you believe that they will impeach Roberts and Ailtio… hell they won’t even lift a finger to impeach Bush when now all of his lies are confirmed and documented.
<
p>
I don’t believe in fantasies as you have described… that is why Roe must stay. Ending Roe will only INCREASE polarization and warfare to the street level. Instead of fighting one battle in DC… every state, city and hamlet will be a battle ground… and that is just what they want… War on Women… a PERMANENT WAR that can never be won whose only goal is to divide and polarize the country even more. In 2006 it id disgraceful that the US is even having this debate. If you think that this is a “peaceful” resolution then you haven’t a clue.