Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Guess the Republican: “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”

By

Scary!

Is it me, or are the Republicans trying to out-crazy each other?

In any event, can you guess which national Republican big shot recently advocated an end to choice?

Your Choices are: Romney, McCain, Falwell, and Gonzales

(See Poll below. Answer in comments.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • …but I’m not surprised.  I hadn’t seen the story, but IMO this isn’t ‘front runner’ conduct.  As my old boss used to say, don’t answer questions nobody has asked you.

      <

      p>
      One thing to think about at the end of the day – IF Roe were overturned, then the laws would revert to the states.  I’m not worried here in Mass.,  because Mass. NARAL has taken care of that with my membership dollars…um…haven’t they?

      • let the Roe v. Wade chips fall where they may?  yikes, Peter!  I guess you don’t have any female friends or relatives in forced-birth states.

        • Not even close.

          <

          p>
          He made the excellent point that pro-choice states ought to make sure that there are laws on the books protecting access to abortions should Row v. Wade ever be overturned.

          <

          p>
          He’s got a good point.

          • PP has an excellent point that if R v W is overturned, we need to be sure that state-level protections are in place.  No arguement there.  But I object to two inferences, one, sounded to me like PP had no cares beyond protecting PP teritory (MA).  Many states have abortion bans.  Do we just say tra la, I don’t live there, and leave these women to have forced births?  And two, expecting orgs to do work for us.  We all need to be responsible enough to know whether our checks to NARAL are enough.  If all we do is throw an annual check in the mail, we deserve what we get (which may not be what we want).  This is too important an issue to be lazy over.  Check here to see the lay of the law in various states.

            <

            p>
            PP, if I have misread your post, I apologize.  However, when the topic is as important as choice, it pays to be as clear and determined as possible.

      • …Charles Keating, of the Republican Keating family of Cincinnati political fame, was the Keating of the Keating Five fame.

        <

        p>
        http://en.wikipedia….

        <

        p>
        Since I was raised in Cincinnati, I was quite well aware of his shenanigans.  The irony is that Charles was head of a Cincinnati organization that called itself the Citizens for Decent Literature.  (They go by a different name now–something like Citizens for Community Values, but it’s the same group.)  Among their various accomplishments was getting the Hamilton County (home of Cincy) prosecutor to prosecute the curator of the city’s Museum of Contemporary Art for daring to host the Maplethorpe exhibition of “pornographic” pictures (failed prosecution), and chasing all of the adult entertainment out of the city.  The adult entertainment high-tailed it out of the city–all the way to Newport KY, right across a bridge over the Ohio River.  Big accomplishment. 

        <

        p>
        (BTW, there’s a Gary Bauer story in there.  He was raised in Newport KY, and was so revolted by the adult entertainment joints in his neighborhood, that he became a nutty conservative.)

        <

        p>
        And subsequently, Charles himself high-tailed it out of Cincy, all the way to Phoenix AZ, to become head of Lincoln Savings and Loan to bilk poor widows and other elderly people out of their money. 

        <

        p>
        Just gotta love those Republicans.  But growing up in Cincinnati, and seeing all the hypocrisy, will bring out the sarcasm in one.

  2. This is a most interesting race to the bottom, with Forced Birth McCain trying to keep up with Multiple Choice Mitt on number of flip flops.  I think I am on to their strategy here.  I think they plan to be the first tag-team running mates.  FB McCain will be prez Mon, Wed & Fri, then flip flop to VP on Tu, Th and Sat, when MC Mitt takes the crown.  On Sundays, they will rest, of course.  This issue flopping is just a limbering up exercise.

      • (taken from DailyKos)

        <

        p>

        “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

        <

        p>  — John McCain

        • It says,

          McCain has a long antiabortion record in his 17-year congressional career. He has said he opposes abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and to prevent a woman’s death. In a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire last year, he answered “yes” when asked if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. He also voted to override President Clinton’s veto of the ban on a late-term procedure called “partial birth” abortion by its opponents and in favor of continuing the ban on Medicaid funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the woman.

          <

          p>
          I have always been bewildered by some peoples’ love affair with John McCain when they really did not understand his views on certain issues.  He did a great job when he last ran for President of stroking reporters and he got a large amount of very supportive press out of it.  It helped perpetuate the John McCain as a moderate myth.  However, he is not, and has never been, a moderate on many social issues, despite what people may want to think. 

          • I have always been bewildered by some peoples’ love affair with John McCain when they really did not understand his views on certain issues.

            <

            p>
            I agree with you on this, big time!  I remember that McCain was on ANPR’s Talk of the nation in late 1999 or the first part of 2000 (before being defeated in the primary).  A man called in and urged him to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the still-not-passed federal bill that would outlaw job discrimination for LGB folks (and I think that they finally added transgender people to the draft in the last few years).  McCain gave a vague but thoughtful answer about how he’d have to see the bill, consider it, etc.  He sounded non-committal, moderate, thoughtful, etc.

            <

            p>
            A small problem revealed by a quick websearch–McCain had already voted against ENDA!  But the interviewer didn’t point that out, and McCain’s moderate deception remained intact.

  3. although its far from top on my list, I think Roe is probably one of the worst examples of judicial activism I can think of.  The right to an abortion is in the constitution?  But only for 2 trimesters?  Go on. 

    <

    p>
    If you want something in the constitution, there is an amendment process to get it there.  Its been used a bunch of times in the past.

    <

    p>
    Amending the constitution is really difficult, by design.  It isnt supposed to be trifled with in order to acheive some partisan end.  It is the core of our democracy and should be protected as such.

    <

    p>
    If you allow a handful of unelected judges to make our laws for us (as opposed to simply interpreting the laws that our elected officials make) then we are no longer a democracy.

    <

    p>
    As I’ve mentioned before I am pro-choice, but also pro-states rights and of course pro-constitution.

    • Roe is far more a piece of legislation than a a judicial decision.  Really, abortion can only be 100% legal at all times and all places in the first trimester.  It can be banned outright in the third trimester.  It can’t be banned, but it can be regulated in the second trimester. 

      <

      p>
      They inferred all of that from a right to privacy, which they in turn inferred from several specific clauses against government intrusion, none of which had anything remotely to do with abortion?  It was an awful judicial decision, regardless of whether you support the legality of abortion.

        • then abortion takes a human life and is manslaughter (a statement 48% of democrats agree with, according to Zogby) a capital punishment for which no crime has been committed and inflicted without a trial.  That is a violation of a number of provisions in the Constitution, including the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments, not to mention denies what Jefferson listed as the first unalienable right.

          • …Since I am not a Democrat, I don’t particularly care what x% of Democrats agree with.  You have completely failed to address the issue.  I suppose that if you could remove the developing fetus without injuring the woman and implant it elsewhere (perhaps one of Brave New World‘s decanters), you might have a point.  The problem that you have, though, is that by requiring a woman to take a fetus to term is that you are requiring her to be enslaved to her fetus. 

            <

            p>
            I quite frankly don’t know how to put it more succinctly.  If you have a problem with that characterization, please put it up.

            <

            p>
            BTW, just to remind you–regarding Jefferson–the Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful polemic, a wonderful piece of propaganda, has no legal significance in the US.  And it was written eight decades or so before the 13th amendment regarding slavery.  And, obviously, the 5th and the 8th amendments (what do they have to do with it?) were before the 13th amendment.  I completely fail to see any relevance of the 14th amendment.  Perhaps you can enlighten us.

            • if you take aside for a moment rape, which produces a very small number of pregnancies, no one is forcing a woman against her will to become pregnant.  She may not have intended to become pregnant, but no one put her in chains and forced her to be.  There are still enslaved people in the world today, and I think it does a disservice to them to reduce their suffering with your rhetoric.  Should I understand your comments to mean that you only oppose outlawing abortion in the cases of rape, and perhaps to save the mother’s life?

              <

              p>
              I understand the DOI has no legal significance, but it was a founding document written by an incredibly influential founding father and should be afforded more consideration than a book, however great, by Huxley.  As to the amendments, number 5 states

              <

              p>

              nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

              <

              p>
              Number 8 deals with the death penalty:

              nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

              <

              p>
              Number 14, like 5:

              nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

              • …you approve of slavery.  That’s the long and the short of it.  You approve of slavery.

                <

                p>
                I’m sorry, but I’m going to be vicious here.

                <

                p>
                Amendments 5 and 8 refer to limitations on the federal government’s powers, not to the rights of individuals.  (Your reference to the 8th amendment is so off the wall that it isn’t worthy of comment, except that I will note that there is no punishment involved, and, regardless, the 13th amendment was ratified after the 8th.)  Amendment 14 refers to limitations on the states’ powers, also, not the rights of individuals.

                <

                p>
                You really do not understand the US Constitution, do you?  You do not understand that the US Constitution grants certain powers (a term I use intentionally) to the federal government and to state governments, limits certain powers of the state governments, and reserves certain rights to the people, and, via the 13th amendment, grants certain rights to the people.  You really don’t understand the structure, do you?

                <

                p>
                Respond to the point.  Requiring a woman to carry a fetus to term enslaves her to her fetus.  That is an obvious violation of the 13th amendment.

                • I mean slavery?  Come on.

                  <

                  p>
                  I already responded to your point.  Pregnancy isn’t slavery.  No one puts women in chains and forcible impregnates them.  Yes, tragically, there are sexual assaults, but they rarely result in a child being conceived.  Aside from that, I don’t see how you can possibly call it enslavement.

                  <

                  p>
                  Who doesn’t understand the stucture?  The Bill of Rights has been applied to the states through the 14th amendment.  The 1st specifically says “Congress shall pass no law…” but when was the last time you heard of a state having an official religion, or censoring newspapers?

                  <

                  p>
                  You accuse me of supporting slavery?  I accuse you of supporting murder.  “you approve of [murder].  That’s the long and the short of it.  You approve of [murder].”

                  <

                  p>
                  I still reject your premise that it is slavery, but if I had to choose between the two, I would pick temporarily enslaving a woman rather than permanently murdering a child.

Archives