More importantly, an overturned Roe v. Wade will return abortion to the states; therefore, subsequent SCOTUS noms. will have to secure approval from the Senate based on the 95% of issues coming before the court, not the piddly-paddle "big" three of abortion, flag-burning, and (God) (and the Bible) (shawty) in public schools.

Also, the Republicans would now have to contest issues at the local level EVERYWHERE. Even in KS, say, where I am sure abortion will be voted right out the window by the State Legi. and made law by the pen of a governor fearing for her re-election as a Democrat in a state that voted just about 2-to-1 for Bush, there will be a more than token opposition to abortion rescinding. So, the dollars that would have usually been funnelled from KS Right to Life, etc., to pro-life and pro-family groups in Dem.-majority (Mass., or Cali., say) or contested (Ill., or Oregon, say) states will have to stay at home. That will prove for a fairer playing-field for Dem. candidates everywhere, even the right honourable Senator in the Grand Old State of Alabama. The Reps. won't have the adv. of so much extra money from out-of-state to give them that final push over the top in the (what used to be) rare close race in GOP strongholds.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's get all crunk on this joint and overturn Roe. Bring the battle to the enemy, state-by-state, so the Reps. don't have the choice of sitting on their ass in some places anymore.

So state by state, women, mostly poor or young ones who can't travel, die trying to self-abort or getting illegal d&cs? Good thinking, dude.

No compromise on this one: if you're willing to force women to carry to term against their will, political hay or not, you're no progressive of any stripe.

You think every state would go with an elective abortion prohibition following a Roe reversal. (Is that a pun?)

No. Hardly. Even in the deep South, I don't see it being that easy. Certainly not in Tejas, probably not so easy in Virginia -- even being hq of Christian Coalition and Liberty U. (hoo-ah!) -- and I think Florida might prove problematic as well (Rep. gov, we all know who, and his zeal to sell his and his family's soul to the far right, be damned).

Furthermore, the North-shore Nancies -- what we call them in my part, anyway -- who vote for the likes of Bush, because they want taxes on their husbands's (and their) portfolios low, but support abortion rights, etc., 'cause they're "feminists", would be forced to put thine money where thine mouth is. The money they give to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, et. al., could go in part to cover travel costs for (certainly) legal-age women without other means to go from, say, Nebraska (a state where certainly abortion will be outlawed) to Nevada (where, dad-gum, there will be abortion providers with offices and surgical facilities in strip-malls; but, I don't say that to mean non-sterile... they will be state-of-the-art, clinically; just abundant, as well).

Also, in states where the anti-abortion crusaders win-out, and get it illegalized (is that a word?), but where there is not a terribly large popular consensus that "all life (in utero, anyway) is sacred... we must protect it... yadda, yadda", there could be a push to get low-cost (or, by got, no-cost) contraception made plentiful and easily obtainable by low-income and under-age females. (Similar to the Family Planning Waiver in Wisc.) Therefore, we would be able to slow, if not halt, the creeping "sex is evil, if you're not married... abstain, abstain, abstain" psychology of contemporary sex. ed., because we would be accepting that sex does -- and should, in most cases -- happen. Simultaneously, we would be making sure that pregnancy where pregnancy is not wanted/should not be encouraged would not happen.

Nope, it's the internet, and you're the one who led off with the ad hominem.


First off, my bad for posting my "erroneous" info, I mistakenly posted the stats for Bush's record in the 108th Congress--18 confirmations out of 34, 16 returned. In the 107th, he was 17 of 32 with 15 returned. Combined, he's 35 of 66, 53%. So, quoted the wrong stat, but the conclusion holds. In fact, the correct stats present a stronger argument. Thanks for pointing this out.

Since you apparently find a comparison to Clinton so crucial to your argument, over his two terms, he was 65 of 106 (61%), with 38 returned--over four Congresses (103 - 106). You, in only two Congresses, Bush has had 31 Circuit judges returned, only 7 shy of your beloved rapist.

Neither President had an appointee rejected.

To put it another way, Clinton had 38 of 106 (36%) nominations returned ("Obstructed" if you will, no vote). Bush has had 31 of 66 (47%) returned or "obstructed".

If you want to nitpick about anything below the Circuit Court, be my guest, that's like arguing over who has the better AA farm club. The fact is, where the rubber meets the road, Clinton got more of his guys confirmed than Bush, both in terms of numbers so far (65 versus 35) and hit rate (61% vs. 53%).

Now, were I to abuse stats as you have, I would draw a regression:

Lower courts: near 100% success
Circuit courts: near 50%
Supreme Court: near 0%

Straight line if you plot it.

Some of those are repeats though. There were only 52 individuals nominated, and 35 were confirmed. Some of the ones who were returned were nominated and returned again. And of the 17 returns, only 10 had to do with filibusters. The rest were just not brought to vote by Republicans (for example, because the home state Democrat asked them not to, and they showed respect).

We could argue over whether returning the same person multiple times counts as a new obstruction, but that wasn't really my point in the first place.

If you had said you were only talking about circuit court judges I wouldn't have said anything. It's just annoying when Bush is getting 95%+ of judges overall, to say that he can't get his "judges" though, without mentioning which kind of judges you were talking about.







I didn't claim to be a progressive. I look like one when I'm arguing with Billzebub, but I'm actually a moderate, leaning libertarian.

The reasons I think Democrats should let Bush get an anti-Roe Justice are:


1. Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision. Seriously, it just doesn't make sense from a legal standpoint.

I think it should be scrapped and we should find a better way to ensure reproductive rights.

2. People don't remember how bad it was before they had the Roe v. Wade rights. Once they remember, I predict Republicans will get swept out of office.

After that, Democrats can get in office and give back the rights.

3. Abortion won't suddenly become illegal everywhere. It will become an issue for the states.

I predict a lot of laws saying "no abortion except for rape or health of the mother." I also predict a skyrocketing number of reported rapes in those states. I don't think banning abortion will work, and that it will actually hurt the people who try it.

4. Abortion mobilizes the Republican base like no other issue. I know a lot of Republicans who disagree with Bush and his super-spending ways, but based on abortion and morality type issues they vote for him. Without that, I don't think they would.

I don't know much about politics but i feel that even if your logic works out and the republican party takes a hit for it, the democrats would look even more ineffectual than they already are regarding their voter base, should an anti-roe judge make it. They are the minority in every way, already have enough trouble mobilizing on issues, and do not have a platform that appeals to christian people in many ways, so an anti-roe judge making it in is pretty much solidifies of all of this, and make it harder for dems to rebound. Furthermore, it seems like many republicans disagree many bush ideas including his take on morality, but don't vote that way. Giving them a victory now would just strengthen them more in my opinion. There would be no reason to stop voting republican (unless you're pro-choice) but there would be no reason to rely on the democrats (if you're pro-choice).

Scrapping Roe v. Wade without a better idea is not wise, and also relying on public opinion to shift against republicans if it is made illegal is not dependable, as a lot of people do not know where they stand, and are happy that way. the issue makes people uncomfortable, and a lot of people are happy not thnking about it. MAny other people have trouble taking sides and will say something to the effect of "well, i'm not for it, and would never resort to it, but i think other people should be able to" as a way of covering all their bases, when really it means they are pro-choice. I don't think this would change

instating reproductive choice laws was difficult, and long overdue. tearing them down has proven to be quite difficult as well, so reinstating them, were they to be torn down, also seems like it would take a good deal of time, and not in the best interests of patients.

you say that Roe vs. Wade doesn't make sense, but i'm not sure i follow. Legally protecting access to the same medical care in every state to me seems like a pretty great decision. Without it, women in many southern states would be fucked. It's already not easy to get an abortion, as many states have few providers, and it's difficult to go across state lines and get one, especially if you're a minor. Making it a state issue is not the best idea from a medical standpoint, as it pretty much impossible for a women to control her own body/fetus in some states, and that will mark the return of septic abortions and completely avoidable death/morbidity. Abortion is unique and obviously has significance in many arenas, but in my opinion, it's almost akin to allowing states to limit access to any other surgical procedure (appendectomies, hernia repair, open heart etc). The thought of not being able to receive treatment for any of these other conditions is unimaginable, and abortion really is no different, because women's lives (or various aspects of them) are at stake.

Restriction rules (not unles raped etc) are akin to making it illegal as the overwhelming majority of abortions are not related to rape, and imminant danger to the mother's help is not usually seen in the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. I guess many more rapes would be reported, but that's a shitty way to achieve this goal (we have enough trouble creating a trusting environment for victims, and are quick to blame them, which is messed up)

I respect your ideas, but i think you're forgetting that real people are involved here, and this alone makes the overturning of Roe v. Wade a total mistake/catastrophe. also you're plan requires a lot things to fall the right way, ignores other issues like homeland security/economy/, and requires more luck than the dems have right now.

But what's really wrong with that position?

I'm not for a number of things that I would be unlikely to use, yet I don't think it's the best idea to legislate those particular stances. I don't feel that discredits my view on the subject.

I was just saying that, in conversations that i've had with people, i think many people use a phrase like that to as a way of not commiting to being pro or anti-choice. It's a way for people to stay neutral, and not get caught in endless heated arguements. (which i hate as much as anyone else)

There's nothing wrong with that view, and i wasn't discrediting it, it's the way i wish everyone would look at things. But it is a pro-choice viewpoint, nonetheless, and i feel like people don't often realize that when they say it. it's a subtle thing i've noticed.

this was also a response to the post before mine, where the author assumed that overturning Roe v. Wade would cause a response in society where people would realize how bad things were for women/couples before Roe v. Wade passed. People would become polarized, and mainly against the conservative platform. I was saying that you can't really count on that because a lot of people have difficulty resolving the issue with their lives/religions/politics/morality now, and there's nothing to show that that would really change in the future, because it will always be complicated.

All I want to see is consistency from the law. What the Supreme Court needs to do is define "life" once and for all. Does it begin at conception, does it begin at birth? Precedent is "at birth". Majority is defined from date of birth, legal documents specify date of birth.

If this is the case, and an "unborn" is not life, then legally, is it not property? If so, whose property? Is it solely the property of the pregnant woman, or is it joint property of the woman and father (who could lay claim to half of the DNA code?).

If a woman were to choose to destroy said property, would she be required to secure permission from the father?

These are the issues that need to be addressed.

DING! I think a "life vs. personhood" distinction would be extremely appropriate as well. Is it alive at conception? Yes. So are cows and carrots. Is meat/salad murder? When is a human being recognized as a sentinent individual? Birth is the precedent, but brain synapses can fire as early as 24 (?) weeks. Things to ponder/discuss...

i see your point, but i think that's why this is so complicated. "once and for all" decisions of any sort will resultt in injustice for one group of people.

Requiring paternal permission is degrading, especially if you're an adult female. This compromises the woman's autonomy over her own body (she is carrying the fetus, and responsible for it's nutrition, safety etc after all) and also in this case, what do you in instances where the dad is a no-show, or a deadbeat. There's more to being a dad than just contributing DNA. If you enable a father with this whole permission thing, then it stands to reason that that father should be required to be present in the child's life, financially as well as supportively (unless its put up for adoption). Were that to happen, i'm sure a lot of fathers would back off from claiming their rights to their "property". The whole point of abortion is to liberate women, a rule like this just holds them back, and sets a bad precedent.

Unless i misunderstand it, I think Roe v. Wade has determined life to be after viability, or at least that is the intent, as abortion rights are protected in every state up to viability(somewhere around 24 weeks)

Gonzales is gonna luck us all up anydamnedway. Fortunately, I don't need to worry about lawyer fees.

It's called politics, my dear. And this is exactly the thing to do. Ole 'em.

No one has autonomy over there own body, man or woman.

Works for me. I have views on abortion that can be pretty off the wall, but it stems from one basic belief. I'm against unwanted children. We already have too many, and until all the foster children and orphans are all adopted, I have a hard time forcing someone else to squirt out another unwanted kid. Hell, there are too many unwanted kids living with their fucking parents.

That being said, I don't think that ending a pregnancy is taking a moral or ethical high ground. As far as reproductive choice, you made the choice when your back hit the mattress. I know that people make mistakes. I know that teenagers make mistakes. I'm willing to look past those.

No, we shouldn't scare these women into unsafe alternatives, and I know in real world application there are no simple solutions. But to dress abortion up as some sort of right is a bit much. I have a hard time finding noble cause in ending a pregnancy, even when I believe that you ain't a person until you're out in the air.

I'm not for outlawing abortion, but the issue is abused by both sides to the point that too many people lose sight of common sense.

Will you run for office?

Not unless someone will burn all this porn off my hard drive.

and then grow a womb?

The post we have all been waiting for:
SACRIFICE

Huh???

Well, yes, people make mistakes, pretty big ones in fact, and i agree with you fully that it's better to look past them than to hold a grudge, but nobody chooses for their condom to break, or for their pill not to work, or for their partner/families/religion/government to abandon them when they need them at such a serious time as an unwanted pregnancy, so i disagree with you there.

Yes i do think that abortion can be considered a right, because you have to remember what it actually is, and that's a medical procedure. i hold medical care to be a human right, and i see it as a fundamental necessity. actually exectuing that goal is difficult here in america, but i think Roe v. Wade is a step in the right direction.

Yes, this issue is abused by both sides, and i hate that it is a politcal discussion, because that causes you to forget the actual patients and doctors involved.

Uh, having an abortion in most cases has nothing to with being sick. All medical procedures should not be considered a "right." I don't think Jacko's 200 nose surgeries is necessary to his existence.

There is a difference between medical care and medical procedures. Corey hit the nail on the head in my opinion, and I'm pro-life. I completey understand where he's coming from. I just have issue with destroying life of any kind whether it's a baby or a murderer. But there is always exceptions, and I defintely see the other side of the story.

But the thing is, there life is full of risks and returns. Condoms and the pill have an inherent risk. There is a responsibility factor there, other than just doing as you please.

In order to reduce some of that risk however, we should make a concerted effort not only to educate the kids of these risks, but also provide tools to lessen the risks. The IUD is highly successful, especially in Europe, but lingering fears of cervical cancer in the 1970s, fears that are not applicable today thanks to technology and testing, have made it pretty undesirable in the U.S. I also believe that RU-486, the so-called "morning after pill", should be made available over the counter, without a physician's prescription.



This is a big problem. This is a failing of society to take care of its own. Ideally, I would like to see real life counseling and guidance programs especially for pregnant teens that would help them carry to term and have the baby adopted.

Churches genuinely concerned about their communities could pull this off, if only they could put down the politics and take on the purpose. I wouldn't be surprised if some churches had a successful program on a small scale. Without preaching or judging or making these women feel bad about their decisions, they could show the compassion and caring needed to show them that being pregnant is not the end of the world, even though it may so at the time. Parents, if possible, should also be involved to aid their children, but again, I know this is not always plausible. But to allow (again, I'm not advocating force) this young woman to carry the child to term can change her worldview on herself and her community.

I think that when a woman has terminates an unwanted pregnancy, we have faltered in some way. Some of these are unavoidable, but others are not. We as a people can benefit from a reduction in abortions, even if only a reduction of 15% per year. Seventeen year-old girls don't want to be mothers, and their chances of success are limited in that arena as well.



Another point is that abortions bring along truckloads of emotional baggage, unlike most medical procedures. I've known more than a few women who have undergone the procedure, and they carry a weight that doesn't come along with having your tonsils removed or being circumcised. A very good friend of mine had to call of a marriage because he and his ex-fiancee never could re-visit the time before their abortion.

Easy. You don't have the right do affect your body however you want, whenever you want. For example:

In Maryland, if you ride a motorcycle, you must wear a helmet.
In most states, if you ride in car, you must wear a seat belt.
In Maryland, it's illegal to sell clove cigarettes, presumably to people who might smoke them.
From 1919-1933, alcohol was outlawed by the U.S. Government, presumably to be consumed.
In South Carolina, it used to be illegal to get tattoos (quite possibly still is).
It is illegal to inject, snort or eat heroin, cocaine, ephedrine or your granny's OxyContin.
How many places won't allow breast feeding in public?

There's more, I'm sure, but I already had to re-type this once because the power went out.

Slavery (and don't try to tell me that forcing someone to carry around an unborn fetus is anything different) isn't legal in the US.