Captain's Quarters -

This decision is a travesty. Women deserve the right to choose. Life doesn't begin at conception; it begins at first breath. This is a throw-back to the Dark Ages, another cultural milestone brought to us by superstitious Christians.

In his concurrence to today's opinion, Justice Thomas states: "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."

Those abortions were never held in back alleys!

Plus, I guess you never heard of placenta previa. Whee nature deals the death blow. Because the placenta "pulls away." As a matter of fact, in that case, it's a matter of luck. Because as labor progresses, the cervix opens. Lo and behold, sometimes the "seed" or "egg" settles very close to this hole. And, when the placenta grows, it grows over it. Alas, when the cervix starts to spread you get life-threatening hemorhages.

As to lawyers "doing" health care; have I got news for you!

Isn't it possible some of those procedures were done because inside instead of a baby, there was a freak? You know. Siamese twins. Kids without all their parts. Some? Brainless. There's a name for the head, when it only has a brain-stem in it, for breathing purposes.

And, yes. These births occur.

How do I know? I worked in a hospital, once.

And, I knew of one baby, born without a brain, just a brain stem. Who was left without food. The rules now say you can starve these babies to death. Or? I guess you could choose to take one home. But it's not a life. And, it's not a life off a ventilator.

Not that nature doesn't throw left curves!

You could also ask yourselves, "Gee. Why do women have ultrasounds?" Isn't it possible that there are cases where a woman and her doctor need lots of privacy? You think this procedure is done "just to determine the kid's sex?"

Today, it's not uncommon to ask a pregnant woman what's she expecting. That's our technology.

That the supreme's did this? Political debts do not make great jurists.

The other thing to notice? Since your talking about something UNUSUAL, and sometimes, needed to be done for the health of the mother; you're just adding to crisis. Unknowing, dumb, religious people. And, they think they're on a roll. Less than likely that they've got all that much to celebrate.

But, yeah. The collection plates? They'll pick up more free money. Sometimes, pulpits deliver their lessons, without words.

No, Jeffrey, life begins at conception, which is why MEN who kill women's babies in the womb WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION are called baby killers, while doctors who do it are called doctors and the women who allow it are called responsible women excercising their free right of choice of death for their child. You can't have it both ways. Either men have the right to terminate a women's pregnancy, regardless of the women's feelings, or the whole mess is murder of an innocent child. Now, which seems more logical to you? Human all the way, or only turns human before birth if a MAN wants to terminate it? (And may I add what a silly argument this is you use?)

Let's hope that if this is not the beginning of the end for legalized abortion, then it's at least the beginning of the end for stare decisis, the stupidest rule in law ever written.

America once had the best obstetrical care in the world. Today? No. Lots of docs will practice gynecology. But won't deliver babies.

This factor is actually more dangerous to producing living, healthy babies, than any other factor.

What chased the docs away? The insurance premiums to practice. Once this flew over the $100,000 per year PREMIUM, doctors just dropped the practice.

Who needs to be up all night, anyway, with a woman in labor? Gynecology? YOu work the hours you want. And, you do surgeries, too, on a schedule.

Since this "fight" began? It's done more harm than good.

The other thing to notice? It tends to turn more people "off" social conservatives, than just about anything else.

How will this play out, politically?

First off, neither Bush president has much of a reputation.

The supreme's? Very lackluster second raters; when compared to other times in our history. Of course, nothing is as bad as Taney. But why is he even considered a "model to match?"

Like all costs you kick onto somebody else; this one will cost most women plenty. SInce doctors aren't interested in doing obstetrics. Too many lawsuits from the John Edwards types.

Emotional issues? Yeah. Women can claim them. But they'd be better served if logic got applied to problems. Not massive hysteria.

Abortion is a heinous, barbaric, sub-human practice.

That being said, I think persuasion is far more effective in limiting its practice, than is any law.

It's impossible to stop or to even slow down, particularly when a large percentage of our population believe that it should be allowed.

Rather than wasting time and resources, with what passes for our legal system (which will always be rigged in favor of leftists), I think that abortion opponents should focus on getting their message out, directly to the people.

Abortion should be an unthinkable obscenity. I don't see where passing ineffective laws gets us any closer to that day.

So, Carol, by your reasoning, since birth defects occur, we should have a law ready to use just in case so that when one is born, we can kill it. Great. Just define what is allowed to be killed and what is not. Because, I'm thinking that unless you start with like, number of months or something, you lose women's right to use abortion as birth control, which, whether you want to admit it or not, is the REAL issue.
The REAL issue is that women want the right to have that form of birth control, that option in case their "life isn't working out just right ot have a child" or something. But, the disingenous idiots that you are, you will try to make it about embryonic stem cells, when it has nothing to do with stem cells are you'd be promoting adult stem cells, which the medical world (you know, private enterprise, all that private money you keep talking about that will FLOW into embryonic stem cell research when the government decides it's okay?) has already deemed worth of research and money.
I am tired of you women trying to make this about something else. A baby is a life, and if you wish to try and prove it, fine. I'll show you a pregnant woman, and you show me the chances of her having anything but a human child. Got it? The day you can show me she has even one in a million chance of having something besides a human child, I'll vote for abortion. And the constitution protects every life, and most especially the lives of those who can't protect themselves.
Abortion, by definition, is murder, and you can't argue with that without trying to mince words and change them to feel good crapola like the left uses.

I am surprised that no Commerce Clause argument was raised. Thomas specifically noted in his concurrence that the Commerce Clause was not before the Court, and had not been addressed below. My bet is that Thomas would have voted the other way had the Commerce Clause been raised.

And I'm not sure why docs aren't being obgyns where you are, Carol, but down here, especially along the border (which is where we have the shortage), it's because Mexicans come over here, have their babies for free, go back home and have a sponge put in their bellies and come back and sue the docs. Free citizenship, free money. Great scam. But don't you go blaming the lack of docs on YOUR pet peeve. Shame on you trying to use this as an excuse to kill more babies.

This ruling is a motherfucking disgrace. This 43 admin can't get out office soon enough for this hole snipe. How many more of our civil liberties are going to taken away???????? Vote DONKS ACROSS THE SLATE NOV 08'

Baby killers? Only nuts banty about this one.

It's not on any medical records.

NOR IS THE WORD "MISCARRIAGE!"

An obstetrician was called in to treat a hemmoraging woman. Who was in the process of aborting her baby.

The medical term for this is ABORTION.

Why?

I dunno, "why," I just know that in medicine, in the medical records that are kept it's written down as a SPONTANEOUS ABORTION.

Yet, I never heard nature referred to as "baby killers."

Still. Before penicillin, that's what nature did most. Killed babies before they turned two.

From this information was extrapolated data; that the babies had no immune system, comparable to what would come, if they lived to be two.

Nah. Conversation isn't going to change a thing.

It's a good lesson to take with you, when you think about what happened at Virginia Tech. Where the first woman, killed, called her dorm advisor. A senior, ready to graduate with a straight-A record.

We've got to re-teach people.

We've got to teach them that the soundest place for help is within the medical community, when you are pregnant. And, does not reside with lawyers.

And, when your kids grow up and go to college, they won't be safe, either. If the schools eschew the military and police. And, substitute, instead, phony, Lucy goosey "dialog" ... where you're told you're changing the world.

Again. This particular procedure was done to save lives. It wasn't done in a fit or a pick, because the woman didn't like her growing belly.

Where did the decisions come from? I'd bet ultrasounds; and the results of tests done on amniotic fluid.

Those people who let fly the "baby killers" term? They'd probably faint if they were exposed to a real autopsy. Or anything that even comes close to medical training.

Roberts has himself a split court.

Bush? Has himself in such low esteem, in the senate, he's not able to put in Harriet Miers.

This issue has cost the GOP more than just any other issue out there. And, people who tell you they know about medicine, when they're talking through their hats; are on par with the administrators at Virginia Tech.

Yes, that Cho kid was a tragedy waiting to happen.

He just brought it up to a whole new level.

The supreme court, here? No different than Rehnquist's court. Split. And, those split decisions tend to be worth less over time.

Jeff, you sound like a typical liberal who denies scientific facts when it suits you. I bet you believe in "Global Warming" with fervor, however. Look even Justice Ginsberg once said that Roe v Wade was a judicial mistake because it unduly politicized the abortion issue. Funny, our indolent and agenda driven reporters will never report that comment of hers. This is a gruesome procedure which should never been allowed, although, I do recall that it was one Adolph Hitler was fond of. Keep in mind, even if Roe v Wade were over-turned, legal abortions would still occur because state legislatures would authorize them, albeit, with perhaps some restrictions. What our agenda driven press doesn't tell its readers is that the US has one of the most liberal legal environments in the world for abortions (similar to China's). Abortions in England and France (the left-wing loon presses favorite countries) place far greater restrictions on the woman's "right to choose." Tom

Killing a child is your civil liberty now, Tommy?

NoDonk, replace the word "abortion" with the word "murder", and see how much sense it makes, especially when you make the erroneous claim that "a large percentage of our population believe that it should be allowed". I have never seen any poll (not that a poll would do, it should have to be a vote, not "checking with a couple of thousand people who felt like responding that day") that said that anything close to a majority agreed with partial birth abortion. The only way you get to a majority is when you start talking about limiting all abortion no matter what, when, where, why, or how. As soon as you throw in "rape (first trimester)/incest (first trimester)/life of the mother(at any time)" exceptions, it usually drops to under fifty percent, even for abortion restrictions in the second trimester.

And please tell me how the commerce clause affects whether abortion could be legal or not? I can understand the convulted (and erroneous) use of the commerce clause to determine jurisdiction (and totally disagree with it), but how could it possibly have an effect on the legality of partial birth abortion?

So you think women should have the same right as nature, Carol? Nature kills people, not just kids, so does this mean I can kill people, too?

Geez. The total lack of moral fiber in the liberal arugments is astounding. You'd think they couldn't even spell logic.

Oh, and don't think those of us who have more than two working brain cells didn't notice your use of "spontaneous abortion" to compare as being morally equivalent to "abortion", which you KNOW was meant as a choice made to end a pregnancy. That's why the choice is called "abortion", and the sudden or accidental situation is called "SPONTANEOUS Abortion". Can I get a duh from the choir?

Well, TJM, it seems you have your insults down pat. Carried in a bag you swing; when you want to share your "leftist label."

Abortions were done BEFORE Roe!

Heck, Ronald Reagan legalized the procedure, for Californians, in 1970. Two years before Roe.

When Roe came down the pike, there were already states legalizing abortion. TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE BACK ALLEYS.

Ya know what? When Prohibition came down the pike, liquor got made. And, sold. Anyway. But not made the way it is when it's legal. So some people went blind. Others died from poisoning.

Yeah. The right has no friends outside of its circle. It's just a special interest, like all the others. Divisive.

And, just like Will Rogers said about the Bible Belt'ers in 1919. "They'll stagger to the polls to vote for Prohibition." And, they did.

Today? Religion isn't something a lot of people are willing to get out of bed for, on Sunday mornings.

And, the other thing you'd notice? Gee. In the 1940's, the American automobile industry built station wagons. Do you know why? Families needed the room to move all the kids around. To get to church, with your brood.

Something like that doesn't change until you look for the reasons. And, the biggest one is the PILL. Not abortions. People are free to have sex, and the woman is free, NOT to get pregnant. There are many ways, now, a couple can decide when they want to impliment birth controls.

Genie's not going back into the bottle!

And, safe abortions save lives.

Back alleys? You mean our police aren't busy enough, already? We've got to build jail cells for doctors? Why? Enough have turned away from obstetrics, anyway.

So, if you wanted to "save babies" you'd pay attention. You'd want to see the obstetricians coming back in, again.

You won't, though. Because the market place rules.

As I wrote here, this ruling will have several impacts. It will certainly be used in fundraising letters by Democratic presidential candidates. It'll also cause the pro choice people to talk about slippery slopes, etc.

What the court ruled is that they didn't find the pro choice lawyers' arguments persuasive.

So saving babies means having abortions legal? Please, show me how this math works, Carol.

And drinking and killing children isn't the same thing, Carol, no matter how much moral equivalency you try, it won't work. Killing is still killing. To abort a child that most likely won't live, that threatens the life of the mother, this is a decision best left to doctors. This is the only true abortions that should EVER be done, or allowed.

And yes, Carol, we build prisons for people who break the law. You put people in jail for twenty years for smoking a joint for their pain, yet to kill a child should be encouraged? Boy, do you have your priorities messed up. We build prisons for people who break the law, not "doctors". Why don't you make it as hateful as you possibly can, Carol, maybe next time you can make abortion equivalent to making cupcakes or some other harmless thing to make you feel better about legalized infanticide.

Carol, did you even read my post? I said that abortions would likely be allowed by state legislative action even if Roe v Wade were overturned. Why go into an emotional rant over the leftist label? Does that blind you from what I said about Justice Ginsberg? Or England and France's more restrictive abortion laws? Facts, Ma'am, just the facts. Save your emotional outbursts for Moveon.org Tom

Yes, Doc Neaves, women have ultrasounds taken, and aminotic fluid checked, because they want HEALTHY BABIES.

And, medicine is repleat with situations where this is not true.

Plus, lots of conceptions occur, that end before the woman even knows it. The fertilized egg doesn't find a home on the uterine wall. NO INBED. She goes on to menstruate.

Where there's now a growing short fall? In the number of docs available to deliver babies.

In medicine, these days, you get choices. You pick the field you want to persue. You don't do the rest. Though you're trained, overall, to do "everything."

Now, why would a woman want a doctor to stick a giant needle in ther belly, to remove some amniotic fluid; which, once retrieved HE SMELLS. To make sure it's not urine.

As a matter of fact THESE TESTS ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE A WOMAN THE BEST OPTIONS.

Most people can't imagine what it's like to have a handicapped child. Nor is it any business of anyone else, but the couple; to decide what they want to do.

Heck, in Israel, they even do screening for Tay Sacks. It's genetically there; especially among the most orthodox. So medicine can give tests to the couples. Letting them know, beforehand; if it is safe to conceive.

No big surprises, anymore, when a woman gets a tragedy to take home. Best to prevent this before conception? YOU BET. But sometimes, there's this hope that all is okay.

And, if you're very lucky the woman will find an extremely good doc.

By the way, my mom was prone to losing pregnancies. She said when I was conceived; and she was very fearful of another loss; to change her obstetrician to one that was noted for bringing about successful births in women who had a tendancy to miscarry. (Miscarry, however, is not a medical term at all.) It's a layman's term.)

My mom was also the first to say that when a woman loses a pregnancy, nature knows best. And, when you're lucky, nature somehow cancels out the pregnancy.

Getting my hair done the other day, my hairdressers daugher is now ten weeks pregnant. She had been carrying twins. But on ultrasound, one is gone, now. So, she's pregnant. With a singleton. That's just how nature, herself, works.

Nature doesn't feel guilty.

Doc Neaves "prohibition" was one of the things that killed the WHIGS. (I didn't know Prohibition even had a "history." I thought it was borne of giving women the rights to vote.) Nope. Was one of the stupid planks the WHIGS adopted.

You'll also notice an odd twist to the crap dispensed by the right. Insults, where they think they're climbing high up a moral tree. Bunch of monkeys!

As to this ruling, it is SPLIT.

As to getting excited that the right won one, what does that mean? The lunatics can spew more of their venom?

Hello. Your religions once gave you witches to burn.

And, in today's world, if your arguments are sane, you're gonna fail at pushing them down the throats of others.

As to why there's a dirth, now, in obstetrics? Well, ROE IS NOT TO BLAME! Finally, you can see that there's something happening out there, that really affects the health of lots of American women. So, no. I don't think we're getting this problem from Mexico. Or that it's only on the border.

Seems John Edwards got very rich "channeling the dead babies, to dumb jurors."

My opinion of jurors hasn't improved of late, either.

And, this is a split decision.

That we've gotten here because social conservatives had a big say in GOP politics? That's right.

But that doesn't mean a thing, now, as we're approaching 2008. Seems like GOP nominees have figured out the troubles you get in Iowa. And, New Hampshire. So there seems to be an effect, rising, now that so many people are using their computers.

Again, 5-4. LOUSY OUTCOME in terms of influencing anything. Besides, lawyers have made the court system so expensive, it's impractical to go there to find solutions to your problems.

The most likely people trapped into courts? From lawyers looking to shake people down.

If you want to see "influence" it pays to check the records. Fewer women today are destroyed, like they were prior to 1970. When getting an abortion forced women into back alleys.

I also don't see our War on Drugs a big success.

And, if Bush has made the argument for his War on Terror, I haven't heard him say it, yet.

Those are the facts.

The future is to be written.

But if I had to guess? The larger families are a thing of the past. Worse. In the past kids got married at 16. And, the babies came. Not because they were wanted, but because the couple were sexually active.

Sure, I know a few women with more than two kids. But the word FEW means that I only know one or two who have four and five kids, each. How's that?

You think we're living in an age where men are not having sex with their wives? You're kidding me, right?

Besides. Lincoln said it best. He didn't care what a man's religion was. He only wanted to know how he treated his dog. It goes a long way to tell you about good character.

Oh, my dogs? And, cats? They're FIXED. And, I'm proud of having the interventions "performed."

Capt said: "This affects less than 10% of all abortions in the United States, so it will not have a large practical effect on the abortion industry."

Won't have much of a financial effect on the industry...but IIRC there were 1.1 million legal abortions conducted last year...10% of that makes for 110 thousand.

110 thousand babies won't get their brains scrambled right before they come into this cold, cruel world.

Notice the incoherent ranting of some of the lefties. Regardless of one's impression of the ruling, is it wrong to enjoy the sight of the narcissistic no-nuts running around with helmet fires…and drooling their bile?

So, Carol, by your reasoning, since birth defects occur, we should have a law ready to use just in case so that when one is born, we can kill it.

What her reasoning tells us is that if a fetus has no brain, it's stupid to tell a doctor that s/he can't use the safest procedure.

And that's correct reasoning.

ROE made things better!

Yes, I pointed to Ronald Reagan signing legalized abortions into law. Because it's good to tell today's kids, who know nothing about the horrors of back alley abortions; 35 years AFTER the Supreme Court stepped in. And, blew away the mafia riddled illegal operations!

Do you know why ROE became law? Because "state-by-state" is not a solution.

Lincoln was the one to express the idea that the UNION meant ALL.

The argument that "some states" will allow abortions; doesn't take away from the rediculous "state" strategies, that were once used to defend slavery.

ALL. ALL WOMEN ARE ENTITLED.

The GOP can lose a lot more than their fantasies, when they go picking at ROE. Let me tell ya!

And, Roberts court? It's never gonna even achieve the Rehnquist level, where most decisions sat at 5-4. With Rehnquist the usual loser.

What happens if Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or Stevens, call it a day, in June?

According to Powerline (I think), the "choice" will be for Bush to send KOH. A Yale dean. Where the term "liberal" also means caving in, and going global. Giving the UN the reach into every American's pocketbook, through the FAKED hysteria of WEATHER.

So, on the left? The loons scream "man made weather."

And, on the right? The loons scream women preventing pregancies. Without getting religious permission.

Hello. You lose.

Most people, though, will move away. And, keep their mouths shut tight. Why bother talking to loons? (Well, because there are others who come here to view an argument's progressions, I suppose.)

Ginsburg and Stevens were going to hang on until death, anyway. Ginsburg had made noise about retiring due to her health a few years back, but once Bush was reelected that was no longer an option.

There is no mechanism to vacate a seat on SCOTUS, even if the Justice is brain-dead on a respirator for years, except for death, resignation, or impeachment.

Even if one or both of them dies, fat chance Bush will get any nominee a floor vote in the Senate unless he/she is a Roe devotee.

Keep in mind, even if Roe v Wade were over-turned, legal abortions would still occur because state legislatures would authorize them

That assumes that the federal congress won't ban in full or in part. If conservatives do take the Congress back after a reversal of Roe, there would be enormous pressure on them to ban the procedure wholesale.

A link to the actual decision is here.

Note the detail into the procedure that the opinion goes into.

DU

Carol, are you a refugee from Moveon.org? I think so, because when confronted with facts you simply "moveon" to the next, unrelated rant. Have a good day! Tom

"This decision is a travesty. Women deserve the right to choose."

Non sequitur; this decision doesn't impact that right at all. This decision is, for once, fairly narrowly reasoned; although the majority opinion incorrectly states that the law is acceptable because it'll prevent only a few abortions. The reason it's acceptable is that it meets all the criteria stated in previous decisions such as Roe and Casey. Those decisions were soundly accepted by your side, I might add.

A different poster said: "That assumes that the federal congress won't ban in full or in part. If conservatives do take the Congress back after a reversal of Roe, there would be enormous pressure on them to ban the procedure wholesale."

Correct. So instead of our courts being politicised, our elections would be politicised. Maybe this issue would actually be decided by elected officials, and any law that got passed could be amended by later bills to fine-tune or wholesale change things in accordance with the changing understanding and need of the people.

You know, I think that's a good tradeoff.

I wouldn't mind at all if the first law on abortion (after Roe was overturned) was passed by the Democratic Congress. Yes, I wouldn't be happy with the bill -- but at least it would be amenable to normal political change.

JPE: The US is a republic not a unitary state. If Roe were overturned, abortions would again be the exclusive province of the individual states to regulate as each sees fit. Although you may not intend it, your statement sounds like a NARAL scare tactic. Tom

Well, TJM, your batting average stinks.

And, your "mov.on" remark is just meant to insult.

Doesn't.

Since I'm not a social-conservative. My brains weren't sucked out of my head by faith healers. Too bad so many people can't think straight, though.

Because? If you think this is a good day for the GOP, you're mistaken.

This decision, like what passes for conversation, here, when social conservatives think they are on a roll ... ONLY HELPS THE DEMS.

It's a 5-4 decision. Bush will bare the brunt, ahead, just like his dad. A piece of junk elected into the presidency; because the right wing special interests once owned Iowa. And, New Hampshire.

That advantage is gone.

And, this decsion?

Let me tell ya. A long time ago, JFK was asked about the Commerce Clause. It had to do with a landlord's ruling, stating landlords couldn't "discriminate."

And, then? In the early 1960's, it was a hot-button.

And, the Supreme's ruled against ALL landlords. By validating the Commerce Clause.

So what did JFK say that was so funny, I still remember it? Well, in his jockular way, he said "he'd worry ONLY if the landlord's property sat on two sides of a state line.

Sometimes the lackluster crew that sits on the supremes, look like they've been bought, hook, line, and sinker, by special interests. And, then on even worse days? They're all elites. And, they fall under the sway of the WaPo. Which all of them read, like it's their Variety. And, they then go and truck the line that comes down from the elite-superstructures.

Won't matter. The court's not held up, these days, in any special glorious light.

As to putting people in jail for 20 years, for "the pain of smoking a joint," is just pointing out other flaws when you give the police too many things to chase. And, they bone up on pencils and papers.

So, Tom, I'm just not impressed with your psychic skills.

Oh, and another thing. Since I voted for Bush in '04, I'm one of those people SKIDDISH about voting for right wing incompetents. If that's the best the party puts up? You won't get another bite of the apple, come 2008.

What's needed? Enough of these divisive political agendas! When people need their religious fix, let them wake up on Sunday mornings, and go to church.

In the public domain, where voters flock to the mainstream? Those social conservatives and their crazy banners, are up there with the loons who carry sandwich boards proclaiming "REPENT." "THE WORLD'S DOOMED." (Which is the one item, the donks have retrieved from the cesspool. To confuse lots of Americans into believing we're responsible for the weather.) Hello. NO!

You can really gag on the social conservatives propensity to shout out insults! Move on, yourself, idiot.

The realignment of the modern American political scene has it's roots in the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Up until that time the fundamentalist Christians preached the inferiority of people of color as a biblical tenet. They voted Democrat because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Yankee oppressors.

The fundamentalist Christians have now deserted the Democratic party because of it's support for civil rights and moved into the Republican camp.

In the early 70's when the Roe vs Wade decision was handed down by a Republican led Supreme Court, abortion was not a big religious issue. It has become so over time as the religious right sought an issue that they could cram down the throats of the left to tout their moral superiority and found it in abortion.

It is interesting to note that the mainstream Catholics in America are not polarized on this issue. They are not overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat and a clear majority, while their church decries abortion,believe it is a secular issue and a women's choice.

Five points:

1). Scalia and Thomas specifically said in their concurring opinion that Roe should be overturned, not just Thomas (Scalia concurred, AntonK). Roberts and Alito did not join that opinion, which suggests they disagree (or at least decided there was no need to talk about that in this case).

2). It's strange that, in general, all you pro-gun/pro-life types who complained yesterday that anti-gun laws were ineffective because people who want guns will violate them now apparently believe that people who want abortions will stop having them if the laws change. You might want to explain that inconsistency.

3). This may be a boost to the hardcore pro-life people, but it's in the long run a political defeat for the general pro-life movement. It takes the most heinous type of late term abortion off the table and eliminates many of the gruesome pictures that moved people. An abortion at 10 weeks looks a whole lot different than an abortion at 20 and pictures of it don't carry the same emotional impact.

4). The Commerce Clause point is an interesting one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the states cannot implement undue burdens against interstate commerce and Scalia and Thomas are strongly pro-commerce. It might be that they decide that some state laws later can't be upheld for that reason (like prohibiting women from going across state lines to get abortions).

5. Doc Neaves, you are an idiot. "Stare decisis" (meaning let prior court decisions stand in general) is the foundation of our US judicial system. Without it, our whole justice system collapses.

Carol-
I'm a 45 yr old woman who was never given choice ever since the sisterhood ramrodded through judical fiat a law in which not one single American was represented.

Today after twenty five years as an adult female who has come to terms with the fact that my very own gender lied and distorted to justify herr 'right' to abort. Roe was never raped and the hyper scare tactic about 'back alley abortions' was way overblown.

IMO as a woman not a feminist, the second-wave feminist movement has ruined females, turning them into hapless victims in their own minds who need some way to disguise their decision to screw around without being responsible.

IT makes me sick to my stomach having been born a female, self-loathing yes because everything about my generation's gender is vicious, nasty, self-indulgent, intolerant etc

Gloria Steinam may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging DDD-sized silcone breasts on anorexic skeletons with stiffened botoxed faces screaming about the oppressed plight of Eve Ensler's vagina.

The feminist movement had done nothing for which it can be proud.

It's a woman's choice?

Then how come men are convinced for murder when She asks Him to kick her in the baby-laden womb to rid the couple of there sexual burdens?

Further, why is it consider life if She wants government funded pre-natal care but not considered life when She wants to abort?

Roe vs Wade is so bad a law that the laws regarding abortion are unfair to the point we cannot even decide what 'it' is.

Because you say there is an “inconsistency” proves (again) that you are what you say Doc Neaves is…

Doc Neaves,

I agree that abortion is murder, but how they is differs from murder of everyone else is the enforcement part.

We shouldn't waste time passing unenforceable, counterproductive laws and in my opinion, abortion laws are exactly that.

Prohibition occurred as the result of clever politics, but it proved to be unenforceable and actually spurred more problems (including more alcohol abuse than ever before) than it came close to solving.

If abortion is banned, how do you enforce it? Have a policeman follow around every woman between 12 and 45? Raid doctor's offices? It's a losing battle. The American people will not support what it would take to enforce a ban on abortion.

Besides, fighting ban abortion in the courtroom is playing on the pro-abort's home turf. It's like playing LSU in Death Valley, with Baton Rouge refs. You might squeak on a victory here and there, but ultimately, you will lose. They'll rig the courts or just refuse to enforce the law. That's what Democrats do. That's why they are Democrats. It's the kind of people they are.

Persuasion is the key. Fighting the public relations battle is so much more important than fighting fruitless, counterproductive legal battles, in an effort to pass unenforceable laws.

Carol, my condolences. It sounds like you're off your meds today. Tom

If Roe were overturned, abortions would again be the exclusive province of the individual states to regulate as each sees fit.

Uh, what law do you think was just OK'd by the court? It was a federal law. There's no difference between this law and a blanket ban as far as the commerce clause is concerned.

The upshot is that the federal government could certainly ban abortion (cf: Gonzalez v Raich)

"It's strange that, in general, all you pro-gun/pro-life types who complained yesterday that anti-gun laws were ineffective because people who want guns will violate them now apparently believe that people who want abortions will stop having them if the laws change."

Not me, Jim (see above).

Doc, take a look at this link and scroll down to a early January 2003 CNN/Gallup poll. You'll see that roughly the same percentage of people who thought partial birth abortion should be banned also thought that abortion should generally be legal in the first twelve weeks: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.

As to you SwabJockey, why don't you explain what you mean (if you can put a coherent thought and sentence together, that is). Or are you posting with multiple personalities?

Partial birth abortion is performed after 20 weeks gestation or more. The baby is partially delivered, just the head remains in the tract. That is so it will not be legally considered to have been born and then it would be infanticide. The baby's skull is then punctured by the tips of a pair of scissors. A syringe is inserted into the baby's brain and the brain is sucked out. This causes the skull to collapse and allows the now-dead baby to be easily removed from the vaginal tract. Nice procedure, isn't it??

By the way, the other quite gruesome procedures like dismemberment in-utero, saline injections that burn the baby, etc. are still allowed. Have a nice day.

You sir, are an idiot.

Ok, so you've proven you can write one coherent sentence, SwabJockey.

Now explain it.

The “inconsistency” occurs when you idiot lefties say a woman has a “right” to choose to abort a baby (arguably an act involving two “persons”) but a law abiding citizen doesn’t have a “right” to own a handgun (an act involving only himself).

Jim,

"1). Scalia and Thomas specifically said in their concurring opinion that Roe should be overturned, not just Thomas (Scalia concurred, AntonK). Roberts and Alito did not join that opinion, which suggests they disagree (or at least decided there was no need to talk about that in this case)."

I would say it suggests that they don't want to burn the bridges that Scalia and Thomas have burned. Roberts' choice of author for the majority opinion supports that.

"2). It's strange that, in general, all you pro-gun/pro-life types who complained yesterday that anti-gun laws were ineffective because people who want guns will violate them now apparently believe that people who want abortions will stop having them if the laws change. You might want to explain that inconsistency."

I like a good argument, but this isn't one. You can (and should) oppose an evil act, even if the majority of people support that act. I don't remember the last person who argued that overturning RvW would stop all abortions.

"3). This may be a boost to the hardcore pro-life people, but it's in the long run a political defeat for the general pro-life movement. It takes the most heinous type of late term abortion off the table and eliminates many of the gruesome pictures that moved people. An abortion at 10 weeks looks a whole lot different than an abortion at 20 and pictures of it don't carry the same emotional impact."

I truely doubt it. Nobody on the pro-life side who markets their beliefs has any interest in accuracy when it interferes with influence. The same is true on the pro-choice side, probably to a greater extent, though I'm not certain.

"4). The Commerce Clause point is an interesting one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the states cannot implement undue burdens against interstate commerce and Scalia and Thomas are strongly pro-commerce. It might be that they decide that some state laws later can't be upheld for that reason (like prohibiting women from going across state lines to get abortions)."

The commerce clause is the primary reason that RvW is bad law. It was a shaky crutch used to establish jurisdiction where none existed.

"5. Doc Neaves, you are an idiot. "Stare decisis" (meaning let prior court decisions stand in general) is the foundation of our US judicial system. Without it, our whole justice system collapses."

I believe that the Constittution is the foundation of our judicial system, with precedent coming in second. Stare decisis comes in somewhat further down the list.

A fetus is not a human being. It is only a potential human being. And we cannot say that an entity possesses rights based on its potential.

For instance, every human being is also a potential criminal. But it would be nonsensical to claim that this potential means that people's rights should be eliminated like a criminal's.

Every person is also a potential inventor -- but people acquire no rights to royalties until they actually invent something.

Nor does it matter, as far as assigning rights is concerned, that, given time, the great majority of these potential human beings will become actual human beings. Every human being is also a potential corpse and we can say, with total certainty, that every human being will someday BE a corpse. But no one would advocate eliminating people’s rights NOW because of that potential.

Thus, it makes no sense to grant or take away rights based on potentials.

And in the case of abortion, the notion of granting the right to life to a potential human being results in the denial of rights to an actual human being, namely the woman whose body is supporting this still-developing organism. Once you deny the right to control one’s own bodily functions, no rights are safe.

Doc Neaves, you are an idiot. "Stare decisis" (meaning let prior court decisions stand in general) is the foundation of our US judicial system. Without it, our whole justice system collapses.

Posted by: Jim M at April 18, 2007 12:25 PM

Jim, you are the idiot. Think of it like this. I'm building a fence. The ground is level, the fence is about two hundred feet long, and the boards are all different lengths, but all over six feet, the height that we've all decided is the right height for the fence.
You take one board, you take a ruler, you measure it six times. It's six feet (plus or minus the error). You cut it off. You then use this board to mark the next one. Each person gets to come and cut a little, just where they think it should be. Just how straight do you think the fence is?
If, however, you take the constitution, it's intent, and you decide something's legality in the best interests of upholding the constitution, then you are constantly measuring the boards with the same TAPE MEASURE, with predictable, coherent results. When you try to take pieces of the constitution out of context, use first one, then the other, then try to make every decision agree with every previous decision, sometimes even deciding wrongly just BECAUSE of a previous decision, then you get what we have today.
And for deciding that my opinion on ONE MEASELY SUBJECT is enough to make me an idiot, that makes YOU an idiot by your own reasoning, or, as we say, hoisted on your own petard.
And I know of no one who wants gun laws repealed because they are ineffective. They are ineffective, but they should be repealed because of the puntuation in the Second Amendment, "...shall not be infringed." Notice the period at the end of that sentence. I prefer to say it "Shall not be infringed PERIOD". Yes, you make abortions illegal, people will still have them. Murder is illegal, but they still happen. Should we legalize murder? Now you are proving you are an idiot. Wait. You're a Democrat, aren't you? Never mind, redundancy in motion.

Carol...so, 5-4 in our favor is a split decision, but 5-4 in your favor was a mandate, huh? Take your pills, then go look up the word hypocrite.

NoDonk. Prohibition banned something mankind (all, not the female half) have done, and will do, for the eternity they know, which is to consume mind-altering substances, something that until the last few hundred years has never been banned in any great sweep for all substances, alcohol most often missed amongst them. This is as deep as spiritual feelings, in fact, is equated with the spiritual world for all of our history.
When has infanticide ever been this way?
And you can give up fighting because they are acting like democrats if you wish, but for me, that makes no difference, and never will.

Michael,

That argument is a brilliant demonstration of what you can find at the very bottom of the slippery slope.

Immolate, precedent is stare decisis:

Stare decisis (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈstaːɹi dəˈsaɪsɪs], "to stand by things decided") is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. There are both federal and state constitutions, with different language, and precedent is a general concept applicable to all federal and state court decisions in the US, so it's tough to argue that the "Consitution" is supreme without explaining which one you're talking about.

And Doc, you are an idiot, because your own words about stare decisis show you didn't have the slightest idea what you were taking about. The full text of the Second Amendment is, by the way "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Until the last ten years, it was viewed as a collective right, not an individual one. By its terms, it's not as absolute of a right as you indicate.

And SwabJockey, acting in self defence or to shoot another person (like to prevent the Virginia Tech shootings) would involve two people.

Doc Neaves,

I'm not giving up fighting.

The goal is to limit abortions. Not to pay millions of dollars to lawyers on both sides, in order to try and pass laws, that ultimately won't be enforced.

How exactly would these laws be enforced? Like prohibition, law enforcement has no stomach for it and little ability to do it. And I don't just about zero faith in what passes for our legal system.

More and more, physicians are refusing to perform abortions, even in Europe. The younger generation is becoming increasingly pro-life. Raiding doctor's offices and carting off young women, is not the way to increase these numbers.

The legal battle takes this to NARAL's, the media's and the Democrat's home turf. As we speak, they are lying about this law, sending out letters and getting campaign contributions.

For what? This law makes ONE procedure illegal. The dismemberment procedure is still legal! This does pretty much nothing. And that's probably the best we'll ever get.

To achieve our goal, we need to go around the Democrats by persuading people. The Democrats have neither intellect nor morals on their side. The Democrats excel at lying to people and at navigating our broken legal system.

We have a winning argument. Let's not waste it on a kangaroo court.

Wow, MSmith. Potential? You choose an arbitrary label (and an inaccurate one, I might add), and then go on to play a semantical game of fantasy, substituting various silly things in a flight of equivocation. Come down to earth, dude. A "fetus", as you call it, isn't a POTENTIAL human being, it IS a human being. Assuming you don't kill it, it will continue to mature until old age. Disrupting this process intentionally is normally called murder, if it is AFTER the child is born past it's neck. Funny, but you don't see the hypocrisy in partial birth, where they ADMIT it's murder, but try to redefine it by determing the moment of it's birth? You don't want to admit it's life so that you can feel better about taking it, that's your problem, but don't expect us to define it as anything but murder when not done to save the life of the mother.

EVERY 'fetus' as you call it will become a human unless you kill it. That isn't potential, it's part of the maturation of humans, right on to old age and natural death.

Potential inventor, potential criminal. Geez, what a fevered imagination you lefties have. This is the worst job of equivocation I've seen in a long time.

I regret that I just had my lunch, because Mr. Justice Kennedy goes into some detail to describe the procedure in question, including this:

"'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus...

"'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to
fall.

"'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a highpowered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp..."

"'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.'" (3)

Kennedy notes that, after the attention of the public was brought to this procedure, Congress moved to make it illegal.

After Dr. Haskell's procedure received public attention, with ensuing and increasing public concern, bans on "partial birth abortion" proliferated. By the time of the Stenberg decision, about 30 States had enacted bans designed to prohibit the procedure. 530 U. S., at 995-996, and nn. 12-13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, at 4-5.

In 1996, Congress also acted to ban partial-birth abortion. President Clinton vetoed the congressional legislation, and the Senate failed to override the veto. Congress approved another bill banning the procedure in 1997, but President Clinton again vetoed it. In 2003, after this Court's decision in Stenberg, Congress passed the Act at issue here. On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the Act into law. It was to take effect the following day. 18 U. S. C. §1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). (2)

It seems to me that, so far, we've seen the system work as it was intended: the public sees a need for legal action to prevent a repulsive and barbaric practice; Congress writes legislation to address that need; the president signs it into law.

Then the courts got involved.

The District Court in Carhart concluded the Act was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it determined the Act was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception allowing the procedure where necessary for the health of the mother. 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1004-1030. Second, the District Court found the Act deficient because it covered not merely intact D&E but also certain other D&Es. Id., at 1030-1037.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed only the lack of a health exception. 413 F. 3d, at 803-804.
The court began its analysis with what it saw as the appropriate question - "whether 'substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of the banned procedure." Id., at 796 (quoting Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 938). This was the proper framework, according to the Court of Appeals, because "when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures
to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception." 413 F. 3d, at 796. The court rejected the Attorney General's attempt to demonstrate changed evidentiary circumstances since Stenberg and considered itself bound by Stenberg's conclusion that a health exception was required. 413 F. 3d, at 803 (explaining "[t]he record in [the] case and the record in Stenberg [were] similar in all significant respects"). It invalidated the Act. (3)

Now, here's where I start to have trouble. Where in the Constitution does this requirement exist that "legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception"?

It gets worse. Mr. Justice Kennedy cites the Casey decision, where the Court tried very hard to walk the razorblade line between the woman's right to choose that they invented in Roe and the state's compelling interest in protecting life, which is also recognized in Roe. In effect, the Roe and Casey courts said that women have the right to abortion... except when they don't.(4)

The rest of Mr. Justice Kennedy's opinion demonstrates a justice and a Court trying to grapple with medical matters outside their competency and, worse, parsing language and terms in an effort to stay inside the bounds of Roe and Casey. It has the sound of Kirk's description of "fizzbin" in an episode of "Star Trek": "it's legal if the doctor performs the procedure in the second phase of the moon during months with 31 calendar days and if the nurse's middle name starts with the letters A - L inclusive..."

Further, the Court seems to have tried to take on the role of psychologists, as they did in Casey: they recognize that (gasp!) normal mothers love their children; that abortion can be a difficult decision for many women; that a full, vivid description of the partial-birth abortion procedure might cause some women to have second thoughts; and that some women might feel remorse or guilt after having an abortion.

Kennedy's musings would be fit for a legislator trying to write a bill, or a chief executive trying to decide whether to sign one into law. In my opinion, they are not fit for a jurist trying to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.

Oh, and Doc Neaves: Mr. Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Scalia agree with you on the issue of the Commerce Clause:

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. (5)

It will be interesting to see how the Court continues to deal with abortion as medical science pushes back the date of "viability" closer and closer to the date of conception. We see news reports all the time of premature babies who survive into a normal, healthy childhood. What's the record now? Only 26 weeks in the womb?

As for the idiot argument that women have the right to control their bodies, let me point out that we restrict such a right all the time. For example, women don't have the right to snort cocaine or to engage in prostitution.

I'm also greatly disturbed by Madame Justice Ginsburg's approval of the argument that, somehow, abortion gives a woman her sense of self:

In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of "the decision whether to bear . . . a child,"... to a woman's "dignity and autonomy," her "personhood" and "destiny," her "conception of... her place in society." (6)

If a woman has to rely on the "right" to murder her unborn child to feel like a person... Well, therapy might help.

In sum:

1. The role of a judge, and especially of a justice, is to say what the law is.

2. It is the job of the legislature and the chief executive to weigh moral, ethical, and scientific dimensions when writing the law. It is also their job to determine the wants and desires of the people.

3. The courts may invalidate a law only if it conflicts with a higher law.

4. The courts cannot and should not try to make up rights not plainly in the Constitution.

5. The Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate abortion. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, this power is left to the states. The Court should find the partial birth abortion act unconstitutional for that reason. However, it should also not find similar state laws unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not address this subject.

Hopefully, future Congresses and courts will get this issue right. Roe was a terrible ruling and continues to cause mischief as the courts try to wriggle and jiggle inside its artificial and increasingly outdated boundaries.

-------------

(1) Supreme Court of the United States. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al., No. 05-380, 2007, pg. 8.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

(2) Ibid., pg. 10. It seems to me that this bit of history ought to give much food for thought to those who think that the president can't do much to affect the abortion issue.

(3) Ibid., pg. 12.

(4) I was unaware of this, but Casey reaffirms a concept in Roe:

The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce. [emphasis mine - dj505]

Supreme Court of the United States. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania et al., No. 91-744, 1992. Majority opinion by Madame Justice O'Connor.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

(5) Carhart, concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Thomas, pg. 1 - 2.

(6) Carhart, dissenting opinion by Madame Justice Ginsburg, pg. 2.

For someone so quick to call others stupid…you really are…well, rather “simple” aren’t you? Making it illegal for someone to OWN a handgun has nothing to do with shooting anyone...whether in self defense or not.

If someone shoots, robs, rapes etc another person, that is the crime. It is not a crime to merely posses a handgun...that is, until you and your leftie lackeys make it another of your "thought crimes".

The commerce clause is the primary reason that RvW is bad law. It was a shaky crutch used to establish jurisdiction where none existed.

This is sheer goofballery. You're essentially saying that what's wrong with Roe is the New Deal.

It's also wrong. The commerce clause has nothing to do with Roe - Roe rolls back government regulation; the commerce clause is about creating regulation.

The proper CC criticism is that the PBA ban is void for its violation of the CC.

Doc Neaves wrote:

EVERY 'fetus' as you call it will become a human unless you kill it.

Yes, it will also become a corpse at some point. Does that mean it is a corpse NOW? Of course not.

There is a distinction between the potential and the actual, much as you might try to evade it.

And Doc, you are an idiot, because your own words about stare decisis show you didn't have the slightest idea what you were taking about. The full text of the Second Amendment is, by the way "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Until the last ten years, it was viewed as a collective right, not an individual one. By its terms, it's not as absolute of a right as you indicate.

And SwabJockey, acting in self defence or to shoot another person (like to prevent the Virginia Tech shootings) would involve two people.

Posted by: Jim M at April 18, 2007 01:56 PM

Great job at proving your own idiocy. At the risk of stepping on SwabJockey's reply, your equivocation with the second amendment is ludicrous. The shooter is defending himself against being killed, the mother is killing her child BY CHOICE, not by self-defense. The second amendment says nothing at all about guns. Contrary to some's opinion of my knowledge of the Second Amendment, I DO know it means the right to bear arms, not guns. Seems a small difference, except what it means is that we have the right to defend ourselves, and the responsibility to carry weapons of any kind in order to accomplish that. Any right to defend yourself is automatically a responsibility to do it well and properly. That means collapsing batons and such should not be made illegal by the same token that guns should not be make illegal. The purpose of the Second Amendment is for defense. The purpose of abortion is murder for convenience of the mother. We've already allowed for the life (which would be the same as self-defense), or for the unviability of the life of the infant. Anything else is merely defending murder for the convenience of the mother.
And the 'collective right' argument is the old standby of the left, one that has been soundly rejected by the right, and in court. And will be over and over and over. That has been proven in the founders own words.

NoDonk, you say,
"I'm not giving up fighting."

Then you say,

"...in order to try and pass laws, that ultimately won't be enforced."
It is not up to us to quit because our victories will go unguarded.

"How exactly would these laws be enforced?
It is not up to us to solve the whole puzzle, but to fight for the moral right, then let the problems solve themselves.

"Like prohibition, law enforcement has no stomach for it and little ability to do it."
And this is because people quit fighting, and don't support them. Because people like you quit every day, you stop telling your children that it's wrong, you stop fighting the war, and we begin to lose. Because we begin to lose isn't reason to stop fighting the war, it's because you stop fighting the war that we begin to lose.

"And I don't just about zero faith in what passes for our legal system."
Your, or my, faith in the legal system is irrelevant. It is the best we have. We need to fix it, but it is still better than all in the rest of the world. If there is anything that can be done, it must be done here, and now. Because the task is too big for you to imagine a solution is no reason to quit. It is a reason to get a bigger imagination.

"More and more, physicians are refusing to perform abortions, even in Europe"
We are winning. So why do you want to quit?

"The younger generation is becoming increasingly pro-life."
We are winning. So why do you want to quit?

"Raiding doctor's offices and carting off young women, is not the way to increase these numbers."
In your opinion, which I think is wrong. And my evidence? If you stopped arresting murderers, the murder rate would skyrocket, no one will argue with that. Then why will they argue the reverse? We have been raiding doctors offices and carting off murderers when they have done wrong, and broken laws, but not those who are doing legal procedures. When our young learn that there is a right time to have an abortion, and safer alternatives (such as abstinence, which is gaining ground because of a little thing called SELF-RESPECT, and prevention, and adoption when the baby is carried), they will become even more conservative, and less forgiving of those who throw away the life of a child needlessly, callously. When what we are doing seems to be working, why do you want to quit?

"The legal battle takes this to NARAL's, the media's and the Democrat's home turf."
Where else would we fight? We must fight them there, on their turf. After all, we've already won on ours.

"As we speak, they are lying about this law, sending out letters and getting campaign contributions."
And when has it ever been different? Ever?

"For what? This law makes ONE procedure illegal. The dismemberment procedure is still legal! This does pretty much nothing. And that's probably the best we'll ever get."
Are you arguing for them, now? We gain ground, and you scream "STOP! This is as far as we'll probably ever get, and woe is me, our argument is now MUUUUCH weaker, and...".
We win, and you want to quit?

"To achieve our goal, we need to go around the Democrats by persuading people."
This is not going around anyone. This is called going TO the people. Or, as I call it, CONTINUING THE FIGHT. Great idea, glad you thought of it, welcome back.

"The Democrats have neither intellect nor morals on their side."
At the risk of sounding redundant, when has it ever been any different?

"The Democrats excel at lying to people and at navigating our broken legal system."
Again, when has it ever been any different? And add that they can navigate it slightly better than we can, but that's only because we each side know which parts we broke and why.

"We have a winning argument. Let's not waste it on a kangaroo court."
Which court would you take it to, then? Which court are you calling a Kangaroo court? And if we have a winning argument, WHY THE HELL AREN'T YOU OUT THERE WINNING WITH IT? WHY DO YOU WANT TO SHUT UP? Are you a leftist plant? Are you trying to sabotage us?

Posted by: NoDonkey at April 18, 2007 01:56 PM

docjim505 said:

As for the idiot argument that women have the right to control their bodies, let me point out that we restrict such a right all the time. For example, women don't have the right to snort cocaine or to engage in prostitution.

Those restrictions are also violations of our rights, and the fact that those violations are in place does not justify additional violations.

The Saudi's don't allow women to drive cars. Does that mean that arguing in favor of a woman's right to operate machinery is "an idiot argument" since that right is already being violated somewhere?

Doc Neaves said:

Anything else is merely defending murder for the convenience of the mother.

In case you are interested, this is known as begging the question.

Actually, DocJim, I argue from the standpoint that a woman DOES have the right to ingest cocaine and engage in prostitution. I agree with that last one both in the sense that, if someone is allowed to decide who they have sex with, it's up to them whether or not they charge for it. After all, professional workers in all other industries have the right to work, and we base this on the rule of Capitalism. Why should she be able to have sex with whom she wants (a right I doubt anyone in here would mess with), but can't charge him for it? And also, from the standpoint, that sex is a personal service, something that shouldn't be kept from the marketplace. All over the world, that has been proven the best solution. Repression just brings on more incidents of rape and other sex crime, like slavery.
However, abortion has to do with the life of the unborn child. At the point that the mother ceases to care enough about her child that she's willing to kill it, she becomes of little concern to me, until the child has been cared for. How many times have we seen this in real life? Susan Smith, et al. Once those babies are in danger, damn the mother until the babies are safe. There's no reason in the world that attitude shouldn't be there now, before the baby is born.

I'm not sure if "states versus federal rights" is an issue for the "clash of the titans."

But the Commerce Clause has been used to iron out deficiencies, when state courts refuse to do so.

In other words? To ride herd over the state courts, the fed's intervene. Like they did in 2000. Against Florida. Then, it was said, Florida was changing its own rules. Which left the "selection of Bush" to the legislature.

Now, about this "commerce clause" ... since you know you can't sell humans, anymore. It seems no state can now pass a law that would legalize slavery. Good for the Commerce Clause.

Amd, here? The issue was "IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL for the Supreme-O's, to validate a COMMERCE CLAUSE law, that outlaws "partial birth abortions." That was the question.

And, today you got a 5-4 answer.

As if people aren't paying attention. As if congress is trusted to do "the right thing" and not consume so much pork. Etc.

And, the Commerce Clause was used in the 1950's, when a Connecticut restriction was CANCELLED. How so? Pharmacies didn't have to hide condoms behind the counter.

There's a lot of laws that now hinge on this.

Meaning? Well, you can buy vitamins in every state.

You can go into local places and buy things without a prescription. At one time? You couldn't get a prescription, unless you were married. And, the local blue noses stuck their noses into everyone's business.

Sure. It's caused a drop-off, now, on Sundays. Not as many people rise and shine to go to church, anymore. At first? The drop off got noticed between "high holidays." At high holidays? The buildings practically had to be accordions. To get everyone inside, and seated.

Today? Dunno. But is there still an Easter Parade down Fifth Avenue? Do women buy new hats?

I have no idea.

But I hear there's less religion out there, just the same.

Up at InstaPundit, a scandal broke out, involving an "employment recruiter" named JL Kirk. Following this story, I saw that JL referred to Jesus Lord.

And, it was a Christian ripoff, of nice, but unemployed people, who would pay for leads to jobs. HELLO. We live in a universe where the employers pay fees to professional "search companies.

The JL Kirk issue that flew up there to get noticed? A cease and desist order against a woman named Coble. The JL Kirk company tried to scare her, to remove "content from her website," that was only her own opinion.

"Jesus Lord" in particular, caught my attention.

It makes me sad to realize that there are so many religious PIGEONS, just waiting to get fleeced.

Of course, JL Kirk has more problems, now.

And, in general, it pays not to mix politics with religion. And, it pays not to threaten lawsuits to people who express their opinions on the Internet.

For people, however, who "buy" into the falacy that they can get a good job by paying money to turkeys, for them I have no help.

As to "what's a fetus," I guess it depends on who got pregnant.

In the old days? When a gal called her "date" and told him "she skipped." It was no longer a love tale. But a time for shotgun weddings? Sure. I'm sure those have dropped off recently, too.

All because the Commerce Clause means that if a road runs through it ... connect states ... the Congress in DC ... will be taking the pulses of a lot of people; and just as in all "special interest" politics, money talks.

Until it doesn't.

Man if I got pregnant, now, God would have a problem. I'm no Mary. Even though, I, too, am Jewish. My uterus cannot be brought back to life.

I wouldn't give you two cents for a pregnancy, here. Because I'd tell God it was no miracle! Just a big mistake. (The Man Upstairs usually doesn't make mistakes, either.) So I don't have to worry about Him needing this "corrective."

On the other hand? Grand children. As soon as my son marries. I'm a very grand-motherly type.

Mike you make an interesting argument. I'm not going to call you and idiot because you are smarter than I am...Please consider the following:

1. I'm no shyster lawyer, but I've read some legal documents/charges etc. Legally, a corporation can be a "person"...why can't a fetus be a "person" ?

2. Genetically speaking, isn’t a “fetus” a human being...actual, not just potentially?

3. There are people in jail right NOW for killing a "fetus".

I'm just looking for a little consistency on this one, since as the Troll pointed out above, I'm not too bright.

Assuming credit for “time served” covers the penalty for the assault of the fetus’ mother…should we let those guys in jail go free?

What about my neighbor's kid who has Downs syndrome. What potential does she have? Is she any more or less a “human being” than the baby that is kicking and trying to scream when they scramble his brain seconds before he comes out…?