Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I want to stick with the "Abortion is not the only battle" stance, so I'm giving this its own thread. If that's wrong, please feel free to merge.
Quote:
In New Court, Roe May Stand, So Foes Look to Limit Its Scope
By ROBIN TONER and ADAM LIPTAK Published: July 10, 2005 WASHINGTON, July 9 - In 2003, abortion opponents took a calculated gamble and pushed through the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law very similar to a state law ruled unconstitutional just three years before. Critics asserted they were defying the court and doomed to fail in any legal challenge.
Wow! Do I hate that red tape. What the fuck does it mean!!!!????
Quote:
Strategists for the anti-abortion movement were betting that the Supreme Court would soon be different: more conservative, and more open to an array of new abortion restrictions. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the court's majority for abortion rights, that gamble may soon begin to pay off.
The basic right to abortion, declared in Roe v. Wade in 1973, will survive regardless of who replaces Justice O'Connor, given that the current majority for Roe is 6 to 3, many experts agree. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was one of the two original dissenters from the Roe decision; if he retires, as has been widely speculated, President Bush would presumably replace him with a similar conservative, so that would not change the balance on Roe.
But a number of cases that are likely to reach the court in the next few years, including the latest versions of the ban on the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, may give a new set of justices the opportunity to restrict abortion in significant ways.
In short, even without overturning Roe, the new court could seriously limit the decision's reach and change the way abortions are regulated around the country, experts say. This means that Mr.Bush's nominees will be intensely scrutinized, by all sides, on their records, past rulings and general philosophy on abortion.
In the term beginning this fall, the court will review its first major abortion case in five years, involving a parental notification law from New Hampshire. Not far behind, perhaps, will be the 2003 "partial birth" law. On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, upheld a lower court's decision to strike down the law as unconstitutional, a case that could also end up before the Supreme Court. Those cases could give the court a chance to revisit one of the most bitterly disputed areas of abortion law: whether an abortion statute must include an explicit exception to allow the procedure, if necessary, to preserve the woman's health.
Abortion opponents assert that such health exceptions give doctors who perform abortions too much discretion to circumvent restrictions by invoking the woman's health, even if it involves emotional and nonphysical issues. Essentially, they say, "health" is so broadly interpreted that it renders many laws meaningless.
The anti-abortion movement has been waiting for a new court for a long time. For years, abortion opponents have focused on passing step-by-step abortion restrictions in state legislatures and the Congress, only to have them challenged in federal court and sometimes thrown out. Justice O'Connor, in their view, was an obstacle in the way of restrictions that had broad political and popular support, notably the "partial birth" ban. "She was an extremist on abortion," asserted James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee.
For abortion rights advocates, it is a moment of growing peril. In their view, Justice O'Connor was perhaps the last protection against a Congress, a president and a sizable number of state legislatures intent on chipping away at the rights established in Roe. "There's enormous concern," said Nancy Northup, head of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
While Roe may stand, some advocates and analysts assert, the right to obtain an abortion could become so restricted in parts of the country that it becomes largely meaningless. "One prospect is that Roe gets progressively eviscerated without being formally overruled," said Reva Siegel, a law professor at Yale.
Justice O'Connor was crucial in developing the court's consensus on abortion over the past 15 years, including the basic legal standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of state and federal abortion laws. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision co-written by Justice O'Connor, the court said states could enact restrictions on abortion, as long as those restrictions did not impose "an undue burden" on women.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
Great idea!
*ignores this thread from here on out*
Wuss.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
What Abortion Debate?
Why there is no honesty about Roe.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Nov. 18, 2005, at 6:09 AM ET
In a 1986 case called Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws against homosexual sodomy do not violate the U.S. Constitution. In a 2003 case called Lawrence v. Texas, the court ruled that on second thought, anti-gay-sodomy laws do violate the Constitution. Liberal politicians cheered this rare and unexpected admission of error by the court. They did not express any alarm about the danger of overturning precedents. Plessy v. Ferguson, upholding racial segregation, was a major precedent when the court overturned it and ended formal racial segregation with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Liberals did not complain.
These days, the vital importance of respecting past Supreme Court rulings is an urgent talking point for Democratic operatives, liberal talk-show hosts, and senators feeling their way toward a reason to oppose Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Olympia Snowe, a Republican liberal from Maine, said Wednesday that Alito's respect for precedents will be "the major question" in her decision whether to support him.
The major question for Snowe and other liberal senators actually is not respect for judicial precedents. The major question is abortion. They want to know whether Alito would vote to overturn Roe. But by the absurd unwritten rules of these increasingly stylized episodes, they are not allowed to ask him and he is not allowed to answer. So the nominee does a fan dance, tantalizing the audience by revealing little bits of his thinking but denying us a complete view. And senators pretend, maybe even to themselves, that they really care about precedents and privacy in the abstract.
The artifice can get quite elaborate. Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, makes a half-serious distinction among precedents, super-precedents, and super-duper precedents. Others emphasize that social policies can start with a Supreme Court ruling and develop into deeply rooted national values. That happened with Roe and abortion, they would say, while the opposite happened with Bowers and laws against homosexuality. Of course if a policy has really become a deeply rooted national value, then the once-controversial Supreme Court ruling is superfluous, because democracy will protect such a value. The fear that motivates Roe panic is that the rights at stake are not deeply rooted. Or not deeply rooted enough.
While Roe defenders play this double game, ostensible Roe opponents, especially those in the White House, may be playing a triple game. Their public position is A) Roe is a terrible decision, responsible for a vast slaughter of innocents; B) legal abortion is deeply immoral; C) we ignore all this in choosing Supreme Court justices, and you (Roe defenders) should, too. It doesn't make sense, and it's not believable. The natural assumption is that Bush is trying to con abortion-rights supporters. Only an idiot would squander the opportunity to rid the nation of Roe because of some fatuous nonsense about picking judges without finding out the one thing you most urgently want to know.
But Machiavellians of my acquaintance believe that it is the anti-abortion folks who are getting conned. The last thing in the world that Republican strategists want is the repeal of Roe. If abortion becomes a legislative issue again, all those pro-choice women and men who have been voting Republican because abortion was safe would have to reconsider, and many would bolt. Meanwhile, the reversal of Roe would energize the left the way Roe itself energized the right. Who needs that?
Abortion is the most important issue in American politics. It shouldn't be. Others have as big an impact on the lives of individuals and a far bigger cumulative effect on society. No other nation obsesses about abortion the way we do. But many Americans believe that legalized abortion is government-sanctioned murder or something close to it. And many others (including me) believe that forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is the most extreme unjustified government intrusion on personal freedom short of sanctioning murder. For many in these groups, abortion is almost by definition an issue that overwhelms all others, or comes close, when they are deciding how (and whether) to vote. It is also, on both sides, a reliable issue for opening wallets.
Yet there is no abortion debate. Or at least the debate is unconnected to the reasons people on both sides feel so strongly about it. What passes for an abortion debate is a jewel of the political hack's art: a big issue that is exploited without being discussed. In the Virginia governor's race this year, both candidates said they were personally morally opposed to abortion, and both accused the other candidate of falsely accusing him of intending to act on this moral belief, which both of them denied. And both of them, in this last particular, were probably telling the truth.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Nice bump.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:36 am Posts: 449 Location: Tomorrow Never Knows
here is the way I see it,
Pro-life activist are hypocrites. They only advocate their stance for themselves, in order to feel moral superior than the rest of us
Pro-choice activist agree that abortion is none of their business and know that circumstances arise in which abortion may be necessary. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice.
Besides how many pro-choice people have blown up buildings and killed people????????
Abortion Backers, Foes Square Off in Miss.
JACKSON, Miss., Jul. 16, 2006
(AP) Hundreds of abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion protesters squared off in a contentious rally Saturday with both sides proclaiming Mississippi a new key battleground state in the fight over Roe v. Wade.
The National Organization for Women and other abortion rights groups gathered at a park in downtown Jackson across from the governor's mansion, vowing to counter an eight-day rally by the national anti-abortion group, Operation Save America.
Operation Save America is holding rallies across Jackson in an effort to force the closure of Mississippi's only abortion clinic _ a move NOW and abortion rights advocates say would chip away at Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortions.
A bomb threat halted the rally, leading to angry exchanges between the groups. The Jackson Police Department cleared the park and blew up a package found by a bomb squad. Officers would not say what the package contained.
NOW president Kim Gandy said the contentious rally showed "Mississippi is a battleground state for sure."
Gandy said if the state's only abortion clinic is closed, "it's going to have a devastating impact on the women who live here and don't have other options that they can exercise."
Flip Benham, Operation Save America director, said his group will remain in Mississippi until the Jackson Women's Health Organization abortion clinic shuts its doors for good.
"I'm here to tell the truth," Benham said to an abortion rights advocate who questioned why he was at the rally. "We were out at the clinic earlier today and we are out here to bring the gospel. Of course, when you do that _ bring the real gospel _ all hell is going to break loose and all of heaven is going to come down."
He said there were eight abortion clinics in Mississippi in 1993, the last time his group came to the state, "and now you have only one abortion mill and what you are seeing is that all eyes are turned to Mississippi."
Susan Hill, president of the National Women's Health Organization, which manages the clinic, recently told a local newspaper the clinic has no intention of closing.
The Jackson Women's Health Organization opened in 1995 and became the last abortion clinic in Mississippi two years ago. It sees roughly 4,000 women a year, Hill said.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
I am personally pro-life, but I can't tell others how to live their lives. I only hope that someday responsiblity, contraception, and adoption will make abortion completely unnecessary, and this debate will be a relic of the past.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
You know what? Fuck Mississippi. See what years of paranoia towards minorities and secular interests has brought them? Illiteracy and poverty. And Hurricanes.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 7633 Location: Philly Del Fia Gender: Female
Orpheus wrote:
I am personally pro-life, but I can't tell others how to live their lives. I only hope that someday responsiblity, contraception, and adoption will make abortion completely unnecessary, and this debate will be a relic of the past.
Sweetheart, that makes you pro-choice. Don't let them fuck with your mind. Being pro-CHOICE doesn't mean you have to ever have an abortion. Or even be pro-abortion. CHOICE. CHOICE. It means you believe everyone should have a CHOICE and not be forced to have a baby they don't want, or an abortion they don't want.
I'm all for gay rights, that doesn't mean I ever plan to make out with a chick.
I am personally pro-life, but I can't tell others how to live their lives. I only hope that someday responsiblity, contraception, and adoption will make abortion completely unnecessary, and this debate will be a relic of the past.
Sweetheart, that makes you pro-choice. Don't let them fuck with your mind. Being pro-CHOICE doesn't mean you have to ever have an abortion. Or even be pro-abortion. CHOICE. CHOICE. It means you believe everyone should have a CHOICE and not be forced to have a baby they don't want, or an abortion they don't want.
I'm all for gay rights, that doesn't mean I ever plan to make out with a chick.
Pretend there are gestation tanks that grow babies inside of them until they are ready to be born, once a fertilized egg is placed inside. Now also pretend there is a big red button on the tank that will suck the fetus out of the tank if the baby is not wanted by anyone.
So now the abortion question comes in; when is that baby a life? At what point does the group of cells in the tank count as human (and therefore could be 'murdered'). Now if you, as the red button pusher, do nothing, a baby will be born in 9 months. If you push the red button at any point during the 9 months, the baby will not be born. So then doesn't it follow that any push of the red button is murder? If inaction is life, action is death, then what does it matter when the action is?
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
broken_iris wrote:
I have always thought about it like this:
Pretend that women are not needed for gestation.
Pretend there are gestation tanks that grow babies inside of them until they are ready to be born, once a fertilized egg is placed inside. Now also pretend there is a big red button on the tank that will suck the fetus out of the tank if the baby is not wanted by anyone.
So now the abortion question comes in; when is that baby a life? At what point does the group of cells in the tank count as human (and therefore could be 'murdered'). Now if you, as the red button pusher, do nothing, a baby will be born in 9 months. If you push the red button at any point during the 9 months, the baby will not be born. So then doesn't it follow that any push of the red button is murder? If inaction is life, action is death, then what does it matter when the action is?
at what point is an acorn an oak tree?
as long as it's in my body, it's up to me to decide.
And btw, women are NOT needed for gestation, men are physiologically capable of carrying a pregnancy to full term in their abdominal cavity.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
broken_iris wrote:
I have always thought about it like this:
Pretend that women are not needed for gestation.
Pretend there are gestation tanks that grow babies inside of them until they are ready to be born, once a fertilized egg is placed inside. Now also pretend there is a big red button on the tank that will suck the fetus out of the tank if the baby is not wanted by anyone.
So now the abortion question comes in; when is that baby a life? At what point does the group of cells in the tank count as human (and therefore could be 'murdered'). Now if you, as the red button pusher, do nothing, a baby will be born in 9 months. If you push the red button at any point during the 9 months, the baby will not be born. So then doesn't it follow that any push of the red button is murder? If inaction is life, action is death, then what does it matter when the action is?
When the baby can live outside the "tank".
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
I'm left to wonder (I'm left in general, actually...)
If being pro-choice has to mean that you don't believe in restrictions AT ALL for abortion? It seems that we draw so many lines in the sand and it isn't reasonable. If you're "pro life" it means you dont' believe in abortion under any circumstances and if you're "pro-choice" you dont' believe there should ever be any restriction on abortion.
I really don't understand this "partial birth" abortion thing. (don't understand it because I'm lame and dont' like to even think about such things, so I don't research it, so I don't know what gestation we're talking about or when it is allowed under current practices).
But it seems to me that there should be restrictions on abortions happening past the age of viability. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed, but I think there should be restrictions for health of mother (phyical or proven mental health). Otherwise if you don't want the kid you should have decided by now, or you should buck up and have the kid and give it up for adoption.
I don't get it.
Also, I think there should be laws regarding abortion procedure and they should anesthitize the fetus if it is being done at an age where the fetus is capable of feeling pain.
and honestly, if it were my world. if you got more than 2 abortions, you would have to have your tubes tied (if they were done for convenience, not for health reasons on the behalf of the mother or fetus having anomalies)
The older I get, the less absolutist I become as far as my "pro-choice" stance goes. My field of work doesn't help things either.
how about some fucking birth control!? please!
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
Orpheus wrote:
I am personally pro-life, but I can't tell others how to live their lives. I only hope that someday responsiblity, contraception, and adoption will make abortion completely unnecessary, and this debate will be a relic of the past.
I am pro-choice and agree that I would love to see all those things help lower the abortion numbers. But I think the biggest irony is that the groups that oppose abortion also want to make it harder for women to get birth control and teach a far out of date abstinence program to teens. To me, you can't deny contraception and real education and then tell people to have the baby.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
I am personally pro-life, but I can't tell others how to live their lives. I only hope that someday responsiblity, contraception, and adoption will make abortion completely unnecessary, and this debate will be a relic of the past.
Sweetheart, that makes you pro-choice. Don't let them fuck with your mind. Being pro-CHOICE doesn't mean you have to ever have an abortion. Or even be pro-abortion. CHOICE. CHOICE. It means you believe everyone should have a CHOICE and not be forced to have a baby they don't want, or an abortion they don't want.
I'm all for gay rights, that doesn't mean I ever plan to make out with a chick.
No, that makes me politically pro-choice, but I find both abortion and the death penalty morally wrong, so I consider myself pro-life, just not in the fundamentalist sense. Nobody has "fucked with my mind," and I think it's an important distinction.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
as long as it's in my body, it's up to me to decide. And btw, women are NOT needed for gestation, men are physiologically capable of carrying a pregnancy to full term in their abdominal cavity.
wrong. where do you get your scientific information?
not saying it is impossible, but they aren't physiologically capable. They don't produce the same hormones a woman does and where exactly does the placenta attach safely? how is the infant protected? how are the internal organs protected?
This happens to women on occasion, and is considered a medical emergency.
i think it's horrific for anyone to suggest that right up until the actual delivery, it is fine to abort a baby just because they "want" to.
I do believe that right up until delivery, the mother has the right to refuse any medical procedures, even if it means the fetus is at risk for dying in utero, but I don't believe that an abortion at 39 wks is okay.
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Wuss.
