the problem is not the dems obviously tho... the problem is the hypocrisy of the right. in no way is this about the dems. it would be if they were the party of pro life and had had the white house and the supreme court but that is the republicans.
anyway i appreciate that you are going to try and find an answer as it is a major hang up for me. i would love to side with the right based off of how i feel on the issue but in my opinion it is worse to say you are pro-life and then do nothing to stop the murdering than to be pro-choice and doing nothing.
Pro-life elected officials have passed some sort of anti-abortion measures at local levels, often times over tuned in the courts. So the fight is still being fought by many.
Not sure how we can influence the decisions of appointed judges after they've been appointed, maybe they realize the task of abolishing abortions is nearly impossible in this day and age.
I guess the best defense I can have pertaining to your question is that we need our leaders to stop condoning abortions on demand in such a callous fashion, we need to restore some sense of morality and responsibility.
I have to admit, this is one of the tougher questions poised to me on these boards.
federal government shouldn't be deciding this period....either way
i'm not a huge pro life guy anyway....other than i'm personally pro-life
its obviously a state issue let the state debate it and work out these tough issues at a local level
obviously you can't ban abortions nationwide people gonna use cloth hangers and underground clinics will run rampant if they did
just like when you prohibit drugs, alcohol, or gambling....it goes underground and more shady characters get involved
i'm not a huge pro life guy anyway....other than i'm personally pro-life
its obviously a state issue let the state debate it and work out these tough issues at a local level
obviously you can't ban abortions nationwide people gonna use cloth hangers and underground clinics will run rampant if they did
just like when you prohibit drugs, alcohol, or gambling....it goes underground and more shady characters get involved
Tiz, not very difficult to cross state lines y'know.
Correctomundo.
Seven of the present SC justices may be deemed "conservatives", but at most two or three have any interest in making a ruling that would result in a few hundred thousand American women each year being arrested, prosecuted and put into prison for terminating an unwanted embryo or fetus.
They all know full well that our country is rocking along just fine and that there are a lot of net social and community benefits tied to American women having legal access to abortion when needed.
No need to mess with success.
There's no conspiracy to keep abortion a wedge issue on our side of the table. How absurd.
1) Even when Republicans had 'control' of the Senate, they only had 55 seats, which was just enough for Democrats to stop things like onshore drilling, the appointment of judges in the lower circuits etc. I'm not making excuses, it's just a political fact, frustrating as it can be. Anyone remember the Gang of 14?
2) With respect to judges...well....let's go through the list. Some turned out conservative, some did not. Ronald Reagan nominated Atonin Scalia (very good), but he also gave us Sandra Day O'Connor (very bad). Bush Sr. gave us Clarence Thomas (very good) but also David Souter (barf!).
Picking judges that aren't vetted are a crapshoot. (Ditto for VP nominees :lolBIG
George W. Bush nominated John Roberts (very good), but then tried to shove Harriet Myers down our throats. But not for the internet, a very engaged conservative base and highly publicized nomination process, he probably would have succeeded. But he didn't, and we got Samuel Alito instead (very good). So that was a victory for the good guys.
Right now the SCOTUS has 4 liberal judges, 4 strong constructionists with Justice Kennedy (ugh, another Reagan appointee) as the deciding vote practically deciding every case. So despite a Republican presidents selecting 7/9 current judges, conservatives still don't control the SC.
It's a work in progress but it ain't a conspiracy to keep abortion a "wedge issue."
However, with up to three openings in the next four years, it's easy to see why electing the wrong president could set back traditionalists for essentially a lifetime.
C-Gold is right -- a liberal president, liberal House, liberal Senate, liberal SCOTUS, liberal media, liberal academia will destroy this country.
It is worth noting the WORST policies that continue to haunt us to this day were implemented when Democrats had bullet-proof majorities in Congress and had stacked the SC with their activist liberal judges. I am speaking of course of the Warren court.
Without those massive majorities, there would still be prayer in our schools, there wouldn't have been a New Deal, Roe would not the US law and government in general would not be as expansive and intrusive as it currently is.
In other words, the country would look MUCH different now than it is.
The point is, once these kinds of changes are made, they are almost impossible to get rid of.
Don't tell me an Obama presidency isn't a direct threat to the values and traditions the United States was founded on. You people should know better.
You want "change"? Be careful what you wish for.
1) Even when Republicans had 'control' of the Senate, they only had 55 seats, which was just enough for Democrats to stop things like onshore drilling, the appointment of judges in the lower circuits etc. I'm not making excuses, it's just a political fact, frustrating as it can be. Anyone remember the Gang of 14?
2) With respect to judges...well....let's go through the list. Some turned out conservative, some did not. Ronald Reagan nominated Atonin Scalia (very good), but he also gave us Sandra Day O'Connor (very bad). Bush Sr. gave us Clarence Thomas (very good) but also David Souter (barf!).
Picking judges that aren't vetted are a crapshoot. (Ditto for VP nominees :lolBIG
George W. Bush nominated John Roberts (very good), but then tried to shove Harriet Myers down our throats. But not for the internet, a very engaged conservative base and highly publicized nomination process, he probably would have succeeded. But he didn't, and we got Samuel Alito instead (very good). So that was a victory for the good guys.
Right now the SCOTUS has 4 liberal judges, 4 strong constructionists with Justice Kennedy (ugh, another Reagan appointee) as the deciding vote practically deciding every case. So despite a Republican presidents selecting 7/9 current judges, conservatives still don't control the SC.
It's a work in progress but it ain't a conspiracy to keep abortion a "wedge issue."
However, with up to three openings in the next four years, it's easy to see why electing the wrong president could set back traditionalists for essentially a lifetime.
C-Gold is right -- a liberal president, liberal House, liberal Senate, liberal SCOTUS, liberal media, liberal academia will destroy this country.
It is worth noting the WORST policies that continue to haunt us to this day were implemented when Democrats had bullet-proof majorities in Congress and had stacked the SC with their activist liberal judges. I am speaking of course of the Warren court.
Without those massive majorities, there would still be prayer in our schools, there wouldn't have been a New Deal, Roe would not the US law and government in general would not be as expansive and intrusive as it currently is.
In other words, the country would look MUCH different now than it is.
The point is, once these kinds of changes are made, they are almost impossible to get rid of.
Don't tell me an Obama presidency isn't a direct threat to the values and traditions the United States was founded on. You people should know better.
You want "change"? Be careful what you wish for.
bardue they'll still be able to get legal abortions if you let the states decide not all 50 states will ban abortions
federal government on the other hand shouldn't be promoting it or condoning it EITHER WAY!!!
although i believe our leaders should set a pro life example for us all to follow.......along with a stable traditional family....that's what keeps our economy and nation stable.....
federal government on the other hand shouldn't be promoting it or condoning it EITHER WAY!!!
although i believe our leaders should set a pro life example for us all to follow.......along with a stable traditional family....that's what keeps our economy and nation stable.....
So I fully understand your above post - 90 days is okey dokey, but on day 91 we need to arrest, prosecute and imprison the formerly pregnant woman?
And if your reply happens to the latter is Yes, then who will be the one who legally determines on what date Day 91 falls?
As a 20 year active member of the Democratic Party at both the national and state level, I can assure the Reader at Large that is NOT a fact. It is an utter fiction.
The DNC platform includes support for American women to have the legal option to abortion if they want it. It takes absolutely no position as to whether abortions are a good or bad choice.
Now individual Democrats - like me for instance - are avowed advocates for more pregnant women making the sensible choice to terminate an embryo or fetus when carrying it to term could be harmful to their health, their future, or both.
just makes no sense to me how someone that thinks the federal war on drugs is loonie toon
somehow thinks federal government should decide its legal to abort a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it....
makes no sense to me...but eh what do i know
i guess since you like drugs and are pro choice you personally would like the federal government to fit your personal needs and desires.....
rather than giving the states the ability to make these choices
somehow thinks federal government should decide its legal to abort a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it....
makes no sense to me...but eh what do i know
i guess since you like drugs and are pro choice you personally would like the federal government to fit your personal needs and desires.....
rather than giving the states the ability to make these choices
the law whatever it is is fine with me.........termination has to be an option.......but not a birth control option for people who just dont care.....like i said in another thread im am definitely not smart enough to make policy here just my personal opinion.........and if someome put a gun to my head and said keep the law as it is or no abortions ever under any circumstance.......i would they would keep it as is
There's no conspiracy to keep abortion a wedge issue on our side of the table. How absurd.
1) Even when Republicans had 'control' of the Senate, they only had 55 seats, which was just enough for Democrats to stop things like onshore drilling, the appointment of judges in the lower circuits etc. I'm not making excuses, it's just a political fact, frustrating as it can be. Anyone remember the Gang of 14?
2) With respect to judges...well....let's go through the list. Some turned out conservative, some did not. Ronald Reagan nominated Atonin Scalia (very good), but he also gave us Sandra Day O'Connor (very bad). Bush Sr. gave us Clarence Thomas (very good) but also David Souter (barf!).
Picking judges that aren't vetted are a crapshoot. (Ditto for VP nominees :lolBIG
George W. Bush nominated John Roberts (very good), but then tried to shove Harriet Myers down our throats. But not for the internet, a very engaged conservative base and highly publicized nomination process, he probably would have succeeded. But he didn't, and we got Samuel Alito instead (very good). So that was a victory for the good guys.
Right now the SCOTUS has 4 liberal judges, 4 strong constructionists with Justice Kennedy (ugh, another Reagan appointee) as the deciding vote practically deciding every case. So despite a Republican presidents selecting 7/9 current judges, conservatives still don't control the SC.
It's a work in progress but it ain't a conspiracy to keep abortion a "wedge issue."
However, with up to three openings in the next four years, it's easy to see why electing the wrong president could set back traditionalists for essentially a lifetime.
C-Gold is right -- a liberal president, liberal House, liberal Senate, liberal SCOTUS, liberal media, liberal academia will destroy this country.
It is worth noting the WORST policies that continue to haunt us to this day were implemented when Democrats had bullet-proof majorities in Congress and had stacked the SC with their activist liberal judges. I am speaking of course of the Warren court.
Without those massive majorities, there would still be prayer in our schools, there wouldn't have been a New Deal, Roe would not the US law and government in general would not be as expansive and intrusive as it currently is.
In other words, the country would look MUCH different now than it is.
The point is, once these kinds of changes are made, they are almost impossible to get rid of.
Don't tell me an Obama presidency isn't a direct threat to the values and traditions the United States was founded on. You people should know better.
You want "change"? Be careful what you wish for.
Thanks Joe, enlightening post.
I think it would've been a disaster for both Miers and Bush if she ever faced confirmation hearings. The whole issue of Bush's National Guard tenure would've become front and center again and there wouldn't have been any questionable documents to save him this time. Texas journalist James Moore was writing about this at the time and it was not going to go unnoticed if things got to that stage.
Ah but you're muddling the mission of the federal government here.
The emphasis is not on allowing legal access to abortion for American women who want it.
The emphasis is on not allowing such women to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for their choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
There are forces in our country who want the government to be the arbiter and decide for pregnant women whether they must carry the fetus to term.
But fortunately, the wise jurists determined that such a decision should only reside with the pregnant female herself.
No one else.
Not the federal government. Not the local mayor or state congressman. Not the neighbor. Not the family member who wants to decide for her.
Only the pregnant female gets to make the call in The United States of Ameica
And lest you be confused by the bipolar rantings of my good buddy Mark/Joe, my disdain for Prohibition has nothing to do with my personal liking of drugs (I do like some drugs) or my personal dislike of other drugs.
Rather it is 100% my desire to see the commercial production and distribution of risky drugs moved into the legal, regulated environment currently used for literally 99.9% of all drugs in today's pharmacopia.
This in preference to leaving said production and distribution on the streets and 100% controlled by unregulated dealers.
A legal, regulated drug market is what we use for virtually all drugs including the dangerous and often addictive alcohol, tobacco and a long list of Rx pharmaceuticals. And it's the way we should handle ALL drugs at the commercial level.
Only Prohibitionists support risky drugs being 100% controlled by the street.
Rather it is 100% my desire to see the commercial production and distribution of risky drugs moved into the legal, regulated environment currently used for literally 99.9% of all drugs in today's pharmacopia.
This in preference to leaving said production and distribution on the streets and 100% controlled by unregulated dealers.
A legal, regulated drug market is what we use for virtually all drugs including the dangerous and often addictive alcohol, tobacco and a long list of Rx pharmaceuticals. And it's the way we should handle ALL drugs at the commercial level.
Only Prohibitionists support risky drugs being 100% controlled by the street.
So we've got a small minority of American women who might choose abortion as a last-ditch method of birth control when all other methods have failed.
For such women, it's a far more sensible option than carrying the unwanted embryo to term and then having the newborn baby either in the care of an apathetic mother or in the care of an overburdened and incredibly inefficient public social service system.
