Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: An Abortion Rallying Cry for Dems?

Wednesday's news that the Supreme Court had upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion signed into law by President Bush in 2003 roiled the political waters that had been largely placid following Monday's shooting spree at Virginia Tech.

Republicans largely praised the ruling, even those -- like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- who support abortion rights in a broader context, while Democrats decried the ruling as a first step on the slippery slope to an eventual court challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Former Sen. John Edwards's (D-N.C.) statement in particular struck us. "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election," Edwards said. "Too much is at stake -- starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Democrats have failed in past presidential elections to motivate large numbers of their base voters around the idea that a Republican administration will take away a woman's right to choose. But with this ruling, the Democratic presidential candidates seem to have a much more convincing argument that the threat to abortion rights is real and another four years of a Republican president could further tip the Supreme Court in conservatives' favor.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we ask Fix readers whether this ruling will (or should) turn into a rallying cry for Democrats at the ballot box in 2008? And, if Democrats choose to focus on it, do they run the risk of alienating the moderates within their party as well as the independent voters considered crucial to winning the White House?

Wag the Blog is a conversation starter, not a discussion ender. Offer your thoughts in the comments section below. The most thought-provoking and insightful comments will be featured in a follow-up post later today or tomorrow.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 19, 2007; 8:45 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney's Odd Historical Reference
Next: Bruning Presses Hagel

Comments

"I would just like to express how very frightened I am that the government can legally regulate my physical being and how concerned I am of what this issue, due to its ugly and controversial nature, may lead to in the realms of government regulation and personal freedom.

"In a slowly heating bathtub, you can be scalded to death before you know it." - Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale."

And if I looked into a Window and saw a man pouring SCALDING water on his wife for not doing the laundry, I would expect the law to come in and protect the woman and to arrest the husband for assault even if the current law said a woman is only a figmant of a man's "want" or "planning"

The law can't be used to rob any human of his/her humanity. The law cannot be used to say that one part of the human family is less human than another, which is exactly what the pro-choicers do believe.

It is only because the "government interfered in our private lives" that women have the rights they have today. So for them to cry out about the "invasion of privacy" by the government coming in and saying you cannot use a procedure that clearly lives up to the "cruel and unusual punishment" 2 kill an infant in the womb is unbelievable.

If what is done to a 3rd trimester fetus during intact D & X is not cruel and unusual punishment than every state that still has an active death penalty should make this procedure it's main form of execution. Have the condemned human, be put into a medically induced coma, drill a large whole in the back of the skull, use a device to stir the "head contents" until they can be removed by suction and then use heavy suction to remove the "head contents".

Would this be termed "cruel and unusual"?


Posted by: brisonc | April 20, 2007 9:23 PM | Report abuse

just for the record, i support the right to choose in any situation. if the woman does not choose to have the child, what kind of a chance does that child have of a good life? "

So if a parent as a childish, self-centered, "the world revolves around me" attitude; this is an argument in favor of "choice"?

The same could be said for the view of white supremecists who argued against "unwanted negroes" being welcomed into a society that doesn't want them(the KKK).

We do not human self-centered, childish, "the world revolves around me and only what I want" attitudes of descrimination and prejudiced in this country. What we do with these types is tell such individuals:

"all humans deserve the rights you are claiming only for yourself. However in order to enjoy the human rights you enjoy in this country requires that you must respect the humanity of others, even those you may feel are inferior to you. Why? Because there may be people out there that don't view you as fully human because of some characteristic you may have or suffer from"

In the end, the focus should be on the prejudice and bigotry of the abortion rights fanatic and look upon them the same way we look upon a neo nazi today. As an ignorant, bigoted individual who refuses to recognize the humanity of others.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"DNA is not an argument for life beginning at conception. Just because something has DNA doesn't mean that it's alive. DNA can be created in a lab. Your DNA is in your hair, but a haircut isn't murder. Your DNA is in your appendix, which is significantly larger and more complex than a blastocyst, but that doesn't mean that your appendix is alive. Keep trying"

Buy the DNA in your appendix is identical to the DNA in the rest of your body. The DNA of an Embryo or Fetus inside his/her mother is totally different than his/her mother's DNA. So you lose the argument. It isn't just "having DNA". It is another human inside the mother whose DNA is present and which identifies the embryo/fetus as a different and distinct human altogether.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I believe, with Roe still standing, nationally the Republicans have a better argument for fundraising and votes. However, on a state level, the degree to what politicians want to shoot for could determine who has what advantage. With partial birth abortion out of the equation for now, parental consent would favor Republicans while an all out ban would certainly favor democrats. If Republican candidates push for hefty legislation demanding perental consent for minors and that sort of thing, that could be a fund raiser from their base and equally a great fundraiser for the dems., especially if the dems. can make the argument this is a prelude to banning all forms of abortion. In the end of the day, it depends on what state your looking at as to how it will affect a campaign. On the presidential election it boils down to 1 word: cash. Also the state of Ohio, a highly sought after prize, seems to be socially conservative so it could help someone there but hurt in other states.

Posted by: reason | April 19, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

just for the record, i support the right to choose in any situation. if the woman does not choose to have the child, what kind of a chance does that child have of a good life? also, anyone read sartre? "existence precedes essence" - meaning, you are the sum of your experiences.

you quote your "scripture," i quote mine.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

More on this issue is the 2000 stats. 1.3 million performed and 2,200 used this procedure. So indeed it is a very small percentage as stated by myself and others. When you see the name calling start, it is a sure sign that the "insert word" have lost the argument and they know it.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

damn right it should be a rallying cry! the republicans are running lockstep and true to a radical agenda. as to the power of the court, one might wonder whether their power only extends to the citizenry. its obvious that the executive branch ignores anything the court says that opposes a presidential position.... for that matter, the executive ignores congress as well - see the "signing statements" that nullify the bills passed by congress

Posted by: johnk | April 19, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

There shouldn't be such arguments over this birth control issue. I'm not saying abortion is right, but women should have right to make their own choices.
The United States, as the leader of the world, should set a good example to the rest of the world by contributing to make the world a better place. It's a shame sometimes the situation is totally opposite.
Unfortunately, our political leader is not making enough commitment to Kyoto Protocol to stop global warming, or to the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty.
According to The Borgen Project, it only cost $19 billion to end global poverty.
What can we do for our future generations?
It is not so hard if we are truly willing to make a change.

Posted by: DaShamu | April 19, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Miguelito: As I stated earlier, this decision will only effect a small number of people in the overall scheme. What I have been trying to understand is the reasoning of Justice Kennedy. I just don't get it. Read the article by Ms. Greenhouse in the NY Times and maybe you can see what I mean. It simply makes no sense to me.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - Don't be surprised to see DNA used in this context.

The DNA may not be live in and of itself, but it is the blueprint/controller for the living organism, which in the case at hand is human.

You can parse it out to component parts later, but the DNA in a fertilized cell is the signature of a unique life.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

In principle, this decision represents a substantial defeat for those in favor of a women's right to choose. However, in the grand scheme of things, so few of these procedures are performed that the overall impact is not profound. The pro-lifers will walk away thinking they have won the war, but the public at large will solidify their opinion that early and mid-term procedures should remain safe, legal, and available.

Posted by: Miguelito | April 19, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

DNA is not an argument for life beginning at conception. Just because something has DNA doesn't mean that it's alive. DNA can be created in a lab. Your DNA is in your hair, but a haircut isn't murder. Your DNA is in your appendix, which is significantly larger and more complex than a blastocyst, but that doesn't mean that your appendix is alive. Keep trying.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Hog - you fixated that Lylepink "lied."

Lying is intentional. Presenting a falsehood is intentional.

I don't know if they were right or wrong, but if they incorrectly said something not true, it wasn't necessarily lying.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

A couple of the long line of posts mentioned something which just might develop into a significant part of the Pro-Life position - DNA .

Once the DNA blueprint is created, the physical entity which it controls will be that entity until it dies, or is killed.

The DNA says "human" unquestionably, no matter at what stage of development.

If it is just a clump of cells, it is undeniably a human clump of cells. All of the genetic coding necessary to carry it through it's natural conclusion is present

Also, the DNA is different from the DNA of the mother, which means anything which the mother does affects another "human."

I have to admit, before today I didn't see this one coming. DNA is one heck of a scientific argument for life beginning at conception.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Everyone should google CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM or DOMINION THEOLOGY to learn what the right wing nutballs are really up to.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Lylepinko? Could that be the same Lylepinko who said that I was wrong when I said that the 1994 "assault weapons ban" did not apply to weapons and clip produced before the ban took effect, which means that during the ban, all of the "banned" weapons were widely available?

Is this the same Lylepinko who continued to insist that his view was right, even after I cited an ANTI-gun site that agreed with me???

http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf

The same Lylepinko that when confronted with the facts, rather than admit to falsehood ran and hid like a scalded dog?

LYLEPINKO is that you???

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Jan and all of the feminazis who so loudly proclaim that the right to an abortion is in the Constitution - Could you enlighten the rest of us by pointing out just where in the Constitution it is?

Even just providing the legal grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided would be good.

Have you ever looked at it? Or, do you just demand your rights, without knowing how or why you have them?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to respond to you, brisonc. But you invoked Godwin's law in record time by comparing the pro-choice position to the Nazis, so your opinion is irrelevant. You lose at the Internet.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I recall the Senate debate on this issue and the one thing that stands out for me is the procedure is used in a very small number of cases. The number of Dr.'s that will use it is also small. I doubt this will have much effect on those that can afford it, because they have the means to go out of the country to have it done. Whether or not it is the safest for the woman is another question that now won't be answered.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"I would just like to express how very frightened I am that the government can legally regulate my physical being and how concerned I am of what this issue, due to its ugly and controversial nature, may lead to in the realms of government regulation and personal freedom." - JenM

Damn right, Jen! And when the Bird flu pandemic hits, you just keep saying that the government has no business regulating our physical being, and when the next major hurricane hits and there's a typhus outbreak, you just keep saying the the government has no business regulating our physical being...and on to infinity!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

JenM
Which "freedoms" are you so concerned about? The freedom of fat people to eat french fries? The freedom of people not to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets? The freedom to own a gun? The freedom of healthy people not to enroll in a mandatory health insurance program? The freedom to call someone a "nappy headed ho"? The freedom to buy and sell goods at a price I chose to pay if both parties agree?

Should the government be able to "legally regulate your physical being" and decree that you cannot do drugs, even in your bedroom? Are you for voluntary incest? Voluntary prostitution? Are there regulations that involve other people's physical being that you support?

Or have you really just decided that in your opinion, a fetus should not have the legal status of a person, therefor the decision is wrong?

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter never ceases in his devotion to stupidity. He says:
"In proclaiming pretty much anything they choose to proclaim, the leading Republican candidates place themselves more in line with the Republican primary voting electorate than with the country at large, according to several national polls."

This was apparently a response to ProudtobeGOP, who said:

"In proclaiming their opposition to the ruling, the three leading Democratic candidates place themselves more in line with the Democratic primary voting electorate than with the country at large, according to several national polls."

What makes you so stupid is that a large majority of the people agree with banning partial birth abortion, so the Republican candidates positioned themselves WITH public opinion on this issue, and the Democrats positioned themselves AGAINST public opinion on this issue.

I am try to type real slow so that even an idiot like you can understand this.


Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I would just like to express how very frightened I am that the government can legally regulate my physical being and how concerned I am of what this issue, due to its ugly and controversial nature, may lead to in the realms of government regulation and personal freedom.

"In a slowly heating bathtub, you can be scalded to death before you know it." - Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale.

Posted by: Jen M | April 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"You identify with a tiny clump of cells, instead of with a living adult woman. That doesn't seem strange to you?"

But in order to be the living, adult woman she first had to pass through the "tiny clump of cells" stage of life. In fact we all do and did. Are you saying we had no human significance then, but simply by chance, because we made it past the "clumps of cells" stage, we have human significance?

Who is to say what stage of human life is significant enough? Supreme Court Judges medical researchers have such ability yet they lay claim to the power to do so.

Josef Mengele claimed he had the right to research in WW 2 Germany using Jews as lab mice. Since the law(the Nazi law)allowed it and it was perfectly legal.(Jews were just animated clumps of cells). why are we so horrified at the knowledge of it today and yet we continue to look for excuses to experiment on other humans today and always rationalize it somehow?


Posted by: brisonc | April 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris - parse the polls, and you tell us. Intuitively, I'd say that a percentage of moderates roughly resembling the share that voted Democratic in 2006 support choice and oppose erosion of women's right to choose. Looks like this decision could solidify the gains Dems made with independents in 2006, and help with motivation/turnout of its base in 2008.

Posted by: Tom T | April 19, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Semaj, my new friend/roomate AdolphH says that your argument reminds him of his argument.

You see, Adolph wanted to kill a bunch of people, but knew that some religious fanatics might object to killing of persons. So Adolph just declared those who he wanted to kill to be sub-human, and therefor not persons, which in his mind, made him free to kill them.

If you use definitions to change who is and is not a person, it seems to me you are free to kill whomever you want.

That is what I did. I decided those rich charlatans were not persons, therefore killing them was fine.

I am disappointed that your "who are you to judge" line has been abandoned, but I am glad to see that you have appointed yourself to determine when it is ok to judge and when it is not ok to judge.

I can do the same thing, Semaj. I hereby decide that you cannot judge me. I hereby decide that who I kill are not persons, therefore killing them is ok, if someone decides they can judge me after all.

Are arguments are still the same. Samaj and Cho, breaking bread together.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe it had some other meaning several thousand years ago to a people who's culture is alien to my own."

Then you're not using scripture as scripture, but rather as an interesting piece of literature that can be used as a source of colorful quotes. That may be an interesting rhetorical device, but it won't do anything to persuade someone who take the scriptures seriously.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"You may classify all stages of pregnancy as "infants" but I don't. If you think your embryo breathes on its own, let's take it out of your body and just see how long it breathes on its own. You can bring up all the examples you want of what we will do to real infants if we believe that embryos aren't real infants, but that's not what RvW is about. It's about women making choices for their lives -- not governments. Don't have an abortion. But, please, don't try to tell us all that embryos breath on their own! Those kind of "facts" only fly in the fundamentalist echo chambers that y'all are locked in."
Jan

Again you are mistaken. This post did not say that all stages of human growth in the womb are "infants". What was stated was late 2nd trimester and 3rd trimenster fetuses, when seen through 3D and 4D ultrasound show an infant in the womb. Infant because every feature for an infant is present.

As for whether a embryo or fetus can "breath on his/her own" matters. If it does then we would have to say that anyone outside of the womb who requires some form of mechanical assistance to breath is less human than those who don't need such assistance. Requiring assistance to breath does not make you less human, but pro-choicers say this is the case. Why? What is the sound reasoning behind it?

As for "Women making choices for their lives". Even without Roe V. Wade they could still have this ability. What women or men can't do though is make a decision for their own lives that will harm or injure the life of another, but this is exactly what pro-choicers seek to do. They want to kill another human simply because it's existance is inconvenient to themselves or someone else and this is EXACTLY the situation that goverment should intervene for one of the main purposes of government is to stop one human from attacking or assaulting another(no matter how young or old, whether they need assistance to breath or not).

Jan, look at it this way. If you were outside and a man much bigger and stronger than you with a machete said to you, "your existence is making my life difficult so it's better if you are dead" and then swung his mechete at you; would you want someone to come protect you from this assailant? Or would you say, "well, this person is obviously bigger and stronger than I am and therefore he is humanly superior to myself and I guess he has the right to kill me however he wishes"

My guess is you would ask the goverment(the police) to assist you. You would demand the government get involved in your private life to protect you, wouldn't you?

What if you saw a 2 year-old child being chased by that same, big man with a michete? Would you cry out for the police to intervene? Even if the law said that human that are bigger and stronger has the right to kill those smaller and weaker if the stonger believes the weaker are less human?(which is what Roe V Wade held).

Jan, you say you don't believe an embryo is a human being even though you yourself at one time passed through the embryo stage of life. You say a fetus is not worthy of protection under the law even though you youself were once a fetus. Are you saying that at one time in the past you were an inferior life form, but now, just by chance, you were able to grow past that stage so now you have human significance but younger humans do not?

You keep saying, "I believe" or "don't believe" this or that, but what is your belief based on? You say a human embryo is not important, but a human infant is. Why so? Why do you believe this?


Posted by: brisonc | April 19, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

In proclaiming pretty much anything they choose to proclaim, the leading Republican candidates place themselves more in line with the Republican primary voting electorate than with the country at large, according to several national polls.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

You identify with a tiny clump of cells, instead of with a living adult woman. That doesn't seem strange to you?

But you're asking the impossible. Most pro-lifers have already made up their mind, often on religious grounds. And it's extremely difficult to convince someone that their religion is wrong.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Cho,

I beleive that it is not my place to Judge what a Woman does with a developing fetus in her body. What Cho did at VT deprived many of rights they are guaranteed under the constitution. Fetuses are not given rights under the constitution.

Your morality may apply when my actions effect you. What I do in my bedroom (or church, or at my doctor) is between me and my creator.

And Cho, the class may be dismissed, but I'll see you in detention.

Posted by: Semaj | April 19, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It would be a gamble for the Democratic party to try to parlay the Court's decision into a reminder that they oppose your right not to have been aborted. Most of the participants here seem to identify with the aborting and fail to consider how many voters identify with the aborted fetus. About fifteen years ago I crossed into the latter camp, where I found many who had already made the same journey. Before prolifers will relent, you will have to convince us that our respect for the unborn is misguided. If you only tell us to shut up and keep our convictions to ourselves, you're telling us to tolerate a grave injustice. Convince us that it's not a grave injustice, not that we should stop trying to correct it.

Posted by: Nick Frankovich | April 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

JPerez, while condemning irrational hysteria, then states that voters will punish the GOP because it has "been violating people's civil liberties and the constitution, and that they have been governing dictatorially."

Pot, meet kettle. You both are as black as the ace of spades.

In a fit of irrational hysteria, JPerez fails to list a single constitutional violation or offer any backup for the absure idiotic statement about dictatorship.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

In proclaiming their opposition to the ruling, the three leading Democratic candidates place themselves more in line with the Democratic primary voting electorate than with the country at large, according to several national polls.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/dem_08ers_attac.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Jan--
Libertarian? Or pretent Libertarian? Real libertarians who really do not care what other people do in their private lives do not vote based on abortion. They disagree with most Repubs on abortion, but they really don't care.

Real libertarians also apply those views to economics, and come down on the side of Milton Friedman, and real libertarians DO vote economics.

If you are a real libertarian, and not pretend, you will vote Repub, because of economics. Good ole capitalism. Yes you do have your vote, and your promise to use it in this manner makes me think you arn't really a libertarian, just a liberal who wants to pretend.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The reason abortion worked for the GOP is simple. They used emotional appeals. They argued that it was wrong to kill an unborn baby. How many people remember being inside their mother's womb? If you don't remember, you are just like everyone else. If you can't remember something it is like it never happened to you. Plus, the fetuses are undeveloped and therefore cant feel it. This emotional logic (whining) is exactly why I used to think I hated Democrats when I was little. Emotional thinking, to me, is hysteria. But I digress. Emotion tends to work better on the masses than logic (sadly). Though I fear the Supreme Court's ruling may lead to overturning Roe v. Wade, I doubt it is a good issue for the Dems. It may work to turn out the GOP base moreso than the liberals. I think the Democrats would be smart to say that the Supreme Court upholding the partial-birth abortion ban is just one of many signs of the fact that Bush and the GOP have been violating people's civil liberties and the constitution, and that they have been governing dictatorially. That rhetoric might work to get the moderates. The traditional arguments would likely just turn out both parties bases.

Posted by: J Perez | April 19, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Razorback --
I agree that this is a SC decision and therefore I will not be protesting in the streets. But I have my vote. And this is a wake-up call regarding appts. to the SC for which I am extremely thankful.
As far as your list of Berkley behaviors, I said I didn't mind any individual choices that don't threaten others. Drugs, if used as responsibily as either alcohol or tobacco should be -- fine. Sex with family members if they are consenting adults -- fine. Prostituion, if it's the prostitute's choice -- fine. Calling people anything that does not threaten them -- fine. Public nudity -- fine. Hey, Razorback! That's what libertarians sound like. Republicans can't understand that sound anymore. Very sad.

Posted by: Jan | April 19, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I wish to associate with you Semaj, because you believe that "you should not judge".

You see, Semaj, if as you say no one can judge you, then no one can judge ME, no matter what I do.

"Who are you to judge" is the cornerstone of moral relativism. The best thing about moral relativism is that I don't have to justify my actions to anyone, except me. Who are you to say what you view as moral is superior to what I view as moral, if as you say, you should not judge.

I acted out on my view of morality, and who are you to judge?

My new roomates Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, various Ayatollahs, McViegh and Tookie Williams all agree with you Semaj. Since I cannot judge you, you cannot judge me.

Any more questions Semaj? Class dismissed.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Jan,

babies also cannot feed themselves when they are born. why should a mother have to feed the baby. why cant she choose not to feed the baby. my point is, there are alot of things babies cannot do on their own. we as civilized human beings have to help them a little bit.

Posted by: james | April 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Cho,

I do not watch your tapes. I choose to seperate myself from that which is not good to me and my family.

I do not understand why you wish to associate yourself with me?

Posted by: Semaj | April 19, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Jan,

i dont know why i feel this way but i feel you are a genuine person. I am not so ignorant not to see the other point of view and even entertain it. It was aristotle that said "It is the mark of a truly educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it."

I realize that women sometimes get pregnant and decide that they dont want to keep the baby and may feel that it is their right to do so. i like to debate but the reality of the situation is that we will never see eye to eye for one reason and that is that i truly believe that unborn babies should have the same rights as born babies. they have little arms and littel legs and beating hearts and they actually respond to moms voice and others voices and nervous systems.

when i saw my children on the sonograms i cried. they are precious. we all have to face the facts that even at 5 and 6 months into a pregnancy those babies are very much developing. to go in an vaccuum that growing baby out of the womb saddens me and i believe as science improves this will go down as one of the biggest massacres in history. even more horrific than the holocaust and the beheadings of christians.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Dear No name: You may classify all stages of pregnancy as "infants" but I don't. If you think your embryo breathes on its own, let's take it out of your body and just see how long it breathes on its own. You can bring up all the examples you want of what we will do to real infants if we believe that embryos aren't real infants, but that's not what RvW is about. It's about women making choices for their lives -- not governments. Don't have an abortion. But, please, don't try to tell us all that embryos breath on their own! Those kind of "facts" only fly in the fundamentalist echo chambers that y'all are locked in.

Posted by: Jan | April 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

James -

Abortion was legal at common law; at the time of the founders (men and women) of the constitution.

Anti-abortion legislation was the product of the late 19h century industrial revolution, undoubtedly enacted to turn back immigration.

Abortions underpinnings are economic more than moral.

Posted by: John S | April 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Semaj, you watch my tapes? You think im cool? You have found no basis to question my morality? You and me. Cho and Semaj, we are cool.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I just noticed this comment from Mary:

"I am apalled that premeditated murder can be dissected into acceptable and unacceptable parts. A woman carrying a new life who aborts it at any stage has killed her child. She has committed murder, no matter how many laundered words are used to describe it.
Life is life, and God is the author of it. If a child is conceived, He has allowed it to happen, and it belongs to Him. In the end, we all will suffer the consequences of our indescretions (sins)."

Mary, your argument was strong until you summed it up with religous overtones. And unfortunately, that is many times the problem with the Republican argument on this topic.

In order for the Republicans to succeed in any argument concerning abortion, or any other moral law argument (Gay marriage, etc.), they need to present facts, not religous reasoning. Citing God and the bible in their arguments has only hurt the Republicans. By doing this, they have driven away some Republicans, many Independents, and many potential Democrats who may have otherwise voted for a Republican.

If a politico presents facts, voters believe they thought through their argument. Start including "because the Bible says so" in the argument, and many voters will discount every hard fact presented. Voters will simply believe that the politician plans to represent the teachings of their personal religion, not what may be best for the voter or the nation.

Posted by: keydet | April 19, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Jan, don't forget about doing drugs, prostitution, sex with other family members, calling people "nappy headed hos", public nudity and all of the other Berkely California type behavior that would be permissable if you applied the rule that you laid out consistently.

And by the way, the Supreme Court has the authority to say what is in the Constitution, and it ruled yesterday.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

To hell with naivetee and its most endearing progeny - the liberal fool. As opposed to those sensible conservatives who believe in a man walking on water and that microscopic blastocysts suffer a terrible crime when they don't get to develop into people but at the same time, being "innocent" their little souls spend eternity romping and playing with Jesus. Are you really talking about liberals?

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Cho,

Where is the judgement in my post?

Posted by: Semaj | April 19, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I hate to tell you Jan, but that's as weak an argument as I've ever heard for abortion rights.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

What is really funny is all those posters who say "who are you to judge" when what they really mean "you shouldn't judge ME, but I am free to judge Cho." What is so special about you Semaj, that you are free to judge others, and free to exempt yourself from the judgment of others? Where is the logic in that?

Moral relativism is the road to hell. I should know, I just moved in.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The right for women to choose IS in the Constitution. Our Constitution protects citizens. A fetus is not protected by our Constitution and that should be pretty obvious to everyone since it has no date of birth. The body of the female is the body protected by the Constitution because she -- again, obviously, DOES have a date of birth.
Limits to what we can do with our OWN bodies? Hopefully, NONE unless they threaten violence to others. Tattoo and pierce away! Refuse any medical treatment you want! Live with three women and four men! But please don't force women to have babies. Think for a moment about the absurdity of that idea -- especially coming from men.

Posted by: Jan | April 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"James, GOD gives breath (see Genesis). And it truly IS a miracle. But a baby's life begins when it takes its OWN first breath, in the delivery room, on its BIRTH-day."

Jan

Adam or Eve were never in a womb so how does bringing up Genesis prove your point? Also your words show ignorance to the fact that a fetus in the womb does breath or respirate, otherwise there would not be continued growth occurring.

Also you show your ignorance to the fact that human life is superior to worm life and there takes precedence. If a rare species of worm was found on a construction sight where a children's hospital was to be built; would we stop the construction of the hospital to save the worms? I would hope not, so comparing "worm life" to "human life" is apples and oranges.

Embryos are human beings, just very young human beings. It is like saying "infants are not adults". This is true, but would be say that infants are humanly inferior to adults because they are younger and cannot do everything that an adult can do?
Under your thinking we would have to say "YES" and therefore can justify the killing of the infant because of it's inferiority, but this is why we reject the idea of using any criteria to saying that some humans or inforior or superior to others because of particular traits.

Embryos are fully human because DNA proves it and the DNA is differnt to the DNA of his/her mother or "host" so your statement and reasoning doesn't apply there as well. Otherwise you would have to diminish your own humanity to make your point.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

J Perez at 3:41 captures the essence of the pro-choice argument.

"My stance on abortion is that abortion is good policy. I believe allowing abortion significantly decreases crime and child abuse/neglect. Fewer unwanted children will grow up in an abusive family. Poverty will decline, as will the number of people on government assistance. The abuse these unwanted children would undergo had they not been aborted would increase the chances of them becoming criminals. It will also help control the already huge population."

What a vicious negative world view one must have to believe what JPerez believes.

All of these innocents, incabable of love, incabalbe of contributing, incapable creating, all of those lives, worth NOTHING in the mind of JPerez.

Winston Churchill once said, "It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all."

The "pro-choice" crowd believes that unless born into circumstances that he approves, its is better for so many to have never lived at all.

What a negative world view.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"James sounds like the type who gives more up to the priest"

is about as funny as the person posting under the name Cho today.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Demos:

I said: "If I made one idealouge's blood hot enough to allow actual cognative function that thas Psalm has served it's purpose."

You said: I sincerely doubt that was the purpose of the psalm.

That was this Psalm's purpose in this blog when I put it there. Maybe it had some other meaning several thousand years ago to a people who's culture is alien to my own.

Funny how people tend to use scrypture to promote thier personal agenda, eh?

Posted by: "Advocate" | April 19, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Jan - You're just one step away from the feminist nuts who claim that a baby inside a prospective mother is an invasion of her body and her rights.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

James sounds like the type who gives more up to the priest than his money.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To all the Semaj haters...

Did I judge? I said it •May• be wrong, immoral, illegal, etc.

It may be. That's a statement of fact, not a judgement. The statement that it MAY be also imlies that it may not.

Where's the judgement?

I BELIEVE that is God's job, not mine.

Posted by: Semaj | April 19, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"The issue is the Supreme Court, not abortion. In this decision, the majority ruled that even though Congress passed a law with inaccurate facts to support it, the resulting legislation did not infringe on women's rights. "

Peter

Whether "inaccurate facts" were used is in the eye of the beholder since abortion rights activists have gone beyond "I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion" and have actually become public relations officers for the procedure itself and for abortionists; going after anything and anyone that puts abortion into a negative light. Why? And how does this infringe on a women's right if the abortion can still be done using other procedures?

Apparently there were sufficient "facts to support it"(the ban) because even liberal members of congress such as PAT LEAHY supported it and voted for the PBA ban. So it can't be considered a "right wing" conspiracy.

As for how 5 justices could come to the conclusion it has, it merely is dealing with the facts that today's technology can now reveal. 4D ultrasound has revealed that late-second-trimester and 3rd trimester fetuses are really infants in a specific environment they are trapped in and therefore previous notions(or precedents) must be re-evaluated in the midst of this new evidence, but this is merely history repeating itself just as evidence that supported the idea that blacks were biologically equal to whites and therefore slavery could not continue.

In the same way that biology showed us that women were just as intelligent and capable as men and therefore deserved to be treated equally under most areas of law which required those who believed in male-superiority to have to change the way they lived and the way they behaved.

Why is it that the pro-choice crowd seems they are to be immune from this process when science has revealed there is nothing inferior about a fetus as opposed to an infant except for the age and geographical location? Nothing in science shows that fetuses are less human that infants anymore than infants are inferior to teenagers because they are younger; can't yet walk and can't yet speak full words.

By continually bringing up Roe V. Wade and demanding that we live under it's ruling forever won't stand in a progressive society that is always looking to expand basic human rights, especially the right to be recognised as human and the right to be protected from assault without cause, to populations that have been denied them in the past due to prejudice of some kind or another.

Pro-choicers actually believe that they are humanly superior to fetuses merely because they are older and because they reside in a different space or because they are able to do certain things that humans humans than them cannot.

Under this notion, we would have to say infants are humanly inferior to children because they cannot walk yet or can't speak words or (insert whatever criteria you wish).

With this ruling, the supreme court cracked just slightly the shell that many have used make abortion immune from criticism by saying it is a medical issue. What the five justices said in their ruling was that a sufficient reason for why this 3-day procedure is specifically needed for a specific patient or patients was never demonstrated or testified too which means the real purpose that this procedure is used on late-term fetuses is really to insure the young human is fully dead when he/she emerges from the birth canal and has little to do with "a woman's health or life" being put in jeapardy.

Posted by: brisonc | April 19, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

James, GOD gives breath (see Genesis). And it truly IS a miracle. But a baby's life begins when it takes its OWN first breath, in the delivery room, on its BIRTH-day. Until then, it is hosted by a female body -- and, in this day and age, not necessarily even the biological mother. Embryos may be *life* but so are worms. Embryos are not human beings; they are cells that have the capacity to potentially become human beings. But for that particular PROCESS to actually take place, a female has to be willing to share and task her own body. Are you taking that vital and personal choice away from a female (who is a complete stranger to you) just because of your own personal opinions? I find your view to be in opposition to Personal Freedom, which most of us value as Americans.

Posted by: Jan | April 19, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"If I made one idealouge's blood hot enough to allow actual cognative function that thas Psalm has served it's purpose."

I sincerely doubt that was the purpose of the psalm. As I recall, it's a lament written by Jews who had been carried in exile to Babylon after the invasion and destruction of their country. The verse you mention is part of a heartfelt plea for justice against their captors.

By no stretch of the imagination can it be construed as justification for the intentional killing of innocents in wartime.

"I beleive the soul enters the body at 4 months of gestation." Why four months? Is there something special in the development of the body that happens at that point that you think is related to the soul? Or is this part of your religious tradition?

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats AND Republicans would be smart to let this ruling die when it comes to the 2008 campaign. Partial-birth abortion is extremely unpopular, democrats and pro-choice advocates included.

If the Dems used this as a major part of their platform, it will more than likely backfire. As mentioned, they are going to need the Independent voters in the upcoming race, but they are more importantly going to need the Republicans who are seriously considering crossing the party lines in the voting booth. This issue is kryptonite.

Posted by: keydet | April 19, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To hell with naivete, and its most endearing progeny: the liberal fool.

-Author unknown

Posted by: Uncle Sam | April 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Typical liberal arrogance (and ignorance) by James.

Jame is a liberal??????!!!!! you paople are nuts

Posted by: sue | April 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Demos:

I beleive the soul enters the body at 4 months of gestation. But, like I said, those are my personal beleifs. You are free to have your own (or to borrow those of your minister).

I am no exegate. I saught to provoke discusion from the bibles praise of barbarism toward innocent infants. If I made one idealouge's blood hot enough to allow actual cognative function that thas Psalm has served it's purpose.

Posted by: "Advocate" | April 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

My stance on abortion is that abortion is good policy. I believe allowing abortion significantly decreases crime and child abuse/neglect. Fewer unwanted children will grow up in an abusive family. Poverty will decline, as will the number of people on government assistance. The abuse these unwanted children would undergo had they not been aborted would increase the chances of them becoming criminals. It will also help control the already huge population. If abortion were illegal, many desperate (and perhaps delusional) women would turn to illegal abortions, which could cause infection, disease, and death. In fact, my great grandmother died due to a clotheshanger abortion when abortion was still illegal in Florida in the 1920s. However, I oppose late-term abortion. I do believe that the woman should be responsible and avoid pregnancy altogether, and that it is her and the guy's fault if they get pregnant. I also favor adopting the child out over abortion. However, practically speaking, everybody makes mistakes, and many women will not put the kid up for adoption, and will abort (illegal or not). Banning abortion would only make abortion more gruesome and unsafe. Many people who should never have kids should have abortions because they are bad people morally and will screw up their child. This view is coming from a person whose parents were seriously considering aborting him. I got lucky, however, and not only was I not aborted, but my parents were good parents: an exception to the norm. Next comment will be strait-up analysis.

Posted by: J Perez | April 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

You'll be here all day, James? I thought you had a job. And what do you do that you make more money thah all of us poor slobs here. Just keep givng money to church buddy -- the Pope needs a new golden cloak embedded with jewels.

Posted by: sue | April 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Typical liberal arrogance (and ignorance) by James. Your unfounded comment about income fits in nicely with your pathetic and foolish liberal views.

Point of fact is that the VAST majority of individuals do not believe -- as most liberals do -- that abortion is a limitless right. As eloquently declared by the Supreme Court, there are common sense limits on how abortion can be pursued beyond the trimester calendar set forth in RvW. In continuing to fume that the decision by the conservative , recall that RvW was similarly a 5 to 4 decision. Also, even dedicated libeals concede the weak legal basis on which RvW was decided--it truly remains the most arrogant and paternalistic legal decision of modern times. Rightfully ridiculed across the political spectrum. As a Republican I believe a women should have the right to choose. Only that right should be expressly stated in the constitution in the form of an amendment, and not through blatant and extreme judicial activism.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

where did i say i have anything against gays, dipwad? I was complimenting you and your fellow gay prostitutes who earn such good livings selling services to guys like Ted Haggard.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

you have something against gays now?

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Ted Haggard's buddy like hel l. He was my buddy, Teddy was taking sloppy seconds to me.

Posted by: BarneyFrank | April 19, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

John,

i have to feed my family and send my kids to college and donate money to the catholic church to fight against baby killers. Thank you. I will be here all day.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"The vast majority of the voters are pro-choice and have expressed that over and over again -- they do NOT want RvW overturned."

Absolutely right - but does opposition to overturning RvW among moderates really imply support for partial-birth abortion? That's the bet that's on the table. I'm not so sure it does.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

My body my choice, I agree with that. My hand, my trigger finger, so you get over it. My body my choice. Yeah.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

James: listen freakazoid, I'm not looking down at people who work at 7-11s or even glory holes, I'm looking down at you.

And yes, I'm sure a gay prostitute can make a lot of money. Just ask Ted Haggard's buddy.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The "my body my choice" argument has come up in several forms today. Just working this though in my own mind, are there any limits to this?

We let people decide, in most instances, to decline medical treatment. We regulate body piercing and tattoo parlors. Are there limits, outside abortion, on what we let people do to their own bodies? Is anyone aware of any legal or regulatory restrictions on body modification or self-mutilation? So, for instance, if my son lost a leg - could I have one of mine amputated to show solidarity (like people shave their heads when a family member looses their hair to chemotherapy)? Could I donate BOTH kidneys, if I had family members who needed them?

Just exploring the limits of this concept. It seems important to me, since so much of this debate seems to hinge on it in the minds of some.

Posted by: Huh? | April 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey Semaj, did God appoint you judge over me? Who are you to say that I was wrong? I told you all in my tapes and letters how right I was, who are you to judge me? And while you are at it, get off Hitler's back. Who are you to judge him? I saw him a few minutes ago in the Khomeini suite down here, and he said that he had good reasons to do all he did.

Semaj? Who are you to judge?

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

James - Your're back from work. What a delight. Why, exactly, do you go to work when, as you said, your wages go to liberals who end up using it to have abortions? From an ethical point of view I think you should quit.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I've had to think for awhile about posting here, because of the vitriol being spewed on what is clearly an emotional issue. It seems to me that many of the posters look at partial birth abortion as a black and white issue, when in reality, it is an extreme measure that is (was) only allowable in extreme situations.

The one situation I know of where someone (a close relative) had to consider the procedure (and fortunately did not have to use it) shows what I mean. My relative got pregnant with monoamniotic twins (identical twins, who share the same amniotic sac). This is a very rare event, and considered to be a high-risk pregnancy. Part of the risk is that the umbilical cords will commonly get wrapped around one another, or around one of the fetuses, with the result that one of the twins cannot survive. A partial birth procedure is (was) recommended as the safest way to get the dying fetus out without harming the second fetus. My understanding is that if you wait until the first fetus dies to extract it, you run the risk of the second fetus dying as well. This risk is so high with monoamniotic pregnancies, that it is standard to deliver as soon as the fetuses are well-enough developed to have a good chance of survival outside the womb (6-7 months, or when they weigh 3-4 pounds), which is what happened with my relative.

My understanding is that the exception in the Supreme Court ruling would not have applied to pregnancies like my relative's, because a doctor cannot know for sure if delivering a dying fetus another way would kill the live fetus, only that the chances for survival are better with the now-outlawed procedure.

Posted by: TEL | April 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I think this ruling is the RNC's worst nightmare. It rallies the base big time -- I won't debate that. But they aren't going anywhere. The vast majority of the voters are pro-choice and have expressed that over and over again -- they do NOT want RvW overturned. So, the RNC gets to keep their base. And, in exchange, more and more libertarians, younger voters, and women will be flocking to the Democratic Party as a safe haven from the GOP rightwing religious conservatives.
The GOP's current emphasis on this issue also leaves the GOP's fiscal conservatives stuck with a shattered reputation regarding fiscal responsibilty and government spending.
And that leaves HRC (or any other Democrat) with President Clinton's sterling fiscal record, and the addition of these additional libertarians, younger voters, and WOMEN who are all pro-choice.
21 GOP Senators defending their seats in 2008 vs. just 12 Democratic Senators defending theirs. So, imo, this is just one more nail in the coffin of any further hopes of Republicans winning back the Senate. Of course, MC Rove has THE Math on that.

Posted by: Jan | April 19, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Louden

for your information I make more money in one day then you probably make in the course of a month.

the funny thing is though that i am not a typical liberal who looks down on someone who does work at the 7-11. That person is my equal and no less important than me. It goes back to your selfish point of view that you are more important than people who you feel arent living up to your standards such as low level employees and i guess the unborn. dont be so stuck up and think you are better than someone because they dont have as good of a job as you moron

Posted by: james | April 19, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

James needs a shrink real bad.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

semaj

it is not a human right to kill. just because the wordsmiths call it abort instead of kill doesnt change what it is. I am a sinner, I am not God but i do not that murder should be illegal.

Posted by: james | April 19, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Both sides in the volatile abortion debate said they now expect a spate of efforts in several states to place further limits on abortion and that a court reshaped by President Bush's conservative picks will be more willing to uphold them.

Wednesday's ruling a turning point in a debate that has engaged the nation for more than three decades confirmed the worst fears of abortion rights supporters and the highest hopes of abortion opponents: that Bush's push to leave his stamp on the court could open the way for a host of new abortion restriction

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Semaj, who are you to judge Cho?

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"I beleive the soul enters the body much later in pregnancy. Those are my personal beleifs. "

Interesting, "Advocate" - so, when do you think it enters the body? Sometime after conception, but before birth?

"According to the Psalm 137:9, "blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." ... so, I guess it's OK to kill your enemies babies, but not your own fetus?"

Seriously, this your exegesis of the passage?

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I see James is back. Shift change at the 7-11 (or maybe the local glory hole).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

i am a first time writer of any type of website. i stummbled on this site. I tell it like it is. IN YOUR FACE REALITY that we will all come to relize when we meet the maker. May God have mercy on all of us when we meet him because i am a sinner because i sponsored 4 abortions when i was 18 and will forever regret what it has done to my soul. I attend meetings with women and men who are in this situation and lets just say that it has ruined a part of who they are. WHO are we??? we are Gods children and who wants to ruin that?? i will give you a clue.....some of us wont be happy when we spend eternal life with him instead of God.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

James,

God made us in the image of the creator. God gave us the power to make these decisions. That's when it became the woman's choice.

It may be wrong, it may be immoral. It may even be murder, but it's her choice.

When did God appoint you to make the choice for her?

Posted by: Semaj | April 19, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Students and alumni at Brigham Young University are trying to create an alternative commencement in protest of BYU's selection of Dick Cheney as commencement speaker this year. Here's part of their statement:

Last month, Brigham Young University invited Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at the school's April commencement. Many students, faculty members, alumni, and community members believe that Vice President Cheney represents neither their standards nor those of the University.... Instead of responding with criticism and traditional forms of protest, we want to give students, faculty, and community members an opportunity to express dissent in a constructive way.

Our program will focus on alternatives as well, featuring speakers who offer creative, democratic solutions to the problems facing our country and government.'

cheney seems about as popular as VD right now...

Posted by: et tu, Brigham Young? | April 19, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Cindy: "But not her health or even for potentially serious injury. But then you don't care about that, do you?"

As I said later in the post, I would not try to consider every eventuality in the text of the law. I trust a jury of my peers would nullify any attempts overzealous prosecution.

Putting an exception for the health of the mother would gut the law. Take a look at Medical Marijuana in California. It's legal under state law if hte docotor decides it's good for your health. As a result doctors advertise $100 consultations to determine that it is good for your health. (I support marijuana, medical or otherwise, but that's beside the point)

If there were an exception for the health of the mother there would be a market for doctors that would say it's always good for the health of the mother.

I wish there were a system where a mother could appeal to some kind of medical board (not a single doctor) that this barbaric procedure was necccesary in non-life threatening situations, but I would rather have a law without that provision than no law at all.

Allowing baby skull crushing for healthy fetuses is bad for the future of abortion rights. I want abortion to remain safe and legal. I think outlawing this procedure is a step toward a sensible middle ground that average americans can be comfortable with.

Posted by: RepubliCANT | April 19, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Louden.

Do you believe in God and that God essentially created us? please answer yes or no.

If the answer is no then we will never see eye to eye.

If the answer is yes then when did it become a womens right to choose life or no life instead of God?

God is the creator not humans.

You dont have to be Christian to agree with that. all you have to be is a believer in the creator.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Loudon - I wonder about the same thing. It seems impossible that there could be so many obtuse people without our society having already collapsed. If our James is the same James who posts at another site I visit he's very good at derailing conversations

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The best argument for abortion so far is it would improve the gene pool if those like Loudon Voter weren't around.

The whole world could have been done a favor, if during the moment before the unfortunate height of passion that conceived him, his father would have rolled over and jerked him out the window.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

MATURITY. Remember last week, when David Brooks suggested that though John McCain was completely wrong on Iraq, his campaign would be revived as Americans understood how much more serious he was about Middle East politics than the other candidates? "In 10 months," wrote Brooks, "this election won't be about the surge, it will be about the hydra-headed crisis roiling the Middle East. The candidate who is the most substantive, most mature and most consistent will begin to look more attractive and more necessary."

Anyway, here's the substantive and mature candidate himself, reworking the Beach Boys' song "Barbara Ann" to go, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/04/post_3473.html#016301

Posted by: really pathetic | April 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

OK, I am back from work. Has it ever occured to any of the people who think a fetus is not a human with a right to life that we were all once a fetus. I am glad that my mother did not exercise her right to choose that i am not important and because she was in the mood one night and it led to pregnancy that it wasnt convenient for her for me to live my life. I am just glad that abortion wasnt legal back when our founding fathers discovered this great nation. If they had been aborted, we would not all be enjoying the luxury right now of freedom of religion.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Loudon you petulent thich headed little boy, Congress, other legislative bodies, and regulatory agencies delegated authority to make law exercise medical judgment all the time.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm becoming more of a libertarian all the time. The question involves the possible effect of this ruling on the electorate. In the last election, many moderate and conservative libertarians went over the the Dems. This might keep them there. Libertarians have mostly been concerned with government intrusion into the economic domain. This might actually change things. Also, this could mobilize young women in a way that has not been seen for a long time. I'm not sure if it will, though.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | April 19, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I am reluctantly reaching the conclusion that razorback and the many anonymous rightwingnut posters, idiots who I have had to repeatedly correct on this blog, are the same persons. Intellectual octuplets at a bare minimum.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

' would like to thank "Republican" for setting me straight. I was mistaken in my impresion that the law does not have a provision for saving the life of the mother. I am glad to know that the authoris of this law had enough foresight to put this in place.'

But not her health or even for potentially serious injury. But then you don't care about that, do you?

Posted by: Cindy | April 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
"Besides, we don't outlaw other medical procedures based on responsibility. If you climb onto the roof of your house and jump off, the hospital doesn't refuse to treat your broken leg. Sure, it was stupid of you to jump, and the broken leg is a consequence of your actions, but you still get treated. Why is jumping off the roof different from unprotected sex?"

Because the hospital and you deal and live with with the broken leg. They don't decide its not worth it, or in hindsite it was a stupid thing to do, and then go and crush your skull to fix the problem.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

lol you goddamn moron, you're really to stupid to understand the difference between public health issues and private matters between a doctor and a patient.

but of course you are. your posts prove that.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I am reluctantly reaching the conclusion that Loudon Voter and Loudonian, an idiot who I have had to repeatedly correct on this blog, are the same person. Intellectual twins at a bare minimum.

The post to which you began responding made a point about tangents being used to avoid the real issue in the moral debate about abortion, which is the status of the fetus.

But since in your little mind, you want an example of Congress exercising medical judgment and you are too simplistic to understand that Congress has delegated the most significant medical judgments to the FDA, try H.R. 5710 passed on November 13, 2002.

This bill was intended to address the treat of bioterrorism, and included authority to impose mandatory vaccinations and other public health restrictions.

Mandatory vaccinations and quarantines to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases involves Congress exercising medical judgment, you simple minded twit.

Even in your very simple mind this satisfy your apparent urge to be corrected by me.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Even then, numbnuts, Congress didn't make any medical decisions in that case. I can call you numbnuts because you didn't bother to make up a fake name.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This was a religious decision - pure & simple. When the religious are making the rules we might well consider what it's like to live in Iran.

Today I read an article about how the Iranian Supreme Court declared that it was OK for people to kill others if those people were considered Immoral.

Posted by: RS | April 19, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Terri Schiavo... there's an example. Congress passed a law that applied to only one person, to intervene in a medical decision.

There's your example.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Terri Schiavo: Great example of idiots in Congress (such as Dr, Bill "Catkiller" Frist trying to make a medical judgment when they had no business doing so.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I'm an idiot who was that brain-dead woman in Florida?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter asked for an example of congress making a medical judgement.

Two words: Lacey Peterson

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry raze, but you still have not given me another example of congress making a medical judgment.

and please don't insult us by shifting from "Congress" to "public policy makers." It just makes you look silly.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

FRAN, I hope no one with an expectation that the law be consistently applied to all persons ever sues for the right to produce an offspring with their sister.

While the "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis" tests might allow different treatment of policy questions because of different contexts, the equal protection clause when applied to a "reproductive freedom" law would mandate the lawful protection of voluntary incest.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

***UNVIABLE*** fetuses are not people.

"Oh, but they have the potential to become people"

So does my jizz. Better lock me up, I murdered several million innocent sperm last night.

"Life begins at conception"

Actually, the sperm was alive well before conception. Anyway, how would you define that life? Does it have self-awareness? No. That cockroach I killed this morning had more self awareness than a first trimester baby.

"It has a human soul"

Says you. I beleive the soul enters the body much later in pregnancy. Those are my personal beleifs. A free society does not impose the beliefs of one individual on another. Including those who do not beleive in the soul.

"So, it's okay to murder?"

According to the Psalm 137:9, "blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." ... so, I guess it's OK to kill your enemies babies, but not your own fetus?

Abortion is taking of life, in my OPINION. It is up to god to jusdge the specifics, and in a free society it is the privledge of the citezenry to make thier own moral decisions.

Posted by: "Abortion Advocate" | April 19, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I have a very difficult time believing that the number of partial birth abortions is great - not 0 but close. There are not many women who would wait that long to abort. Most women are blessed with the maternal feelings and would that late in her preganancy carry to full term and give up for adoption rather than abort. This ruling is nothing more than neo-con garbage setting the stage to completely abolish the right of a woman to choose.

Posted by: Kathy | April 19, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The FDA is not Congress? How stupid, given that the only legal authority that the FDA has is that which is delegated to it by Congress, which created it.

In the eyes of the law, the acts of the FDA which are within the power delegated to it are the same as an act of Congress.

Where this started is your suggestion that public policy makers do not exercise medical judgment, which is a false suggestion.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I choose to kill my neighbor. It is my choice.

The Catholic Church is morally opposed to this (as are virtually all religions).

Under the Separation of Church and State doctrine, it is tyranny for the government to tell me I cannot exercise my choice to kill.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't overturning or restricting Roe, after 34 years, be considered judicial activism?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Thin Man | April 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Actually, razorback I do think its about reproductive privacy, and I realize that my opinions don't sometimes logically follow other things I believe in. But you and I being citizens of the "Real World" understand that you don't always have to be a theoretical absolutist.

(I think that a strict scrutiny test also makes it easier for me to be less of a hypocrite.)

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

consistency would also require conservatives to be outraged at God for allowing millions of abortions every year -- what we call miscarriages.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

If conservatives were consistent they would ban in vitro fertilization since this procedure inevitably results in many more fertilized eggs than can ever be used. These little people in petri dishes get tossed. But then consistency would mean riling lots of couples in suburbia.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The FDA is not Congress. Similarly, determining the qualifications for practicing medicine is simply not the same as practicing medicine, any more than mandating that food be safe is the same as cooking a meal. Once again, the analogy fails.

You should stick to strawmen and red herrings; you're better at those. In fact, your attempted analogies suggest that you're in, oh, 7th grade.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Congress does make choices which involve judgment regarding medical issues.

Legislatures define the education of doctors, the licensing of doctors, and the FDA decides what medicines and treatments doctors are free or not free to prescribe.

The analogy succeeds.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

No FRAN, its NOT about reproductive choice.

If it were about reproductive choice, then you would be opposed to laws that prohibit incest. Laws prohibiting incest impairs reproductive choice every bit as much as an abortion law does. Same for laws prohibiting prisoners from having reproductive choice with prison guards.

Since some restrictions on reproductive choice are ok with you, and others are not, the issue does not turn on reproductive choice.

As I have previously suggested, the issue turn on the status of the fetus. You stand where you do because you do not believe that the fetus is the moral equivilent of a person.

Statements about anything other than the status of the fetus are the intellectual equivilent of uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh or some other meaningless gutteral noise.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Razorback: "If Congress shouldn't play doctor, why does Congress mandate inspection of meat? Why does Congress mandate warning lables on cigarettes?"

Doctors don't inspect meat or place warning labels on products, but they do determine the proper course of treatment for their patients. Your analogy fails.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

MUD says: "Even the extremely rational 'Congress shouldn't play doctor' line is going to do more harm then good among swing voters considering the gruesomeness of the procedure."

If Congress shouldn't play doctor, why does Congress mandate inspection of meat? Why does Congress mandate warning lables on cigarettes?

The truth of the matter is, MUD, that argument is NOT rational because sometimes you want Congress to play doctor, and sometimes you don't.

The moral question of abortion turns soley on the question of the status of the fetus, not on whether Congress should play doctor or not, unless you are prepared to eliminate ALL instances where Congress tries to play doctor.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"it is an effort to go backwards and make women once again powerless"

ProChoice = Selfish [defined as, "concerned exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage or well-being without regard for others"]

ProLife = Selfless [defined as, "having no concern for self : UNSELFISH"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Lewis, what about the (relatively common) situation in which birth control fails? No form of birth control is 100% effective. In that situation, a woman doesn't choose to have unprotected sex; does that change things?

Besides, we don't outlaw other medical procedures based on responsibility. If you climb onto the roof of your house and jump off, the hospital doesn't refuse to treat your broken leg. Sure, it was stupid of you to jump, and the broken leg is a consequence of your actions, but you still get treated. Why is jumping off the roof different from unprotected sex?

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

So Lewis, you'll no doubt be happy when women are asked to check a box on their registration forms before getting an abortion that says "We used birth control and it failed"? Seems easy enough to me.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I would like to thank "Republican" for setting me straight. I was mistaken in my impresion that the law does not have a provision for saving the life of the mother. I am glad to know that the authoris of this law had enough foresight to put this in place.

I am satisfied that this law is a good thing.

Once again, I am a liberal pro-choice Democrat. While there are other exceptions (profound developmental problems, etc) that could be excepted, I don't think the law needs to take every eventuality into account.

I trust that an impartiual jury of peers would aquit anyone who for example, terminated a fetus that was going to be born with no brain, and would be certain to die within hours of birth.

This law does good in quieting the voices of those who throw the details of this barbaric procedure in the faces of american families in order to promote thier agenda of a blanket ban on abortion.

I'm happy to give up the right to pull babies out of the womb and smash in thier heads, if we can retain the right to teminate pregnancy in early term, and leave women the right to govern thier own life, and decide when this unfortunate procedure is needed.

Now, about those stem cells... if "killing" that frozen EMBRYO that contains no nervous system, and has no self-awareness has the chance of saving even one life, a life of a living, breathing loving (possbily even praying) PERSON then I say "HARVEST AWAY".

If God judges me to be wrong, then I will join the warmongers in hell.

Posted by: Everitt Chase | April 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Lewis, it's not just about the choice. It's about government intrusion into reproductive choices in general and the patient-doctor relationship. Would you like the government to tell you that you can't have unprotected intercourse? Of course not.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with the idea that various perspectives can be included in the public debate, but at the end of the day what is important is HOW the question is answered, not WHO answers the question.

If men shouldn't make decisions for women, then women shouldn't make decisions for men, whites shouldn't make decisions for blacks, and so on, when it reaches its rational conclusion, each individual is judge and jury in their own case.

The argument that "Only I understand how hard it is to be me, therefore only I can make decisions that impact me." leads right to the moral swamp of relativism.

The problem with relativism is that it empowers Hitler or Cho to decide its cool to be Hitler or Cho, moral relativism allows them to justify their actions, because who are you to judge?


Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I agree your body is your choice, but I believe Cho misses the point that women CHOSE to have unprotected sex. The outcome of that in some cases is a baby. The women's choice was to have unprotected intercourse and should not be deciding if she will now kill the innocent life that came from her choice. Also, FYI, I am a female just so that your mental judgement can be clear.

Posted by: Lewis | April 19, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia,, who now has British citizenship. She is divorced; he is separated. Their discreet relationship became a problem only when he ascended to the World Bank presidency. Riza had floated through the neoconservative network -- working at the Free Iraq Foundation in the early 1990s and the National Endowment for Democracy -- until landing a position in the Middle East and African department of the World Bank

. The ethics provisions of Wolfowitz's contract, however, stipulated that he could not maintain a sexual relationship with anyone over whom he had supervisory authority, even indirectly.

Back in 2003, Wolfowitz had taken care of Riza by directing his trusted Pentagon deputy, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- who had been in charge of the Office of Special Plans and had been Wolfowitz's partner in managing the CPA -- to arrange for a military contract for her from Science Applications International Corp. When the contract was exposed this week, SAIC issued a statement that it "had no role in the selection of the personnel." In other words, the firm with hundreds of millions in contracts at stake had been ordered to hire Riza.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Mary - Why would anyone demean himself to worship this capricious and unjust God you believe in. If this God of yours has set things up so that two thirds of fertilized ova fail to implant and die as a result then how can abortion on the part of humans be wrong? Why do fundamentalist Christians practice the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to God?

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Mary, I respect your beliefs and the positions they lead you to take, but I think it's unfair to imply that those of us in favor of privacy rights don't have a "relationship with God". I know lots of pro-choice people who do.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Although the prosecution of adult obscenity has long been a fixation for right-wing Republicans, since the Reagan era it has never been more than a negligible fraction of the Justice Department's work. Yet, the alleged failure of two U.S. attorneys to go after porn prosecutions became part of a dubious set of "performance-related" reasons given by top officials for the recent firings. Meanwhile, several of the small handful of porn cases done under Gonzales were conducted by high-ranking officials close to the attorney general. Those officials were also involved in the group firing of the U.S. attorneys, and two of them recently received promotions.

Two of the fired U.S. attorneys, Dan Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona, were pressured by a top Justice Department official last fall to commit resources to adult obscenity cases, even though both of their offices faced serious shortages of manpower.

Each of them warned top officials that pursuing the obscenity cases would force them to pull prosecutors away from other significant criminal investigations. In Nevada, ongoing cases included gang violence and racketeering, corporate healthcare fraud, and the prosecution of a Republican official on corruption charges.

In Arizona, they included multiple investigations of child exploitation, including "traveler" cases in which pedophiles arrive from elsewhere to meet children they've targeted online.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

'God allows many things to happen that we will never understand. '

go away now mary. we're at the wapo, not church

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Democrats seizing on this do run a fairly serious risk of alienating pro-life democrats and independents, but it is legitimate for the media to cover this as an indication of the direction that the court has moved in. Some Democratic strategists surely view this as a trump card to rally up the base, but there is a legitimate concern about the future of Roe that is by no means hysterical or paranoid. Scalia and Thomas are on record against, Alito's record indicates he would likely vote with them, and Roberts is a question mark (though if I had to guess, I think he would let it stand as a matter of precedent). Roe may be just one seat away from being overturned, and liberal democrats have good reason to worry about it. This potentially increases turnout for both sides.

Posted by: Kevin Steimel | April 19, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

At best an organization not directly affiliated with a candidate could use this as a fund raising tool, however, money doesn't appear to be an issue this cycle. Even the extremely rational 'Congress shouldn't play doctor' line is going to do more harm then good among swing voters considering the gruesomeness of the procedure. And as for the Karl Rove rally your base line of reason, the people who would respond the hardest for the Dems are already scared enough of the Republicans. If they need any more motivation to show up at the polls, they'll need the assistance of Mayor Daley's cemetery poll workers.

Posted by: muD | April 19, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, there is something to be said for the fact that a decision about an issue affecting mainly women (I hedge with mainly because I'm anticipating your come backs) is made mostly by men. Of course we should all be concerned that all laws are made mostly by men, but the sex disparity in legislative bodies around this country only becomes more evident when we have these kinds of woman-only issues.
It is a discussion that we need to have because it doesn't just affect abortion, but the types of legislation that come before legislative bodies and the kind of issues that get discussed.
As for "my body, my choice" being an invalid argument, of course there's going to be a difference in how you view the choice if you view the fertilized egg as a potential human being instead of a fertilized egg.
Of course I could just be cutesy and say "If you cut off my reproductive rights, I'll cut off yours," but I'm too intelligent for that. ;)

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Murder is already against the law. We just use our freedom to redefine what we don't like, or that we find inconvenient.
That there is any controversy is proof that, first of all, God does not force us to believe in Him, although He has made it clear that He is in control; and that man will go to any lengths to flout God and His laws.
God does not need our help to flush out the 75% of fetuses that will not be viable; the fact that it happens without the mother even knowing it proves that. So, we then take it into our own hands to rid the world of the other 25% that He has allowed to develop.
A fetus, or unborn child (look it up), is not a part of a woman's body - it is a separate person attached by the umbilical cord. It has its own DNA and blood type.
God allows many things to happen that we will never understand. If you do not know Him, you can. Just ask Him to show you whether He is real or not. If you really want to know and understand Him, he will answer when you are ready to hear Him.

Posted by: Mary | April 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

My body my choice is all the moral justification that I need.

Posted by: Cho | April 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Yo Libertarian: You both completely miss my point and then make it at the same time.

Whatever words are chosen, the fact remains that the only thing that shold be debated with respect to the moral question of abortion is the status of the fetus.

Use whatever words you want, but the status of the fetus is the only question. Load or unload the words however you want, but how a person decides what to think about abortion ALWAYS depends on what they think about the status of the fetus, and other arguments are just drivel and diatribe.

For example, YOU say that "I cannot accept the decisions of wealthy middle aged to older males making decisions for any and all women." In fact, LIBERTARIAN, you stand for those decisions all the time every day, because ALL of the decisions of the US Congress on ANY issue that effect women in any way have decided by men, just because the number of men in Congress.

The tax rate paid by women has been set by men, the criminal punishment of men who attack women has been set by men. Safety standards set for cars driven by women have been set by men. The argument that men cannot decide things for women is completely irrational and stupid, because it happens all the time every day, and will happen until women take over a legislative body.

What you really meant, LIBERTARIAN, is that with respect to this ONE decision, you dont think that men should make it for women, because you dont think the blob is morally equivilent to a person.

The "my body my choice" argument is equally as stupid, because nobody suggests that I have the right to use my body to harm another person, the issue turns on whether someone believes that the fetus, blob, unborn baby (or whatever you want to call it) is the moral equivilent of a person.

Yo LIBERTARIAN, you stand corrected. I really hate to do that, because we probably agree on 99% of the issues. Think whatever you want about abortion, but only a fool would think that only women can make laws that impact women.

I wish only guys like ME had imput as to what taxes I have to pay.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

ISen. Graham to Gonzales: "Most of this [reasons for the firings] is a stretch."

Sen. Feingold (D-WI) had one of the clearest and most damning exchanges with AG Gonzales earlier this morning. He made a clear and devastating point. The AG says not he's really aware of what input, advice and views went into compiling the list of fired US Attorneys. He fired the US Attorneys based on that list. But he's certain that no improper motives went into the compilation of the list, even though he's not aware of how the list was assembled or why different people's names were put on it. That's a logical contradiction.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

He had his views and we have ours. I dont think you are dumb for believing what he believes though. This is America after all and i know some people with much higher IQ's than anyone of us that feel the same way he does. True ignorance is to believe you are right and someone else is wrong in opinion.

Posted by: Kenny | April 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

demos - as a medical professional I don't need to "check Wikipedia" for facts regarding pharmcology or physiology, but thanks anyway. The 'prevention of ovulation' you cite is a misnomer. Ovulation is delayed in the cylce, so that implantation cannot occur. Ovulation is not prevented.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The issue is the Supreme Court, not abortion. In this decision, the majority ruled that even though Congress passed a law with inaccurate facts to support it, the resulting legislation did not infringe on women's rights. Substitute any issue and any segment of society in the ruling's language and you get a picture of what a packed court is inclined to do. The Democrats need to campaign on the importance of appointing fair-minded justices to our highest court.

Posted by: Peter | April 19, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Republican, I didn't mean the case I meant the person's Doe v. Bolton arguement. I mistyped. Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Good riddance, James! Please don't let the door hit ya on the way out...

Posted by: Joyce | April 19, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

'I know this may seem silly to alot of liberals out there but i actually do work and then get paid instead of just filling out a form for some welfare and hoping i get approved.'

James has the mental capacity of a 9 year old-- and is mentally disturbed to boot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Whites in the rural South worry about black fertility. If banning abortion weren't part of a larger agenda, to whit an authoritarian Christian patriarchy, they'd be all for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

James -

I believe in God thank you. Jesus Christ Himself paid homage to the concept of privacy when he told us to go to our rooms and pray. Even Caesar had the decency to stay out of the populations bedrooms in that day.

You on the other hand sound like a pimp ordering women around.

Get help! Please!

Posted by: John S | April 19, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

James: "OK, time to go back to work now. nice talking with all of you and God Bless.
I know this may seem silly to alot of liberals out there but i actually do work and then get paid instead of just filling out a form for some welfare and hoping i get approved. I feel more in control that way."

Yes, working at the 7-11 is good, honest work for sure. Vaya con dios James!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

This ruling sure brings up a lot of debate on the future of Roe vs Wade. I came across this interesting article on MSNBC. 2 Con Law experts (on both sides of the abortion rights debate) state that Roe vs Wade is not in jeopardy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18188363/

Posted by: Amod D | April 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

'Yes I have. It begins with the doctor crushing the skull of the baby while the bay screams. Send me your address and i will mail it to you'

Stay away from me, nutcase.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

OK, time to go back to work now. nice talking with all of you and God Bless.
I know this may seem silly to alot of liberals out there but i actually do work and then get paid instead of just filling out a form for some welfare and hoping i get approved. I feel more in control that way.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"demos -Allow me to correct your misunderstanding. Oral contracpetion(aka "the pill") does, in fact, allow conception to occur if sperm is available along with the egg. "


Check Wikipedia:

"The combined Pill primarily prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation. In women who take the pills correctly, ovulation is prevented in 98-99% of cycles."

Hormones can be used to prevent implantation, but that's not how most contraceptives currently on the market work. Most either prevent ovulation or interfere with sperm motility.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There is no exception for the woman's physical health in this. and that includes the severe tearing, internal injuries and often hemorhhage than can result from a malformed fetus' birth.

why do you think so many women around the world still die in childbirth? It's still the biggest killer of women of childbearing age.

If you understand anything about biology, you have to know that things can go horribly, horribly wrong in pregnancy-cojoined twins, gigantic heads from hydroencephaly, twisted limbs -- a million things that can injure a woman.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Yes I have. It begins with the doctor crushing the skull of the baby while the bay screams. Send me your address and i will mail it to you

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

'Have you ever watched the procedure for an 8 month abortion? honestly.'

Come on. Nobody ever does that. You don't have any credibility.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

John S

It is sad that you feel the right to life is insane. I believe we are human beings with free will, not animals who cannot choose our actions and dont know consequences of them. Seek God

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Part of the trouble with Roe v. Wade is that when you limit the decision maker to the woman, you by definition leave out the father.

Bonding between the mother and the baby starts early in pregnancy, but when it has been declared the law of the land that a father has no imput until the baby is born, how is this bonding to occur?

Is it any wonder that so many men fail to establish an emotional connection with their children? Is it any wonder that so many otherwise sucessful men screw up fatherhood, even as many women who otherwise make stupid choices will walk over hot coals to provide for their children?

While a significant number of the so called "father's rights" groups are just goobers who do not want to pay child support, the fact remains that there are social consequences for making it the law of the land that a father has absolutely no imput as to the child prior to birth.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Respectfully, I do not think any law need be nor should be passed."

MikeB,

I suspected that would be your answer. I asked the question for a reason, though. You defended abortion rights by using two horrific situations: a 14 year old who is sexually abused, and a profoundly handicapped fetus. Those are both terrible situations - but they are not what our society's current moral debate regarding abortion is all about.

Whether or not you'd choose to use these words, you're supporting the right to choose to abort a healthy fetus that is not the result of rape, incest or sexual abuse, even when the mother's life would be in no danger if the pregnancy were brought to term.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the defense boils down to the strong conviction that it's none of our business. The opposition boils down to the strong conviction that its morally wrong because its the unnecessary and unjustified termination of a human life.

You're using the terms "poor choice" and "bad choice" - that suggests to me that you're viewing it in pragmatic terms, much like a career or education choice, rather than in moral terms. Viewing it that way makes it a "difficult choice," because you're weighing the joy of a child against income, career potential, effect on relationships and other lifestyle issues (I'm excluding the four cases I mentioned above - this is the purely "elective" abortion).

If that's what you're defending, using the rape, incest and life of the mother examples isn't legitimate - and may not ultimately work. Most pro-lifers will give you those. But many people in this country - and not all of them far-right religious nuts - who have deep moral qualms about the idea of aborting a child because parenthood isn't convenient at the time.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

'Doe v. Bolton is about men who don't want to have to pay child support. That's an arguement between private citizens, not the a government infringment.'

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 12:35 PM

Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179 (1973)) is about men who don't want to have to pay child support? I cited 410 U.S. at 192, where the Court defined "health" in the context of abortion to include "all factors -- physical, emotional, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." Can Fran cite me the page where Doe talks about men who don't want to pay child support?

A law student has access to a law library where she can look up any case she hears or reads about, so there's no excuse for this kind of howling error. Try telling a judge that Doe v. Bolton is about men not wanting to pay child support.

Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey Libertarian

If you are over a certain age of i guess 32, we had the protection of our lives. We had the right to life! i think we should award the same right to life as someone else unless you feel your life is somehow better or more important than the life of someone who cannot defend themselves.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

James -- Read your 12:42 comment. You sound criminally insane. I am not dissing you -- I really mean it. Get help.

Posted by: John S | April 19, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

James: It's quite amusing to see your true colors come out. How and why a woman got pregnant is none of your freaking business.

Or perhaps you want women to have to say something like "Yes, we used birth control but it failed" when they go for an abortion? It would be easy enough add a line for that on the sign-in sheet at the abortion clinic. Presto, the "choice to get pregnant" issue goes away.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"There is some real discomfort over Plan B, because it does work after conception. The vast majority of birth control methods do not.."

demos -Allow me to correct your misunderstanding. Oral contracpetion(aka "the pill") does, in fact, allow conception to occur if sperm is available along with the egg.

The implantation of the fertilized egg is the step that is blocked by most methods, via chemical/hormonal effects on the uterine lining.

One can , I guess, debate whether it is fertilization or implantation that defines conception. Plan-B is nothing more that a slightly larger dose of levonorgestrel, one of the same hormones used in birth control pills, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The winger argument leads to the absurd conclusion that a microscopic fertized ovum in a petri dish is a human being. Furthermore, God himself doesn't seem too concerned about these fertilized eggs since two out of three naturally fail to implant themselves in the uterus and die.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

' except in the case of rape, where it was not the womens choice which only counts for a small portion of the reason for abortions.'

How on earth would you know? Have you any proof, or just your opinion?

Posted by: Sam | April 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Fran.

I know you feel you are informed but unfortunately you are missing the big picture. I dont care if it is 1 day or 8 months into the pregnancy. a women has the right to choose not to get pregnant unless you are dealing with the immaculate conception and even that was actually a choice. Once she is pregnant she has made her choice and should deal with the consequences just like everything else works in life. except in the case of rape, where it was not the womens choice which only counts for a small portion of the reason for abortions.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Fran.

I know you feel you are informed but unfortunately you are missing the big picture. I dont care if it is 1 day or 8 months into the pregnancy. a women has the right to choose not to get pregnant unless you are dealing with the immaculate conception and even that was actually a choice. Once she is pregnant she has made her choice and should deal with the consequences just like everything else works in life. except in the case of rape, where it was not the womens choice which only counts for a small portion of the reason for abortions.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Yo Razorback,

Aren't symantics a wonderful thing? "If the fetus is life, we shouldn't kill it.

If the fetus is a blob of garbage, of course you are free to do with it what you want."

Choosing loaded words can make or break an argument. Let's reword your quote: "If the fetus is POTENTIAL life then we shouldn't kill it. If the fetus is A FOREIGN BODY ATTACKING THE INTERNAL SYSTEM OF THE WOMAN of course you are free to do with it what you want."

Coming from someone who the census would define as a "middle class middle aged male" I cannot accept the decisions of wealthy middle aged to older males making decisions for any and all women.

The new GOP and Neocons seem to forget one of the early beliefs of Repubs was that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. With this in mind I say to all to stop trying to regulate my personal life and get on with the real job of government: protecting the (already born) citizens of the nation and let everything else be a private, internal choice.

Posted by: The Libertarian | April 19, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

James: you're being disingenuous and we all know it.

States' rights is always code for the right of the ruling class of a state to impose its will on some segment of the state's population: blacks, women, or any other minority group.

but of course, that's exactly why conservatives never want to fill in that blank.

conversely, people who are "pro-life" are certainly pro-death in other situations (death penalty, invading other countries), so to follow your "logic," why don't you people use another term?

PS: I'm generally in favor of the death penalty, so don't even go there.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the support Jane.

Taking out an inflamed appendix, a tumor or ulcerated tonsils is gross too and would give a lot of people the heebie jeebies. The right wings appealed to this squeemish part of most Americans in framing this partial birth abortion question.

Although this is a rare procedure, the government has no right to invade the medical profession or the patient's privacy.

Bur let's not lose sight of the big issue. Our right to privacy is threatened in every aspect of our lives by governemnt and corporate America.

This is a 21st century issue. I am guessing the Dems aren't equpipped to deal with it.

Posted by: John S | April 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

James, you fail to understand the trimester framework as it was laid down in Roe and then altered in Casey.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Doe v. Bolton? That makes me giggle. Seriously? The arguement is not the same. Arguements for women's reproductive freedom are about privacy and the ability to make private decisions without government interference, Doe v. Bolton is about men who don't want to have to pay child support. That's an arguement between private citizens, not the a government infringment.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Mike B

If the women has a right to choose, why is it that she cannot choose to kill her baby who may be 2 days old but she could have chose to do it 4 weeks earlier. Do you truly believe that the baby is that much more developed after 2 days of being out of the womb. Have you ever watched the procedure for an 8 month abortion? honestly.

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The decision by Justice Kennedy was the most uninformed of all I have seen so far. A article by Linda Greehouse points this out and I think she has covered the Court for many years. The reasoning by Justice Kennedy makes no sense if this article is correct.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

'The so called "partial birth abortion" is used solely to protect the life of the mother and, then, only when the fetus is thought to be nonviable.'

Posted by: MikeB | April 19, 2007 11:44 AM

'I find it a shame that the current law has no exception for the health, or even the life of the mother, but I still believe the greater good is served here.'

Posted by: Everitt Chase | April 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Well, then, MikeB and Everitt Chase should have no problem at all with the "partial birth abortion" ban! In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy quotes from the text of the statute:

'Among other things, the Act prohibits "knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion ... that is [not] necessary to save the life of a mother," 18 U. S. C. §1531(a).'

Got that? The law *has* an exception for the life of the mother. What it doesn't have are exceptions for her "emotional" and "psychological" health, meaning, she *really, really doesn't want* to have a live baby.

Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun:

State Rights is a broad term that could mean a number of things. Like the Bill Of Rights are a number of things. A womens right to choose is referring to one thing so why not complete the sentence? If it were state rights and the only thing the state had the right to do is 1 thing such as tax people.....we would call it the states right to tax people.....do you see what i mean?

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Demos - Respectfully, I do not think any law need be nor should be passed. That is why my/our position is called "pro choice". I do not think it is within our rights to tell a woman what she should do. It is a choice that she will have to live with and it should be between her and her family and her doctor. I have no trouble with that choice being an informed choice. I think there in lies the slippery slope. I do not think society has the right to make this difficult decision for a woman. Many of us, myself included, think abortion is an awful thing and is sometimes a poor choice, but I do not presume to be able to determine absolutely when that choice is a bad choice or not and I certainly do not want someone legislating that choice.

Posted by: MikeB | April 19, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

I think you're conflating a couple of things that are different. There is some real discomfort over Plan B, because it does work after conception. The vast majority of birth control methods do not, and most conservative non-Catholic Christians have no problem with them. Many do have a problem with Plan B. It really all hinges on the definition of what's a contraceptive and what's an abortifacient. Of course, if you don't have a moral problem with abortion, then this seems like irrelevant hairsplitting. If you do, though, then it's as important as understanding what constitutes brain death in a terminally ill patient.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

James: is that like "states' rights"? No one ever wants to fill in the blank of states' rights to ______

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

drindl, As a Doctor of Pharmacy and Registered Pharmacist in several states, let me assure you and other nervous women that the numbers of pharmacists who may be swayed by religious extremism are very very small, as to be insignificant in our profession.

The few cases you heard of on CNN of pharmacists refusing to fill a Plan-B prescription are the vast exception, not the rule. Women age 17 and older can obtain the Plan B over the counter with photo ID.

Don't kid yourself. Pharmacists take their professional responsibility to the public very seriously, and are not subject to the arm-twisting tactics that you cite.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Neo-Cons want zero government regulation with the exception of our bedrooms.

Neo-cons think it is fine and good to install US Attorneys who will launch indictments against political opponents in order to sway an election.

Neo-cons think it is fine and good to invade other countries in order to "domino-effect" democracy into a region.

Neo-Cons think it is fine to lie, violate the law, and create public opinion momentum via their lies to support their causes because they believe they are right.

Neo-Cons think it is fine and good to out a covert CIA agent in order to discredit her husband who unmasked a Neo-Con lie.

Neo-Cons think it is fine and good to obfuscate true positions of potential judges because without the obfuscation the pubic would never let them be appointed.

Neo-Cons believe ANY means to their preferred end is fine to undertake because they are right.

NEO-CONS ARE UNAMERICAN AND SHOULD BE CAST IN THE SAME LIGHT AS COMMUNISM'S CRIMES, AND MCCARTHY'S CRIMES...

100 PERCENT UNAMERICAN!

Posted by: Joel Easton | April 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I leave for a few minutes and you all make assumptions that I don't know how things work in the real world and don't understand the reality of what I'm advocating.

First of all, I haven't yet taken Con Law, so this all of these things I'm saying don't come from any theory that I was taught in class.
Yes, it is tragic that people get off on technicalities, but that's the reality of the adverserial system. There's a reason we have such strict rules and it's because we have to safe guard the system to protect people who are not guilty of crimes from being swept up in a politically expiedient prosecution net. It is just as tragic when people who are not guilty of crimes spend 20 years in jail because of failures of the system including faulty CSI work, coerced confessions, etc.

You make it sound like all people in the "real world", which is much more like highschool than anyone would admit, are all law and order types, and that's just not true. (And I mean the sterotype not that we all don't believe in law and order.)

And Nanny, have I once here accused anyone, anyone, even those who use the most inflammatory language and who spout slogans of throwing out red herrings? No, I haven't because I realize that some people believe the slogans. But eventually, if we want to have a real discussion we are going to have to get past the buzz words and look at the reality of this situation. What is that reality: We're both right, we're both wrong, lets have a country with diverse views, what do you think?

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The ironic thing about "the right to choose" ... it is the only sentence in America that doesnt have to be completed and for obvious reasons. What are you actually choosing, to kill or not to kill a baby that cannot defend itself. Why dont you at least call it like it is? Did the student at VA TECH have a right to choose as well? We have taken what is supposed to be the safest place on the face of the planet (mothers womb) and turned it into a blood bath. We should focus on being civil and a great place to start would be with not slaughtering babies. How would you like it if some doctor crushed your skull while your mom was 7 or 8 months pregnant. i suggest that everyone eduacates themselves on exactly what happens during that process. It is barbaric!

Posted by: James | April 19, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh and where was the culture of life yesterday, when hundreds of nuts came on here defending the right of a mental patient to easily buy a gun and murder several kids?

Culture of death is more like it.

Posted by: Sam | April 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"actually, anonymous, that's counterintuitive. if all like is special, then all life is special. that includes animals, residents of darfur, medicaid recipients, those without health insurance, and even republicans."

This is a fantasy that's all too common - but it's just flat out wrong. When everything is "urgent" then nothing is really treated as urgent. When everything is a "priority" then nothing is really treated as a priority. "Special" means that something is of unique or unusual importance or quality.

My wife is only "special" to me if my love and affection for her is greater than it is for other women. Human life is only "special" if it is given particular importance and protection.

The residents of Lake Woebegone are just kidding themselves - all children are not above average.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

All the handwrnging over abortion on the right is totally unconvincing. Where is the 'culture of life' when hundred of people are getting blown up every day in Iraq? Nary a peep.

where is the 'culture of life' from the pundits on the right who talk about [and sometimes do] murder doctors and 'joke' about killing judges?

It's just more hypocrisy.

Posted by: Sam | April 19, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

'If not, as long as its in utero it's a fetus. If yes, then it's a child and we do all we can to preserve its life. If it's aborted, then it's still a fetus and we dispose of it as medical waste. It has nothing, however, to do with its viability or physical condition.

'Is that what you believe?

'Help me here. Which fact did I not "get straight?"'

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 11:28 AM

To answer this, let's start with another excerpt from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:

'Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because "the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion," not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409.'

There are two rights at stake here. One is the right not to stay pregnant against one's will. The other is the right not to become a parent against one's will. Pregnancy is a physical condition that affects only women. In his book, "Abortion: the Clash of Absolutes," Professor Larry Tribe argues that since men don't have to be pregnant, forcing a woman to stay pregnant violates her 14th-Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. Maybe so. However, parenthood is a condition that affects both men and women. A man's right not to become a parent against his will ends when he engages in intercourse. If we say that a woman has a right not just to a terminated pregnancy but also to a guaranteed dead baby, it follows that even if the doctor can safely deliver the fetus's head along with its body, he can kill the fetus anyway because "the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion," not a birth.

Once the fetus is outside the woman's body, it can no longer affect her physical health, any more than it can affect its father's physical health. However, becoming a parent against her will can affect a woman's emotional and psychological health. And that's where all of Justice Ginsburg's screaming about the absence of a "health exception" in the partial-birth abortion ban law is coming from. Under Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973)), "health" includes emotional and psychological health, as well as the mother's familial situation. Once a legislature puts a "health exception" into an abortion restriction law, the exception becomes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Regardless of the fetus's "viability or physical condition," if its live birth would adversely affect the woman's emotional health -- meaning, she *really, really doesn't want* a baby -- then the doctor is legally entitled to kill it. The only question in yesterday's case was whether he is entitled to kill it in a certain particularly gruesome way.

Becoming a parent against one's will can affect a father's psychological and emotional health, too. But no one suggests that once the fetus is outside the mother's body, the father has a right to a dead baby. Neither should the mother have any such right. It is not just Stenberg v. Carhart that needs to be overturned, but also Doe v. Bolton. In a contest between life itself and "emotional health," the American people have the right to choose life.

Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I think it could just as well serve as a rallying cry for socially-conservative Republicans. When it seems like no real progress is being made on an issue like abortion, people tend to be more willing to ignore that issue because nothing's getting done, anyway. A victory for the pro-life camp will mean that picking a social liberal in '08 - like Giuliani or a Democrat - could actually have an effect on this issue.

Posted by: Corey | April 19, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"I live in a rural area and the same people who profess to be heart-broken over abortion often display real sadism when they talk of their hunting exploits. Sorry, it just doesn't jobe."

Those people aren't heartbroken over anything. they want to control women's sexuality.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"As for being "abortion adovcates", we're not. Every pro choice person I have ever encountered, believes abortion is just awful. The emotional trama to the mother and her family is not something to be taken lightly. But, the converse, forcing a 14 year old girl to bear the child of her rapist or molester, forcing a family to bring a profoundly handicapped child into the world (and, may I note, a handicapped child that the anti-abortion forces do not share responsibility of supporting), are even worse choices. "

O.k., MikeB, let me call you on this. There are some truly horrible situations that come up repeatedly in the debate:

1) Mother will die if the pregnancy is brought to term;

2) Mother conceived as the result of rape;

3) Mother conceived, as a minor, as the result of sexual abuse;

4) Fetus is profoundly handicapped.

I have to be honest with you - using #4 to justify an abortion gives me real problems. It's simply too close to eugenics to make me comfortable. I do not think we should value the life of the handicapped any differently than we do our own. But let's leave my moral qualms aside.

Would you be willing to accept, as a political and moral compromise, a law that permitted abortion in those four cases, but prohibited it otherwise? I could - in a heartbeat. And frankly, so could most conservative Christians. These aren't the situations that bring people. It's use of abortion to solve the "oops, I didn't mean to have a baby" problem.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if people realize this but even in countries whose constitutions outlaw all abortions, the daughters of the rich always have access to abortions. These are the women who can afford to travel to another country to get all of the abortions they want. When the US legalized abortion under Roe V. Wade, this allowed for everyone, especially the poor and middle class, to afford this procedure legally and safely. If the US were to reverse Roe V. Wade, the Bush daughters will continue to have access to abortions, just not Americans who couldn't afford to fly out of the country.

Posted by: Common Sense | April 19, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I live in a rural area and the same people who profess to be heart-broken over abortion often display real sadism when they talk of their hunting exploits. Sorry, it just doesn't jobe.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

There is an organized movement to recruit pharmacists nationwide to refuse to fill women's prescriptions. The FDA has been sued by Falwell's group for legalizing Plan B. Dr. Erick Keroac, who is opposed to all forms of birth control was appointed to head the federal office responsible for providing women with access to contraceptives and counseling to prevent pregnancy. Don't kid yourself.

'The anti-birth-control movement's efforts are making a significant political impact: Supporters have pressured insurance companies to refuse coverage of contraception, lobbied for "conscience clause" laws to protect pharmacists from having to dispense birth control, and are redefining the very meaning of pregnancy to classify certain contraceptive methods as abortion.

In increasing numbers, women and men opposed to contraception are marshaling health facts and figures to bolster their convictions that sex for anything but procreation is morally wrong and potentially deadly. Although its medical arguments are really just thinly veiled moral and religious arguments, using findings that are biased and unfounded, the rising anti-contraception movement, echoed by the Catholic Church, is making significant inroads. Leaders of the pro-choice movement know it, are worried about it, and realize they can't take it lightly, as they mount their own strategies to battle it.

Nor is the fight against birth control only the province of a few zealots. While sites like Worthington's may be new, many antiabortion activists have always been bitterly opposed to contraception. "After Roe v. Wade was decided," says Feldt, "the debate focused on abortion instead of birth control. But [for anti-choicers] they are not separate issues."

She points out that what we're seeing today is more of a revival of an old movement than a shift to something new. "It's been there from the beginning. If you go back and look at the rhetoric against birth control from 1916, it's exactly the same as the rhetoric now."

And when you look closely, there is evidence to suggest that even the mainstream anti-choice groups are ready to make the battle against contraception part of their agendas. Many of the National Right to Life Committee state affiliates have opposed legislation that would provide insurance coverage for contraception. Iowa Right to Life even lists a host of birth control methods -- including the pill, the IUD, Norplant and Depo-Provera -- as abortifacients. And NRLC itself parses its language very carefully when it comes to contraception. A call to the organization resulted in an e-mailed statement on the group's position that read in part, "NRLC takes no position on the prevention of the uniting of sperm and egg. Once fertilization, i.e., the uniting of sperm and egg, has occurred, a new life has begun and NRLC is opposed to the destruction of that new human life." Such a position leaves the group plenty of wiggle room to argue, when it is ready to do so, that contraceptives prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and are thus a form of abortion.'

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

actually, anonymous, that's counterintuitive. if all like is special, then all life is special. that includes animals, residents of darfur, medicaid recipients, those without health insurance, and even republicans. it also includes an expectant mother for whom giving birth would present a danger to her health.

Posted by: meuphys | April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight. Partial birth abortion. Isn't that when we induce labor to remove the child's/ fetus's body -feet first- to the point where its feet,legs, abdomen, chest and shoulders are delivered outside of the birth canal and only the neck and head remain in the mother's body? If the development is far enough along for the lungs to work, at this point the lungs expand and the child/fetus begins to breathe its own amniotic fluid. We then take scissors and puncture the child/ fetus' head and drain its brains out. Did I get this straight? Now my question- is would you do that to a pup coming out of its mother's womb? Of course not. If we saw a child doing that to a pup we would immediatley put them in therapy for fear that they were a developing psychotic like that young man in Va. And why? Because it is the act that is dehumanizing. As a normally liberal person who thinks abortion is truly immoral (just like the death penalty and unjust war)and who always votes Democratic (especially since the Bushies took over), I do recoginze that there are those who believe that abortion does not involve the taking of human life and that therefore it should not be illegal. But come on! Here the question is not only the life of the child/fetus but the question of the dehumaizing of all who particiate. Sorry, I think the state should step in --whether the victim is a dog or a person and stop such foul behavior.

Posted by: southern demo | April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 19, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Many otherwise pro-choice individuals have found intact D&X too close to infanticide to ethically justify its continued use, and this majority needs to be heard from and respected. I sense that many voices in today's reactions aren't fully aware of all of the details. For starters, see Sprang & Neerhof, Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998;280:744-747. I fully understand people's fears about any restrictions giving the awful experiences of the past and today's power of the radical religious right. Nevertheless, late term intact D&X is pretty extreme. Consider the following, summarized from Sprang and Neerhof:

Some fetuses are viable by 23 weeks and the majority are by 24 weeks. There is compelling evidence that periviable fetuses experience pain and "forcibly incising the cranium with a scissors and then suctioning out the intracranial contents is certainly excruciatingly painful." According to Boston University ethicist and health law professor George Annas, JD, MPH, Americans see "a distinction between first trimester and second trimester abortions. The law doesn't, but people do. And rightfully so. After approximately 20 weeks, the American public sees a baby.

Posted by: Toosmooth | April 19, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Hanny, I don't hold it against Fran. That law school theory/crap makes alot of sense in class.

Once you get into the REAL WORLD you figure out that where Constitutional Law is really played out is in the criminal court room.

Liberal theory falls flat it is discovered that the "exclusionary rule", which sounds so good in theory, prohibits a jury from hearing about fingerprints on a knife which would prove guilt because of a technical error made by a cop on a search warrant, so the defendant is freed.

Then some schmuck has to explain to a bawling mother that the guy who killed her baby would have been in jail, but liberal judges who believe in a "living constitution" and invented an "exclusionary rule" said we had to free the defendant, who then went out to slash someone else's throat.


Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

People are naive who think the drive to ban abortion has anything to do with concern for the fetus on the part of the movers and shakers within the conservative movement. It's really all about rolling back the clock to their mythological 1950's when father knew best or in some cases even turning the US into a Christian theocracy. Google Christian Reconstuctionism if you have any doubts.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"It's a little hard to buy conservatives' tears and hand-wringing over fetuses when they always make light of the killing of animals."

And this is a great example of what most appalls conservatives - the apparant inability or unwillingness of many liberals to understand the difference between the life of a child and that of a pig, dog or snail darter.

If you equate humans with animals, we can't trust you. If you run the nursing home, what's to keep you from making the decision to "put down" my grandmother with Alzheimers the way a veterinarian would a horse with a broken leg? Or my newborn who has a serious birth defect?

If all life is "special," then no life is truly special.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dr. Phil - the future of our planet has nothing to do with John Edwards and what's on his head. It has everything to do with George Bush and what is not in his.

Posted by: Phil Donahue | April 19, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

'Most women that have abortions, have a hard time afterwards, also, some of the abortions have been botched, injuring the mother.'

that's what nearly always happens to women when abortion is illegal... or they simply die.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"You are absolutely correct, JimD. The important thing for us to focus on is the real relgious agenda -- to impose the views of the Catholoic Church and ban birth control completely."

drindl, this strikes me as a bit overwrought. Most of the "religious right" is made up of evangelicals and other protestants who have no problem with contraception. Their only issue is abortion.

Posted by: Demos | April 19, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"A doctor can and would be sanctitioned and loose their license to practice if they used this procedure as a form of brth control, as is implied by some opponenets of abortion."

That's a reassuring claim, but has this ever happened? Has a medical practicioner ever been censured - much less lost their license - for performing a partial-birth abortion other than in a life-or-death situation for the mother with a non-viable fetus?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Phil, you can't expect people like Fran to actually be consistent in their positions! Their concern for civil liberties and privacy ONLY apply to killing unborn children. Anything else is a "stupid righty red herring..."

Posted by: Nanny | April 19, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I am a fiercely pro-choice liberal.

I support a ban on this barbaric procedure. I find it a shame that the current law has no exception for the health, or even the life of the mother, but I still believe the greater good is served here.

I believe that Democrats should embrace this issue. Not in a voice of knee-jerk opposition, but rather one of reason directed toward reform, and drawing attention to the hypocrisy of the previous republican administration.

The law is a good start toward preserving abortion rights. By eliminating the most gruesome of procedures, I believe the voices of those who dogmatically oppose the woman's right to govern her own body are diminished.

Failing to include a provision for saving the life of the mother, or in the event that the fetus will not become viable shows the shallow thinking of those who enacted this law. An unborn vegetable is not more important than a woman who may be the loving mother and wife in a otherwise healthy and happy family.

So, the law is a good start, but it is not complete. Democrats should work toward reforming this law, not opposing it. Then we should use the opportunity to draw out the hypocrisy of a party that supports war, turns it's back on genocide, and neglects it's soldiers and countrymen.

I believe this is a moral strategy, and I pray it will be embraced and implemented effectively.

Posted by: Everitt Chase | April 19, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

'You also get angry when 33 people get killed and she fails to utter a peep about gun control'

Maybe she didn't want to politicize the issue, like all of the republicans did.

Oh but she did want to politicize it. Think Senator Casey, D-PA. Pro life pro gun Senator Casey. It is a crass political calculation in order to win and any cost. Sorry pal, you got thrown under the bus on that one.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 19, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

JD, the problem with original intent in my view(and I fully respect your view) is that the words do change and meaning changes. If you really want the strict interpertation, there's no room for sufficent compelling government interests at the highest level of scrutiny which the court always almost allows to trump civil liberties. (There should be no laws infringing on freedom of speech and yet we have them restricting things like defamation)

But away from the words, if you look at the intent of the founders, they really did want to protect citizens from government intrusion.

The Constitution has to grow with us or we will out grow it and that would be tragic. (And we both know the amendment process is next to impossible. As it should be.)

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Fran,

Very reasonable posts - it might interest you to know that a pollster read sections of the Declaration of Independence to various people in the 1950's and asked them to identify the source from a list of choices. Most identified those writings as "communist propaganda".

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 19, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

It's a little hard to buy conservatives' tears and hand-wringing over fetuses when they always make light of the killing of animals. Hmm, maybe putting women back in their place is their real goal.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

'You also get angry when 33 people get killed and she fails to utter a peep about gun control'

Maybe she didn't want to politicize the issue, like all of the republicans did.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

anonymous - according to what i have read, the so-called "partial birth" procedure is almost never used as birth control. apparently, it's too complicated / painful / emotionally traumatic. (and expensive - many health care plans do not or only rarely cover it.) this procedure seems to be almost exclusively used for the protection of the woman.

Posted by: meuphys | April 19, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Fran, my copy of the 9th amend says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I can't make this leap from this to the assumption (or what the Republicans would call, the invention) of the right of privacy. Under your interpretation of the 9th (plus your disturbing emanations from penumbras language), you could read *anything* into that.

I'm more of an original intent guy. If you want to amend the constitution, there's a proper process to follow; I don't want the judge or justice of the day to create the law out of thin air.

Posted by: JD | April 19, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The so called "partial birth abortion" is used solely to protect the life of the mother and, then, only when the fetus is thought to be nonviable. Those are the medical ethics rules that cover this procedure. A doctor can and would be sanctitioned and loose their license to practice if they used this procedure as a form of brth control, as is implied by some opponenets of abortion. Rather than arguing the facts, they resort to emotion and hysteria.

As for being "abortion adovcates", we're not. Every pro choice person I have ever encountered, believes abortion is just awful. The emotional trama to the mother and her family is not something to be taken lightly. But, the converse, forcing a 14 year old girl to bear the child of her rapist or molester, forcing a family to bring a profoundly handicapped child into the world (and, may I note, a handicapped child that the anti-abortion forces do not share responsibility of supporting), are even worse choices. We cannot know or share the awful choices that confront a woman in these situations. THAT is why we are pro-choice.

Posted by: MikeB | April 19, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Women, alone or with the help of older women (though there were male abortionists) have attempted to abort unwanted pregnancies since ancient times. A standard method of inducing abortion (ancient and modern) is the abortifacient or potion. Abortifacients are part of a folk culture of herbal medicine handed down among women for thousands of years. In German folk medicine marjoram, thyme, parsely and lavender in tea form were used. The root of worm fern was used by German and French women and was also prescribed by a Greek physician in the time of Nero; in French it was called the "prostitute root". Other ancient recipes called for a paste of mashed ants, foam from camels' mouths, tail hairs of blacktail deer dissolved in bear fat. In modern times, women have been reported to use turpentine, castor oil, tansy tea, quinine water in which a rusty nail has been soaked, horseradish, ginger, epsom salts, ammonia, mustard, gin with iron filings, rosemary, lavender, and opium (Gordon, p.36; Norman Himes, Medical History of Contraception; George Devereux, "A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient, and Pre-Industrial Societies";)

Posted by: it ain't going away | April 19, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

You are absolutely correct, JimD. The important thing for us to focus on is the real relgious agenda -- to impose the views of the Catholoic Church and ban birth control completely.

It's easy to forget that it was not until 1965 that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the 1879 birth control law of Connecticut -- and it would be very easy to lose the right to exercise any control whatosoever over childbearing.

With so many women in the workplace, this would be an enormous disaster. But this is clearly what some want -- and it is an effort to go backwards and make women once again powerless and couples unable to make their own decisions.

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Razorback, I don't tolerate it. I didn't vote for John Kerry and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. And unlike most people my age I write letters to my representatives when something really matters. But unfortunately I live in the heart of Nebraska where no one listens anyway. We do what we can, and that's why I'm in law school.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"The procedure is only used to protect a woman's life or health or for a fetus that will not live. So whatever the procedure is, the question is -- should a woman be forced to give up her own life to give birth to a child that will die anyway?"

Really? Is that the only reason a late-term abortion is performed? I'd be comfortable with late term abortions if they were only performed to save the life of the mother (or to prevent serious, irreparable physical harm). In that case it's the moral equivalent of self-defense.

Would you? If not, why not? What cases other than protecting the woman's life or health are you concerned about?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

JD, I actually think that it started somewhat earlier with the writings of Justice Brandeis. And the Constitution is really imbued with a notion of citizen privacy (stemming from the emanations from penumbras around several of the amendments, if you choose to see it that way). And I'm a true believer in the 9th Amendment even though it scares most people. We deal with problems today that the founders could never had thought of, the best we can do is take the vision that they created and try to make that the basis of our decisions. And while the founders might have been shocked because of the decisions that we make, they are not the ones who have to live in this century.

When making decisions that affect civil liberties we must always remeber that we are making decisions that affect civil liberties and question whether they are something we can live with out. I know there are many people who think that we can live without them, but I don't.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

If a woman's health is at risk then it is okay, but if pulling a baby just one more inch with it's nose exposed, and it can breathe, give me a break. If you want the birth, it's called a baby, if you don't it is called a fetus. As a student nurse, I saw a miscarriage at 3 months, the baby had nails, eye lashes, etc. Maybe those that want abortions, their mothers should have aborted them. It's all in the politics with each party. Most women that have abortions, have a hard time afterwards, also, some of the abortions have been botched, injuring the mother.

Posted by: Beverly | April 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

FRAN asks: "But how do we get the democratic party to actually say this instead of just running from Republican rhetoric and falling all over ourselves?"

Here is how FRAN:

You start laughing when a guy that lives in a 20,000 plus square foot house (John Edwards) starts lecturing the rest of us about energy consumption.

You start laughing when a guy like John Kerry pretends for a day that he likes to take guns in the woods and kill animals.

You start laughing when Hillary Clinton tries to talk like a hick when she visits Kentucky. You also get angry when 33 people get killed and she fails to utter a peep about gun control, or when she votes for war in Iraq.

FRAN, if you want to change the Democratic party, people like YOU have to quit tolerating this garbage from your leaders.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Abortion rights is a political loser until the day that a pretty white suburban woman can't get to Canada fast enough and dies and CNN beats the story into the ground.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The procedure is only used to protect a woman's life or health or for a fetus that will not live. So whatever the procedure is, the question is -- should a woman be forced to give up her own life to give birth to a child that will die anyway?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Fran, I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I think the disconnect, though, is this:

you seem to take as a given that the Constitution allows for reasonably unfettered abortion rights, through the concept of privacy. I disagree; I believe that that was a construction out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court in the 70s. The word privacy does not appear.

Clearly, the pro-life crowd believes that the constitution should be protecting the life of the kid (or, I guess, potential kid, I'm no biology whiz, not sure where that transition happens). The pro-choice crowd says, women should control their own bodies (which they don't allow them to do now in some cases, including prostitution, abuse alc or drugs when preg, etc)

My point is, when it's this controversial, let the locals make their own laws. I don't understand why the pro-choice forces have such a problem with this? If they believe in their arguments, they should be able to convince each State that theirs is the best policy.

Posted by: JD | April 19, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Let me talk slowly so you will understand. A fetus is not a child. It is part of a woman's body. It may or may not develop into a child. A lot of things go wrong -- as someone had the patience to explain above. Try to get your facts straight. You righties get so emotional you can't think or be coherent."

O.k., let's deal with this one. The current debate centers around late-term abortions. Pre-mature infants as young as 25-30 weeks have survived. As medical technology advances, we can only expect the point of viability outside the womb to move earlier and earlier.

You said that:
1) A fetus is not a child;
2) It is part of a woman's body;
3) It may or may not develop into a child.

Let me ask you - how do those definitions work in the case of a normal fetus that's at, say 30 weeks? If it were delivered and immediately taken to a high-quality neonatal ICU, it would likely live, grow up, and have children of it's own some day?

What makes it a "fetus" before delivery, but a "child" after delivery? You seem to suggest that it's because the "fetus" is part of the mother's body. In reality, it's connected to the mother's body through an umbilicus and placenta - whatever it is, it has it's own unique DNA and can live or die idependently of the mother.

It seems clear to me that what you've said implies that whether this entity is a fetus or a child depends entirely on whether or not the mother (or doctor, or whoever) chooses to deliver it alive. If not, as long as its in utero it's a fetus. If yes, then it's a child and we do all we can to preserve its life. If it's aborted, then it's still a fetus and we dispose of it as medical waste. It has nothing, however, to do with its viability or physical condition.

Is that what you believe?

Help me here. Which fact did I not "get straight?"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I remember taking a friend to get an abortion when we were both 18. She was cast out by her parents and with no money and no one to turn to.

This was in Texas. All I rmember is how many women were white and middle class and wearing crosses around their necks, one woman was praying with her rosary.

People like to talk big about how moral they are, but it becomes a little different when it happens to them.

You'll notice how a bill to ban abortion failed in North Dakota. When it comes down to it, most women don't want to back to the bad old days.

Posted by: Shiela | April 19, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

So 11:16 is when the mental midgets in the John Edwards looney bin get their computer time?

Check this article from the Quad Cities Iowa paper:

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/19//news/local/doc4626f3bd6f2f2920813459.txt

Edwards is toast. You cannot effectively communicate a political message when good voting people are laughing about your $400 haircut.

PHIL DONAHUE says: "And Edwards is absolutely right - abortion; civil rights; the economy; our electoral system; the level to which we are respected globally; the future of our democracy; the future of our systems of education and social services; the future of our planet - those are all at stake."

John Edwards gave up the future of the entire planet for a $400 haircut. So he could be cute. What a shallow empty frivolous gas bag John Edwards is.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 19, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Look at the anonymous post at 11:05 AM. People who sincerely believe that a fetus is a human being from conception are generally more motivated on this issue than abortion supporters who do not believe this. One group is opposing what they see as murder while the other group is supporting a concept. Generally a strongly motivated minority can influence policy more than a complacent majority. Look at the history of gun control legislation. Polls consistently show a majority in favor of some level of restrictions on firearms. The NRA consistently thwarts gun control legislation.

The political tack I would recommend pro-choice forces to take is to concentrate on the lack of health exceptions and the steady effort of the right to whittle away at abortion rights. Anti-abortion groups like to focus on the more extreme elements of the pro-abortion groups. I would recommend pro-abortion groups focus on the extremists in the pro-life movement. There are some who oppose the morning after pill and even contraception. Highlighting the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is another political plus. The Dems should tie these extreme groups to the Republicans and their effort to remake the courts in order to ultimately reverse Roe v. Wade. Focusing on an untrammeled right to very late term abortions is a political loser.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 19, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

PS Fran and JimD, some really good posts. You realize that if you keep making sense, Chris may ban you from posting on this blog in the future.

Posted by: JD | April 19, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

JD, that's not what Democrats want, thats what the Constitution requires. Democracy at it's heart is mob rule, and the mob is only as smart as it's dumbest member. The American people as group are emotional and reactionary, which is why we have the Constitution. Above the decision of the people is always the rule of law and those rights that were enumerated (and not enumerated, thanks to the 9th Amendment). That's not ruling from on high, but protection of those things which in the short term seem unfavorable, but in the long term are actually essential. You can't just suspend civil liberties because you're scared, angry, or emotional. (Too late.) Our entire history has proved that that is always a bad idea.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy quotes Dr. Martin Haskell, who described what he does "[I]n the usual intact D&E [when] the fetus' head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass." Then Justice Kennedy quoted "another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:"

" '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 high-powered 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.' " Ibid.

Now, here is Justice Ginsburg, dissenting:

'"There was a time, not so long ago," when women were "regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution." Id., at 896-897 (quoting Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961)). Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, "are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution." 505 U. S., at 897. Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation." Id., at 856. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to "their ability to control their reproductive lives." Ibid. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.'

To use yesterday's Court decision in the campaign, Democrats will have to convince a majority of Americans that women's right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation" and "to enjoy equal citizenship stature." is important enough to justify the procedure where "[T]he doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out." Do Americans believe *that much* in gender equality?

Posted by: Republican | April 19, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.

"[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran. Like Iran's Armenian Christians, Jews are tolerated as "people of the book" and allowed to practice their religion freely.

They elect their own deputy to the 270-seat Parliament and enjoy rights of self-administration. Jewish burial and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Jews are conscripted into the Army.

Posted by: some truth | April 19, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"Hard right turn". Give us a break, Edwards. The court upheld a law passed by the *people* (well, their representatives, anyway).

I guess the Democrats think the people should NOT be in control of their own laws, that the Feds from on high should be able to dictate their own morality in something as controversial and undecided as this.

Posted by: JD | April 19, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Abortion advocates can't suceed by running from the truth. Like Blargh said a while back, Pro-choice people want abortions to be legal, not common.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

RATINGS OF HILLARY AMONG KEY SUBGROUPS

Source: Gallup Polls

Group Favorable Percentage
Nov 9 - Mar 4 Mar 23-Apr 15

All adults 55% 46% -9

Democrats 86 78 -8

Independents 52 43 -9

Liberals 81 73 -8

Women 61 54 -7

Women, 18-49 65 55 -10

Single Women 69 58 -11

Nonwhite 78 73 -5

Hillary's Numbers Crumble

A new national poll shows Hillary Rodham Clinton's favorable ratings sinking like a stone, and her negatives soaring -- a terrifying trend for a campaign desperately trying to convince voters she's not too polarizing to be president.

April 19, 2007 | New York Post
http://www.solidpolitics.com/clinton.html

Thanks to the SC, maybe she can stop the downward spiral by championing this issue.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse


'Its ok for the government to tell someone they are too fat for french fries, as long as they arn't pregnant?'

Another stupid righty red herring...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Phil Donahue, your exactly right when you say "civil rights; the economy; our electoral system; the level to which we are respected globally; the future of our democracy; the future of our systems of education and social services; the future of our planet - those are all at stake."

But how do we get the democratic party to actually say this instead of just running from Republican rhetoric and falling all over ourselves?

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Knock me over with feather, FRAN gets one right.

She says: Potential life v. privacy and reproductive freedom.

The ONLY relevant question on the moral issue of abortion is the status of the fetus. (There are other questions regarding the legal issues).

If the fetus is life, we shouldn't kill it.

If the fetus is a blob of garbage, of course you are free to do with it what you want.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

South African Minister of Intelligence Services, Ronnie Kasrils, has "praised Iran's wise stand regarding its nuclear program," according a report by the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Kasrils, who is Jewish, was in Iran last week as part of an official state visit. Efforts by Ynetnews to reach Kasrils for comment were unsuccessful.

Posted by: the things our media won't cover | April 19, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse


Remember what they used to say about Goldwater? "In your guts you know he's nuts."

that's john mccain today.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'Dr. Phil' says: "John Edwards wants to talk about anything but that $400 haircut."

-George Bush wants to talk about anything but that whopping national debt. No, wait, he doesn't want to talk about Afghanistan either. Or global warming. He's not too crazy about 'where is bin Laden?' either. Or electoral reform. Or hurricanes. It must be tough to be president when you're a simpleton.

"John Edwards is wrong about abortion being at stake in this election. It was at stake during the last election, and during the confirmation process when the libs didnt have the nads to go after Roberts and Alito."

-no, they didn't have the 'votes.' And Edwards is absolutely right - abortion; civil rights; the economy; our electoral system; the level to which we are respected globally; the future of our democracy; the future of our systems of education and social services; the future of our planet - those are all at stake. Don't worry about the fossil fuel industry, though - I hear they made out pretty well over the past 6.5 years.

btw, hate your show!

Posted by: phil donahue | April 19, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'h huh, and "I respect the beliefs behind the anti-[child abuse] position, and if you want to go out and talk to people and convince them not to [abuse their children] '

Let me talk slowly so you will understand. A fetus is not a child. It is part of a woman's body. It may or may not develop into a child. A lot of things go wrong -- as someone had the patience to explain above. Try to get your facts straight. You righties get so emotional you can't think or be coherent.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Of course I dont think that Dr. Phil. Did I ever imply that I did?

Don't assume that you know everything I think just because of one position.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

'Iran supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.[2]'

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

FRAN says "If the government starts to take away the right that women have to make reproductive choices how long until government decides that women who are preganant cant drive cars because it might harm the unborn?"

So let me get this right FRAN.

Its ok for the government to tell someone they are too fat for french fries, as long as they arn't pregnant?

Its ok for the government to tell someone they can't have a gun, unless they are pregnant?

Only pregnant people have freedom? Do you really think that is what the Constitution says?

Posted by: DrPhil | April 19, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

But again, you're missing that we have competing interests here.

Potential life v. privacy and reproductive freedom. All law is a balancing of different policy interests. With a topic so important as this, we cannot be so blind as to not acknowledge that this is an issue with many aspects.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

'will lose sight of the issues liberals can win on and go back to the those issues that they have lost on.'

not on your life, baby. i work in DC and talk to a lot of folks in the leadership and i can guarantee you it will be all iraq, all the time, in '08. watch for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, whoever frames the terms of the debate will win it. As medical science progresses, the issue of fetal viability becomes more salient. Most people do not support aborting a potentially viable fetus. However, most people would support doing so to protect the life of the mother. As for the damaged fetus with no brain, certainly most people would support a late term abortion in that case. However, you can really get into a slippery slope as other potential birth defects are introduced to the argument. At some point, a late term abortion is frighteningly similar to infanticide. And I do not believe that a fetus = a human being and I support abortion rights.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 19, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"If the government starts to take away the right that women have to make reproductive choices how long until government decides that women who are preganant cant drive cars because it might harm the unborn?"

Shouldn't do that. How do you feel about women who drink while pregnant, smoke with small children in the house, or spank their children?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"I respect the beliefs behind the anti-abortion position, and if you want to go out and talk to people and convince them not to have an abortion I don't think anyone will object, if you want to teach your children not to have abortions I know no one will object. But please, I'm begging you, don't try to make it the law."

Uh huh, and "I respect the beliefs behind the anti-[child abuse] position, and if you want to go out and talk to people and convince them not to [abuse their children] I don't think anyone will object, if you want to teach your children not to [abuse their children] I know no one will object. But please, I'm begging you, don't try to make it the law."

Oh, that's not a fair analogy? Then how about: ""I respect the beliefs behind the anti-[infanticide] position, and if you want to go out and talk to people and convince them not to [kill their newborns] I don't think anyone will object, if you want to teach your children not to [kill their newborns] I know no one will object. But please, I'm begging you, don't try to make it the law."

Don't kid yourselves - all societies find some things so morally objectionable that they make them illegal. We're just arguing about which side of the line this one should fall on.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse


'Another man -- wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works -- wanted to know when America is going to "send an air mail message to Tehran."

McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann.'

This is real. I think John McCain has lost his mind. How else could you possibly explain this flippancy when talking about murdering thousands of men, women and children, many of which are US supporters, including a large Jewish community? wtf?

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18230309&BRD=2081&PAG=461&dept_id=385210&rfi=6

Posted by: drindl | April 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"'Partial-birth' is not a medical term -- it is a hysterical, cynical, emotionally laden hot button deisgned to cleverly manipulate the issue."

Maybe - but it's also pretty darn descriptive. If the doctor slipped and the head popped on out, you'd be hard pressed to call it anything other than a birth (albeit an accidental, awkward and perhaps botched one). It's only partial though, because it isn't completed. And it is, indisputably an abortion.

While it's not in medical terminology (and let's not put medical terminology on too high a pedestal - in many cases medical terms are pretty plain descriptive words that just happen to be in the Greek or Latin from hundreds of years ago), just which word in there is so terribly inflammatory? "Birth?" What's so inflammatory about that? The idea that we're dealing with something that could be born? Or is it just that pulling the (fetus/child/proto-human, whatever) out of the uterus draws a connection between what's being done and infanticide?

Posted by: Huh? | April 19, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The problem with many people who are pro-life is that they fail to understand the science behind childbearing, and Mary, you explain exactly why. Conception, i.e. when the egg is fertilized is no guarantee of any kind of life at all. Something like 75% of fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed from the body in a woman's normal cycle. It takes 7 to 10 days for a fertilized egg to implant itself in the uteran wall and even then it's no guarantee that the body won't flush it. So technically, according to you most sexual active women who dont use contraceptives have abortions on a regular basis.

Belief in God is no excuse to be ill informed.

I respect the beliefs behind the anti-abortion position, and if you want to go out and talk to people and convince them not to have an abortion I don't think anyone will object, if you want to teach your children not to have abortions I know no one will object. But please, I'm begging you, don't try to make it the law.

If the government starts to take away the right that women have to make reproductive choices how long until government decides that women who are preganant cant drive cars because it might harm the unborn? How long until they start punishing mothers who work after a certain period in their pregnancy? I know it seems a little fanatical to bring up that slippery slope, but we never thought that the government would be able to hold people without any attorney or trial or some kind of accusation, but look where we've gone in that direction.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, this changes everything.

The emotionally charged slobbering leftists whose head come to a full point and whose comments pepper this blog will lose sight of the issues liberals can win on and go back to the those issues that they have lost on.

They are too fanatical and emotional to control themselves.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: Okay, so the bill doesn't really ban anything. The doctor just has to kill the fetus first, so it's no longer a living fetus. So this doesn't really change anything at all.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

All this bill will do is ensure that women will die because they were not allowed a critical medical procedure.

Posted by: Ford | April 19, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

'Partial-birth' is not a medical term -- it is a hysterical, cynical, emotionally laden hot button deisgned to cleverly manipulate the issue.

Posted by: Sandra | April 19, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

' If a child is conceived, He has allowed it to happen, and it belongs to Him.'

Tell me, Mary, why does God allow children to be born without a brain, since you seem to know it all?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The SC ruling works both ways. Extremists on the left and right will rally around the issue. But it is providing some tough questions for one Rudy Giuliani. You know, the guy who supported the lib's position just a few years ago?
http://political-buzz.com/?p=149

Posted by: parker | April 19, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

This ban does not prevent ONE abortion it just provides for dignity and respect in the procedure. You should all do your homework before commenting.

Posted by: ChrisS | April 19, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

blarg -the bill defined the terminology for a reason.

The bill itself makes no reference whatever to "intact dilation and evacuation" abortions. More importantly, the term "intact dilation and evacuation" is not equivalent to the class of procedures banned by the bill.

The bill bans to perform a "partial-birth abortion," which the bill would define-- as a matter of law-- as "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery."

In contrast, the term "intact dilation and evacuation" was invented by the late Dr. James McMahon, and until recently, was idiosyncratic to him. It appeared in no standard medical textbook or database, nor anywhere in the standard textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice by Dr. Warren Hern. Because "intact dilation and evacuation" is not a standard, clearly defined medical term, the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee staff rejected it as useless "

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact14.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

'Drug use and abortion aren't comparable in the least.'

I never said anything about drug use... that was some idiot trying to pick a fight.

'Life is life, and God is the author of it.'

That may be what you believe, 'mary' and I suggest you then should never have an abortion. But it isn't what I believe -- and that's why the founders insisted on separation of church and state -- so that your views would not be forced on me -- because that is tyranny.


Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I know how Hillary can win the election.

We will tell the American people that ripping the head off of a half-way delivered baby is a constitutional right. If this will not mobilize blue state America, nothing will.

Posted by: JamesCarville | April 19, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Someone has to stand up to this court and this so called President and his GOP neoconservative, right wing nutters and stop telling people what to do.

What is this, the 12th Century. What are women, chattel property?

This is disgraceful and another method for keeping control of women.

INSECURE MEN

Posted by: Margaret | April 19, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

'April 16, 2007 -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' assertion that he was not involved in identifying the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign last year is at odds with a recently released internal Department of Justice e-mail, ABC News has learned.'

Gonzo getting grilled this morning. It's so very funny to watch.

Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Iraq on Thursday after a bloody 24-hour stretch in Baghdad that left more than 200 people dead.

Gates -- who intends to meet with U.S. commanders and Iraqi government officials -- has been visiting other countries in the region and his stop in Iraq is an unannounced visit, a pool report said.

He is coming to the country as bombing assaults across the capital on Wednesday and Thursday claimed scores of victims.

At least 198 people were killed in six bombings on Wednesday and 12 more were killed in a blast on Thursday.

The carnage prompted outrage worldwide and concern among U.S. and Iraqi troops trying to establish peace in Baghdad with its two-month old crackdown called Operation Enforcing the Law.'

So I wonder what was before that? Operation Ignoring the Law?

Posted by: 08 will be all iraq, all the time | April 19, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

What is deplorable about this decision isn't that it outlawed late-term abortions it is that the Court completely disregarded past precident to make this decision. The SC (with O'conner) sided only a few years ago that any law like this one needed to have an excemption for the health of the woman. One of the underpinnings of the Supreme Court is the deferment to past precedence to establish continuity in the legal system. This decision flies in the face of that principle.

Posted by: Andy R | April 19, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I am apalled that premeditated murder can be dissected into acceptable and unacceptable parts. A woman carrying a new life who aborts it at any stage has killed her child. She has committed murder, no matter how many laundered words are used to describe it.
Life is life, and God is the author of it. If a child is conceived, He has allowed it to happen, and it belongs to Him. In the end, we all will suffer the consequences of our indescretions (sins).

Posted by: Mary | April 19, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse


The fires threatened the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, one of the nation's best-preserved wetland areas, with one reaching the outer edges of the refuge, said Eric Mosley, spokesman for the Georgia Forestry Commission.

Southeast Georgia is extremely dry, with rainfall deficits of 12 to 14 inches for the year, officials said.

Posted by: wetlands burning | April 19, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Is something without a brain a human being, or an empty shell?

Are you God, gopie? I guess you all think you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Jane, I exposed your false argument and you dismiss it with "FU", claims of "false accusations" and other silliness. Typical liberal. You're done.

Posted by: Poor Jane | April 19, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I see razorback the insane gun nut is here. too bad. i'll run get some disinfectant.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apologized Thursday to the eight fired U.S. attorneys and their families, saying, "They deserve better from me and the Department of Justice which they served for many years."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Some people need to read the original post again. This isn't about whether Democrats should try to fight the ban on "partial-birth abortion." (I use quotes because it's a made-up term that doesn't correspond to any real medical procedure.) It's about whether Democrats should use this Supreme Court decision as evidence that all abortion rights are now in danger. So the popularity of bans on "partial-birth abortion" isn't really an issue.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

If the next election is about abortion and gun control, Republicans win.

If the next election is about Iraq, Republicans lose.

Get all wound up liberals. Blow a gasket. Bloviate with all of your idiotic gun and abortion arguments. Be the wing nuts that you are. Its the Republicans only chance in 2008.

Posted by: Razorback | April 19, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

This will become a very meaningful issue for female candidates, especially Sen. Clinton, who can speak on it from the dual vantage points: statesmanship, and gender identification. In a curious way, the decision of the Bush court, in coming to this closely contested decision, may have hastened the victory of Democrats in 2008 by energizing the outrage of the majority of persons in this country who believe issues like abortion are personal matters.

Posted by: burt | April 19, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

It seem ironic that it was all males who voted for the ban.Second the bible says life begins with breath so maybe some of these bible thumpers need to read some more of it.Women need to rally around Hillary or we will end up barefoot and back in the kitchen waiting on men.Think it couldnt happen keep voting Republician and see.

Posted by: carla | April 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Furthermore, if you don't think that the Bush twins would get abortions if they wanted to, you're certifiable -- and it would happen with the blessings of Laura and Big Barbara (both of whom are on record for being "pro-choice". Say, and all of you who think that the Bush twins are virgins, raise your hands -- yeah, I thought so. . . .

When abortions are made illegal, women will die. Period.

Posted by: sc | April 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Poor Jane -- you don't have an argument so you resort to cheap accusations. Typical. You're not jworth talking to.

Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse


Get the run-down on Sen. Coleman's (R-MN) evolving story on US Attorney Rachel Paulose.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/18/coleman-paulose-flip/

Posted by: coleman in deep with Purgegate | April 19, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

this decision will mobilize dems not because of the decision itself, but because it is a sign that roe could be in real danger if another GOPer is elected in 08

Posted by: zach | April 19, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"But we democrats are not that evil."
Democrats = death of unborn children.
Sounds evil to me.

Posted by: Death Lovers | April 19, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

in re "It lacked a brain entirely, save the stem. It would never have any brain function whatsoever, other than autonomic. Would never open its eyes, couldn't swallow and so feed itself, nor feel nor think. IN addition, its spine was incomplete and it was missing a kidney. It could not survive a natural birth, and would live only a few minutes without a breathing tube... and could have damaged the mother so she could not have another child."

Sandra - a couple points:
1. The "it" you keep referring to in your post is actually a human being. Your particular knack at dehumaninzing the fetus in this case is telling.
2. The woman could also have delivered the fetus via c-section, a procedure opted for quite often these days, as to prevent the damage you assume will happen here from a natural birth.
3. There are many options available to women before the 3rd trimester.

as Willaim correctly states "Late term abortion is a loser for Democrats.... 75% support the ban"

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 19, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"Secretary Gates, thank you for your honest assessment of what it takes to bring a new direction to Iraq."

-- Rahm Emanuel, commenting on Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assertion that the Dem Congress' push for withdrawal was exerting helpful new pressure on the Iraqi government.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Awe, little Jane. According to your own arguments, we already live in an authoritarian state since we don't have total legal authority to do what we want to or with our bodies. Your denial of that fact is either complete ignorance or a separation from reality. Maybe you're enjoying some "freedom" with illegal substances right now, which would explain your silly comments.

Posted by: Poor Jane | April 19, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The democrats can not afford to make this a rallying call. They will not only alienate many moderates they will alienate some in their own party if they stand for partial birth abortion.

Many who do not even support overturning roe support a ban on partial birth abortion. If they pick this issue up, it will hurt them because it will look like they want no limits on abortions.

The American people support some limits. They dont want partial birth abortion. They do want parental notification at least. If the democrats pick up this issue and they cannot stop the Republicans from turning it into a debate about the issues then it is good for them, but they have been unsuccessful in the past.

Posted by: George | April 19, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards wants to talk about anything but that $400 haircut.

John Edwards is wrong about abortion being at stake in this election. It was at stake during the last election, and during the confirmation process when the libs didnt have the nads to go after Roberts and Alito. Its too late now Haircut Boy.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

HUNTERSVILLE, N.C., April 19 (UPI) -- A 16-year-old Huntersville, N.C., boy shot and killed himself after threatening two other teens with a handgun at his high school.

Huntersville Police Capt. Michael Kee said Josh Cook was apparently upset over an ex-girlfriend and first brandished the weapon on two other students during the lunch period on Wednesday at North Mecklenburg High, the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer reported Thursday.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

'Cairo, Egypt (AHN) - The foreign ministers of 13 Arab countries on Wednesday decided that an Egyptian-Jordanian committee is the best course of action to promote the Arab peace initiative with Israel. London-based Al Hayat reported that the committee, as well as another international committee, would be used to promote the peace plan.

The Arab League called for an international conference where direct negotiations could be launched. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal said that the conference could define a timetable for the peace initiative's implementation.'

bush/cheney will block this because they are intent on middle eastern war.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The Court will remain the same for several years only if a dem is elected in 08. Should the repubs win, the court will swing further to the right due to death or retirement of two who dissented. The right of a person to make a decision on medical treatment is the real thing that is so well hidden in what I have read so far.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Put this guy right at the top of your Endangered Species list, CC. He's dead meat.

'Doolittle won just a 49 percent to 46 percent victory last November over Democrat Charlie Brown, a retired Air Force officer from Roseville who is planning a 2008 rematch.
Doolittle had links to Abramoff that go beyond his wife's job. He held a fundraiser in Abramoff's skybox at a Wizards-Kings pro basketball game in Washington, D.C., and accepted more than $60,000 dollars in campaign contributions from Abramoff and the Indian tribes he represented.

Doolittle also accepted campaign contributions from defense contractor Brent Wilkes and worked to get Wilkes' company millions of dollars in government contracts. Wilkes was indicted in February for providing former San Diego Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham with more than $700,000 in bribes in exchange for help getting federal contracts. Cunningham was sentenced to prison for corruption.

Kevin Ring, a former aide to Doolittle who later worked for Abramoff, abruptly resigned from his job at a Washington lobbying firm Friday, the same day Doolittle's home was searched by the FBI.

Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

An FBI search of Rep. John Doolittle's Virginia home has turned up the heat on the embattled congressman, who barely won re-election last November after being linked to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

An attorney for Doolittle, a Republican from Roseville (Placer County), said Wednesday that the FBI search last Friday focused on records of Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, a company run by Doolittle's wife, Julie. Julie Doolittle worked closely with Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last year to charges that included conspiracy to bribe public officials.

Doolittle, 56, denied wrongdoing in a statement released Wednesday after news of the search became public.
"My wife has been cooperating with the FBI and the Justice Department for almost three years and that cooperation is going to continue in the future,'' he said. "I support my wife 100 percent and fully expect that the truth will prevail.''

Other Republicans weren't nearly so confident."It's difficult to overstate the seriousness of the FBI executing search warrants at an elected official's home,'' said Kevin Spillane, a Sacramento-based Republican consultant. "It's a catastrophic political event for any member of Congress.''

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber killed 12 people outside a Baghdad take-away shop on Thursday, one day after 190 people died in a bombing blitz that brought into question the US-backed security plan for the capital.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The court's decision is about much more than "just" women's abortion rights--it speaks to the role of the state in individual medical treatment, and the politicization of the supreme court. How can supposed conservatives applaud the intervention of the courts and the congress in such personal health choices?

This is the fundamental flaw in the conservative political position. It will fracture the Republican party, especially if Hillary Clinton is able to motivate women to her candidacy.

Posted by: windserf | April 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Drug use and abortion aren't comparable in the least.
Jane, you fail to understand is why drug use is illegal. It has nothing to do with that we think it's "morally wrong" to use drugs, but because of the criminal effects. You know, people need money for drugs so they rob the local Quicky Mart.

Abortion on the other hand is legal because all citizens of America should be allowed to make medical and reproductive decisions without inteference from the government. Like Blargh said, pro-choice advocates believe that abortion should be legal, not that it should be common.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

CNN) -- When Cho Seung-Hui purchased two handguns this year, he apparently followed the letter of the law to get the weapons he eventually used in a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus.

Some questions have been raised over Cho's mental health and whether that should have prevented him from being able to purchase the handguns.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents.

--this is the 'freedom' we have left in this country -- the freedom of the mentally ill to buy arsenals and mow down children.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Typical male garbage from Chris. Yeah, it's just "wag the blog". Moderate men who believe in the right of a woman to choose abortion, particularly in the case of this procedure, which is only used in the case of an inviable fetus or when the mother's health is in jeopardy, will never believe that Roe V. Wade will be over turned until it is. In the end, wingnut decisions like this one by the court could be just the wake up call the country needs.

Posted by: melanie | April 19, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Everybody fronts the five car bombs that exploded in and around Baghdad yesterday that targeted mostly Shiite neighborhoods and killed almost 200 people. It was the deadliest day in Baghdad since the beginning of the new security plan earlier this year. Before the bombings, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government would take over security for all of Iraq by the end of the year.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

'Ginsburg also took aim at Kennedy's insistence that the ban is good for women because it would prevent them from regretting their decision to have a procedure they might not fully understand. Instead of giving women more information, "the court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice," Ginsburg wrote.'

I say, bl*w me, Justice kennedy. Adult women don't need daddies to to make decisions for them because they're too simple to understand. 'Here, don't worry your little head about it'. It's an outrage.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'The vast majority of the public supports banning partial-birth abortion'

BS. That's just because of the wya the question is posed in polls. If they asked, 'who should make the decision on a medical procedure that could save a woman's life and/or health, the woman and her family, or the government?' and you'd get a quite different answer, I'm sure. And that's the real issue, anyway.

Posted by: Robin | April 19, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Another important thing that this shows is how little the public is actually educated on abortion and what's involved. D and E is not nearly as bad as D and X, but "partial-birth abortion" is a nice buzz word to get people's blood going.

What I think dems should do with this is not rally around abortion (which obviously we have to do something to stem the tide) but really take it back and say look, you want your civil liberties gone? You want more government access in your body and brain? Another Republican regime, all that will bring us is that all government interests will suddenly become sufficent compelling interests.

Posted by: Fran | April 19, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Well if I were ann Coulter, I would 'joke' about how someone should put poison in their pudding. But we democrats are not that evil.

women will die as a result of this. Republicans = culture of death.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

There is no exception for a woman's health -- and doctors will be prosecuted for the operation. So they won't do even if it's to save her life.

Merciful God -- it's like going back to the middle ages -- or the third world.

Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Some crazed harpie will probably whack Alito or Scalia one of these days.

Posted by: candide | April 19, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

FU 'poor jane'. If you're so hot to see the Constitution destroyed and live in an authoritarian state -- why don't you move to China?

Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

'The Washington Post quotes the president of the Christian Coalition of America predicting, "It is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v. Wade ... will also be struck down by the court." The Wall Street Journal notes that some see the decision as the first step "in chipping away at the landmark 1973 decision rather than attacking it head on," a strategy Alito proposed while he was an aide to Ronald Reagan.'

And that's why Alito is where he is...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I guess Jane supports legalizing all drug usage too, since that only affects YOUR body. Can't wait to see the Demoratic ads for that. Coke IS it, right Jane?

Posted by: Poor Jane | April 19, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry kids. The vast majority of the public supports banning partial-birth abortion and so does the majority of Dem voters. All the polls show it. If liberals try to use this as a rallying cry, the GOP will turn the issue back on them with ads describing the procedure which will turn voters away from the Dem Pary in droves!

Posted by: Majority Supports Ban | April 19, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I agree with John S. This is just one aspect of a much larger issue. I am frankly tired of the phrase 'right to choose' ... a 'choice' is what flavor ice cream you want. This is about whether your life and your body belong to you, or the state. This is about privacy and autonomy and freedom.

We can't allow government to encroach on us like this. What will they take away next?

Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

What, the 700 comments on gun control yesterday weren't enough? Now we have to discuss abortion. How long before the Drudge trolls come back?

Anyway, the Democrats need to be very careful with the issue of abortion. The best thing to do is to focus on things that will prevent abortions from being necessary, such as better sex education and improved access to contraception. (Both normal and emergency.) Pro-choice advocates believe that abortion should be legal, not that it should be common. I think that by focusing on that aspect of the issue, the Democrats can avoid alienating moderates.

Posted by: Blarg | April 19, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Democrats don't have to mention these facts: the Court has five Catholics on it, two of them Italians. Do you remember the scenes from The Godfather and from Prizzi's Honor (sorry Chris) when during the baptism of another young mafioso there are shots of deadly retaliation vs. the enemies of the Familigia?

I think voters will get the picture themselves.

Do you believe in God, Scalia? Do you renounce Satan, Alito?

Posted by: candide | April 19, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Late term abortion is a loser for Democrats.... 75% support the ban.... And Hillary's taking some heat from the left for not pursuing gun control agenda: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | April 19, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

the republican mantra rings true - life begins at conception but ends at birth

Posted by: impcru | April 19, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

This issue alone will not rev up NARAL and pro-choice activists. What will happen is that pro-life activists will latch onto this decision and begin pushing far more draconian measures in legislatures and ballot initiatives (see South Dakota's recent ballot foray on this issue). That sudden increase in abortion challenges and restrictions will alarm the pro-choice and womens groups, which will drive probably an equal number of voters on both sides. I give it a short term conservative advantage right now, but by 2008, it will be an electoral wash.

Posted by: JOToole | April 19, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I just can't get over the hypocrisy of the gop, with all their talk of 'small government' -- how exactly is a government that spies on your every move -- that listens to your phone calls and monitors your internet searches, that steals your financial data and makes your medical decisions, tells you whom you may marry and have s*x with, when you may have children, which God you may worship, what you may smoke or drink,and whom you may associate with -- tell me, how is that a SMALL government?

Where is my privacy? Where is my freedom?

Posted by: Robin | April 19, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse


'How can anyone defend such a deplorable practice as intact dilation and extraction? '

I'll tell you. I worked with a young woman who had a healthy boy, 2 years old wit her husband. They found they were pregnant again, with a girl, and were thrilled. Because she was only 32, she did not have amnio. At nearly 6 months, they discovered the fetus had a triple chrosome defect.

It lacked a brain entirely, save the stem. It would never have any brain function whatsoever, other than autonomic. Would never open its eyes, couldn't swallow and so feed itself, nor feel nor think. IN addition, its spine was incomplete and it was missing a kidney. It could not survive a natural birth, and would live only a few minutes without a breathing tube... and could have damaged the mother so she could not have another child.

What would you have done? The point is, when the government starts making private medical decisions for you, the whole concept of 'freedom' becomes a joke, because the state owns your body.

Posted by: Sandra | April 19, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

This was expected and shows how the court is so powerful. Off topic-Check AJC this AM for a tragic accident involving a gun.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

For all those sanctimonious so-called "right to life" people out there -- if you honestly think that legally curtailing or downright cutting off the right for women to have an abortion will make abortion go away entirely, you are delusional. Those intent on seeking an abortion will go down the well-trodden path of back-alleys. Abortions will continue, and many women will die as a result. Illegal, back-alley abortions from periods in our country's history before Roe v. Wade, resulted in perforated uteruses, and other forms of gruesome deaths.

Abortions will *not* ever go away. This is not about the protection of fetuses. This is about the infantilization and control of women. A woman who wants an abortion will get one, whether you like it or not. And in all likelihood, she will die as a result. You so-called "right to life" approach will result in death, after all.

Posted by: sc | April 19, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Who cares? The government is in your face so much anyway these days. This SC decision is just one more little piece on the continuum. Our information is public and published all over the internet. The Patriot Act is an abomination toward our privacy and civil liberties. Gays can't enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals. The Dems need to redirect their message toward protecting privacy and get people to realize everyone is impacted when the government gets in your personal life.

Posted by: John S | April 19, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Maybe more than a rallying cry for votes, this has the potential to be huge for fundraising, which is really what the abortion debate has been good for on both sides. When the Dems are winning, the GOP and neocon PACs go running to the base and use the abortion to raise tons of money from conservative groups, just in the hope that they can make some headway in Roe. Now that they've made some progress, the Dems can run to their base, beat the drum, and raise millions on the fear that Roe will fall. Neither fear is probably all that justified, but it sure is good for the party coffers.

Posted by: Greg | April 19, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company