Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > April > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USAbortion rights ‘losing ground’?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Here’s the day’s homework assignment for social conservatives: Read or listen to as many accounts as you can of Wednesday’s 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortion.
If you can tell off the bat that the reporter or newscaster regards this as a very bad thing the high court has done, it could be bias “rearing is ugly head.” This is the first paragraph in one of the day’s Associated Press account: “The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the first federal curbs on an abortion procedure in a generation suggests that even with Democrats in control of Congress, efforts to preserve abortion rights may be losing ground.”
My inclination would not be to conclude that “efforts to preserve abortion rights may be losing ground.” If I thought it necessary to observe in the context of yesterday’s ruling that this was happening “even with Democrats in control of Congress,” it would only be as a call to arms, since the Libertarians could have been in control and it would not have been relevant to the court decision.
I’ll grant that there was one small victory for abortion opponents in Wednesday’s 5-4 decision. The court upheld a statute that excluded “health of the mother” as grounds for performing a partial birth abortion. Life of the mother, yes. Health, no. That is a major divide between the two camps. “Health of the mother ” is the exception that neutralizes all abortion restrictions. It’s a loophole big enough to slip the World Congress Center through. It’s self diagnosis and the equivalent of what you can expect when liberals are forced by law to teach abstinance to teens: “I’m obligated to tell you abstinace is best, but we all know….” “Health of the mother” is the wink-and-nod that clears the deck for any and all abortions.
But neither side should draw too many profound conclusions from an opinion that has Justice Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.
Services »
Comments
By time for the truth
April 19, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Certainly the barbaric bestial practice of partial birth murder that sick leftist feminazi hags like HitLLary KLinton and the Boxerbitch et al are so fond of defending to the nth degree needs to be stopped. Whilst I am still mildly pro-choice this SCOTUS ruling is a glorious victory for sense and decency that should never be overturned. The fact that so many leftist haggish baby killing cows and unfeeling infanticide loving Kennedy/Kerry/Reid like bastards are against such a small attempt to stop literal legal medical murder shows just how dangerous the cancerous left within is to decent Americans.
Does anybody know who that noxious blonde haired black dwarf and vile narcissistic mental midget is who puked up all that utterly irrelevant, vapid multi-culti bollocks about mexican types and afriKans and disabled lesbian Eskimos etc and then flashed Nixonian like V signs at the VT ‘convocation’ whilst despicably “milking the applause”? This kind of putrid self indulgent bewildered third world nutter liberal display is almost enough to drive a Kennedy to drink, drive, kill a pregnant woman by underwater driving and then run away to sober up and make up a lame cowardly story for the cops that wont cost it its senate seat.
I have recently upgraded my .22 target pistol for a Glock 17 (yes 17 is a subtle reference to inbred rednekkk’s highest ever recorded IQ). My shiny new Glock will afford self defence protection if ever needed and many hours of enjoyable paper target shooting at local ranges. In England now only thuggish black yoofs and other non indigenous criminals have been buying new ILLEGAL guns in any numbers on the black market since the gun grabbing bleating liberal sh!theads stole them off law abiding folks after the sick paedophile porridge gobbler in Jockstrap land went beserk at a kids school in Dunblane. A typical pathetic short sighted liberal overreaction.
Now only shotguns are available to farmers and other British landowners who can prove a “need”. The UK international shooting team used to have to actually go abroad to practice after the smug lefty morons had their insane firearms round up WHICH ONLY LAW ABIDING FOLKS ACTUALLY COMPLIED WITH - dont know whether this ridiculous arrangement has now changed or not for the shooting team.
As a very modest gesture of support for and solidarity with the folks in VA I have decided to join the truly patriotic very sensible folks as a new member of the NRA which is based up there in what is still (at least nominally) Dixie.
How amusing and utterly sickening to see the lemming like panderers Mrs HItllary corrupt to the core and hated in the polls Klinton, slimy John lets fleece the cancer well wishers Edwards and Barakkk big eared black nonentity Osama Obama are are gleefully slithering off to the hippety convention to listen to black hippety hop thugs using black culture buzz words like ho, b itch, n i gg a and sing about “capping cops” and the usual odious glorifying drugs and violence. SO NO LEFTIST HYPOCRISY THERE THEN!!
Funny how the deranged leftist gun grabbers endlessly bleat about the extremely rare mass shootings here by mentally ill evil nutters, yet say bugger all about murderous mohammedan fascists who perpetrate vastly worse outrages day after day after day after day!! GO F Yourselves … LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!!!
By Richard
April 19, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Jim’s reading his own bias into this decision.
This is really a VICTORY for abortion rights. We were talking about late-term abortions, which most people (even abortion supporters) are opposed to. So, even when we’re talking about a late-term abortion, 4 judges still supported the abortion. That means, when we’re talking about “normal” abortions, the judges would still be in favor of that. Those 4 will always support abortion and at least 1 of the other 5 will switch when talking about early abortions.
Despite the “holier-than-thou” folks like Jim, the choice will remain on the table.
By test
April 19, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
test
By test
April 19, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
test
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Jim argues correctly when he proffers that this ruling means nothing more than what is believed by the holder of the Bork seat on the court. I suspect that there are many good intentioned proponents of abortion who find the now-illegal “partial birth” procedure an abomination. Nevertheless, the distinction in the court ruling means that certainly Congress, and perhaps the state legislatures, may legislate in the area. That seems to be reasonable, allow the states to experiment with whatever is appropriate for their populations. For those with a sense of humor – admittedly this is one area that strains humor - funny essay by Julia Gorin (purportedly a comedienne) on the topic today at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009897
By test
April 19, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
test
By time for the truth
April 19, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
AT LAST … Sen John McKennedy shows some all too rare leadership!!
Sen. John McCain brought his “Straight Talk” tour to South Carolina Wednesday morning.
The presidential hopeful spent 90 minutes talking to nearly 500 people who crammed into the Murrells Inlet VFW Hall.
At the campaign rally, McCain was asked if an attack on Iran is in the works, the GEORGETOWN TIMES reports.
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.
One McCain aide who attended the event said McCain was adding a little levity to the discussion and the crowd reacted with laughter.
McCain went on to discuss the seriousness of the issue, saying he supports the President, and he will not allow Iran to destroy Israel.
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 19, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
The question of abortion is, of course, the most divisive issue to be grappled with by the American people since slavery. There is a wide spectrum of opinions ranging from the most reactionary conservative…ain’t no way in hell a woman is going to get an abortion. She should have thought about the health dangers before she got pregnant. If she was raped, it was God’s will and she ought to accept it!… to the most rabid liberal…abortion should be available on demand by any woman, including those 10 or 12 years old, and their parents really don’t need to know about it. It is a private matter.
With the emergence of the Roberts Court, it is likely that the “right” to an abortion is going to be limited more and more.
What frightens me about this decision is that the Court seemed to hold that in this matter, the Congress had a right to legislate on the basis of the morality of the issue. That is a significant departure from previous decisions on the matter of abortion, and begs the question, on what other issues might the Congress legislate based on morality?!?!
A lot of Americans do not know that at least one member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, has suggested that it might be constitutional for individual states to establish a state religion. His rationale is that the First Amendment applies only to functions of the national government.
Anyway, the notion of the Congress being able to judge matters on the basis of morality is about as hilarious to me as suggesting that Reverend Jerry Falwell give a series of lectures on the appropriate use of condoms or Senator Hillary Clinton advocating the implementation of an abstinence only curriculum in all public schools.
By Miss RepubliChick to you
April 19, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
Yes, it’s a good thing that this travesty of women consulting with doctors to make our own medical decisions is going away. It’s bad enough we have women embarrassing us by running for Congress or Senate, which is even worse than having women in the workplace, often obtaining positions of authority over our strong, brave, godly men. They’re wh@res of course. No way they could ever get those jobs on merit.
So I say BRAVO to the men on the Supreem Court for standing up to that lone sl-t on their and saying women should NOT make our own choices!
The only choice I need to make is to decide on the ransomb for which I hold my virtuous cookies to the highest bidder. No way will I ever get pregnant accidentally! First, buy me a big ol’ diamond, a new car, a big house, and kiss my daddy’s big ol’ patootie, and let’s get your fortune in writing as mine, and then I might give you a piece of the cookie once in awhile if you buy me new shoes and take me on one of those nice cruises — not a cheap one the neighbors took. Independent women are such WH@RES! Thank GOD we’re getting back to some virtue here, where someone else can make my decisions for me.
By Van
April 19, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher,
Based on the 10th Amendment, that is a possibility. However, I doubt that any state would even try to establish a state religion.
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 19, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Van,
May I introduce you to the Georgia General Assembly!
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Hi TFTT. I wondered where you have been lately….. Glad to see you upgraded your firepower. I also have a .22 target pistol but that wouldn’t be the one I reached for in a self-defense situation.
On today’s topic, the late term and partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing to me, but as you know Jim, I support banning all abortions. I agree with you 100% that in today’s society abortion is just seen as another birth control option. Many people are not willing to accept, or even contemplate the fact that unwanted pregnancies are a bi-product of the moral decay of society. Any movement in the direction of saving unborn children is a step in the right direction in my opinion.
By getalife
April 19, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Please find a case where this “partial birth procedure” was actually done.
Another loophole, if they did actually do the procedure, is to change the procedure.
This is a wingnut wet dream to feed the hypocrites who are pro war, pro death penalty but pro life.
BTW, Cho was one of yours Jim.
You must be proud.
By Dave
April 19, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
No one’s mind will change on this topic no matter how hard you argue the points. I would like to politely ask that people maintain their identity as an adult while discussing this issue. Strong emotions and name calling will only cause people to dig in and resist you.
I like Wooten’s advice to remain aware of media bias based on the words used. I personally disagree with any abortion but only offer that opinion to those who ask or when posting in a forum like this. As I said, arguing about it will not change a thing.
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
Dear Getalife @ 11:27, I heard one of your soulmates speaking: “You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Dear MidSouth @ 11:03, count me with Justice Thomas. Have you ever actually read the first amendment?
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
TFTT dear that lesbian nutjob is the professor who first recognized that Cho was a nutjob and reported him as such.
By Van
April 19, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher,
Your reply is a bit confusing. Are you saying that the General Assembly is a state sponsored religion?
The left does have its own religion and it isn’t found in any holy books from any known culture. It revolves around they think they know what is best for everyone, a one size fits all scenario.
If Mr. X does something bad, then they want to ban what he did, not the person that did it.
There religion has nothing to do with a supreme being or a belief system based on a higher power. It is the belief that they are right about everything.
The left cares nothing about fact, case in point, what is the carbon foot print of any carbon based life form? Will they regulate the emissions of wild animals? Will they tax the air we blow into a balloon at our kids birthday party?
Will the lefties understand, ever, that everyone has the ability to make decisions, some good, some bad?
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
For the record, that was not me at 11:45. Don’t know why the id stealer is using my name to post such mundane drivel, but I’m grateful that he/she didn’t say something disgusting.
By Walter Klondyke
April 19, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
This just in …
The Whitfield County Commission has declared itself a Southern Baptist theocracy. Commissioners, formerly all Republicants, sent the Sheriff’s Department on a Crusade against Murray County. The two sides are now engaged in a bloody battle along the Conasauga River.
Gov. Sonny Perdue has stepped in to try and quell the fighting by handing out cane poles to both sides and encouraging the fighters to “Go Fish!”
More details as they come in …
By Hot Barbara
April 19, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Oh, is there another Barbara? Sorry, dear, I didn’t realize. I’m the Barbara with the pool boy. So as not to confuse us, you can see I changed my screen name.
By jm
April 19, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess the next step is to legislate the difference between “health of the mother” versus “life of the mother”. Nobody I would trust more on health issues than the Georgia General Assembly.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
jm, I completely agree with you! So let’s take “life of the mother” out of the exclusions too. God knows what he’s doing…..
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Dear All, forgive me if I return to topic temporarily: Does anyone know any intelligent reason our Democrat brethren do not attempt to repeal the “constitutional” law upheld yesterday? Or do they just want to whine? Are there no leaders on the left?
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Thank you Hot Barbara……
By Mr. Incredulous
April 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
“God knows what he’s doing…”
So, which of the politicians or political appointees involved is the Almighty?
By Van
April 19, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
jm,
Any rational person knows the difference between “Life of the Mother” and “Health of the Mother”.
Folks, raise your right hand if you know the difference!
But if it make the mid-towner’s feel better, maybe so.
Walter Klondyke,
You do not know the difference between establishing a state religion and a form of government. Is Great Britain a theocracy? They have a state religion. The US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. A theocracy would be illegal. Nutcase.
By geebee
April 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Please find a case where this “partial birth procedure” was actually done.
That’s an excellent display of the sense of a lib. Close thy eyes and see no evil. Stupidity becomes the left. link
According to the Guttmacher Institute, of 1.3 million abortions in 2000, the most recent data available, 2,200 involved this [partial birth] procedure.
This is a wingnut wet dream to feed the hypocrites who are pro war, pro death penalty but pro life.
As opposed to anti war, anti death penalty, but pro slaughtering of babies.
BTW, Cho was one of yours Jim.
He hated the wealthy and right wing Christian fundamentalists. That sounds like a lib on the loony left to me. Jim is certainly no wingnut lib.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Mr. Incredulous, none are. Thou shalt not murder is one of the 10 commandements. That’s why this shouldn’t even be an issue. Abortion is murder. It should be illegal. If everyone would get on board with that, then there would be no need for all these reviews and appeals on this issue.
By deegee
April 19, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Interesting to note how proud the right-to-lifers are of the caliber of their handguns. Oh, I know it’s only used for target practice and self-defense. That’s what the now deceased Mrs. Horace Henry probably thought. And I know that they are protecting their own right to life by owning large caliber hand guns. I wonder what Jesus would pack?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/stories/2007/04/18/0419metclayton.html
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
deegee, what a rant! It is sad that the fellow in Clayton county mistook his wife for an intruder, but that doesn’t change the fact that we must protect ourselves. It is not just a right to protect yourself and your famiily, it’s a responsibility!. You libbies want all that responsibility to rest with the government. I’m here to tell you that when the time comes, the governement will not be there to protect you. In fact, the way our appeals process works today, the criminals have more rights than the victims. Good luck to you if you think the government can pass and enforce enough laws to prevent you from ever being on the receiving end of a criminal’s weapon.
By Walter Klondyke
April 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
More breaking news from the bloody battle taking place in Northwest Georgia.
A person, identified only as Van, waded into the Conasauga River approaching the Whitfield County Sheriff Department’s foxholes.
“You do not know the difference between establishing a state religion and a form of government,” the wader said.
“You don’t get the concept of creative license for the sake of comedy,” a deputy replied before shooting the wader between the eyes.
More details as they happen…
By DawgBite
April 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
All the wannabe Marshall Dillons out there have to supplement their miniscule manhood with their guns. In their pee sized brains the bigger the gun the bigger the man. In reality they are still just little men. Most of them will blow their own foot off. Kinda like when they pee on their shoes. Most of them are Barney Fifes just waiting to happen.
By Dennis
April 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
By Mid-South Philosopher April 19, 2007 11:03 AM | “What frightens me about this decision is that the Court seemed to hold that in this matter, the Congress had a right to legislate on the basis of the morality of the issue.”
Which is an interesting contradiction enough to wonder if religious conservatives know what they really want, i.e., they want separation of church and state, but want the state to rule “morality” favorably on conservative religious tenents.
By way of note, there’s a new book out now about the Supreme Court - “Supreme Conflict”, by Greenberg. “The inside story of the struggle for control of the united states supreme court.”
Laughably, some of the “conservative” appointees don’t always turn out to be such conservatives.
By Van
April 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
geebee,
I do not understand the whining from the left, can’t you accept reasonable restrictions on abortions, like you want for firearms? It seems abortions kill way more than firearms do in this country.
By Dr. Engish
April 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Marshall is a name. An officer is a marshal. Thank you.
By geebee
April 19, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Babies are defenseless. Adult criminal thugs are not. Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in the state of Georgia and one of the lowest in the nation. There is a reason for that. link
VT was proud of their no guns on campus rules. Banning guns in Washington DC sure has helped as well, hasn’t it?
By jm
April 19, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Van@12:11 - are you a doctor (or did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night)?
By Angel
April 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
I am an incest victim who was impregnated by my biological father when I was 15 years old. I did not have access to an abortion at that age; my parents certainly weren’t going to help me. So I decided my only way out was to kill myself. I tried, but I didn’t die. I, however, did lose the baby. With my hospitalization, my parents were prosecuted and I was taken into Child Protective Services and put in foster care. Why weren’t any abortion foes there to take me in? To feed me, clothe me, love and support me? Would they have adopted and cared for a black child that was a product of incest? Right-to-Lifers are all talk—no action. They are anti-abortion because it’s convenient to them. Due to abortion laws and the fact that I couldn’t get one in my homestate at age 15, I nearly died, too, right along with the baby. Would Right-to-Lifers be proud?
By Dennis
April 19, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw April 19, 2007 12:09 PM “Dear All, forgive me if I return to topic temporarily: Does anyone know any intelligent reason our Democrat brethren do not attempt to repeal the “constitutional” law upheld yesterday? Or do they just want to whine? Are there no leaders on the left?”
I will not go so far as to claim to be a leader, but I work hard not to be a mere follower either, so, which constitutional law would that be, in your opinion?
And, let’s also consider, as males, just how much control we would want the courts and the states to have over our reproductive organs?
As example, and, in light of the attempted restrictions on the bodies of females, let’s say that you and I must have our testicles cut off after fathering two children, or even after one? Or, you MUST father at least five children and support them all whether you want to or not.
You don’t have to be a blind conservataive not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Corey
April 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
Time for the truth, your 10:40AM post is truly a poster child for the rabidly, hatefully insane. You will self-destruct on your own vile or burst a blood vessel and have a stroke. Your vile is not worth it. We are all specks of dust in a vast universe here on this planet called Earth for short time, relatively speaking. Do you have a life? Do you enjoy living? Stop giving power to people you despise so much. Peace.
By Dr. Engish
April 19, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Don’t you mean bile? As for tftt, bile is her lifeblood.
By Linda
April 19, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
After reading all the comments here, i felt sad that so many of you have used such ugly, hateful and irrational reasoning and i do mean irrational to a frightening extent, to abuse your freedom of speech…God save us from such hatred. So much for ” compassionate Conservatives” You are not even conservatives, you’re just ugly hateful people.
By Hugo
April 19, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
To TFTT, that blonde haired nutjob professor was Nikki Giovanni on of the best poets in America today besides Mya Angelou. Its amazing how someone can write so much and say so little. You are about as warped as Mr. Cho. Also aren’t we supposed to be discussing the Supreme Court decision. Its quite frustrating when I read a well thought out position on abortion on both sides and then I read a nutcase like TFTT.
By Miss RepubliChick
April 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
I hate making my own decisions. Thank GOD for George W. Bush and his Supreem Court appointees, the spineless, wussie Democrats who rolled over and let him be GOD on earth (Praise Him!), and the SILENCE of all the good reasonable men and women who made it possible. Glory be! These are some great times we’re moving into now, where we never have to worry about making our own decisions. Their a little rough on the hiney, but the Constitution, bill of rights, and all those other silly documents our country was founded on make great TP!
Hey Barbara, what kind of ransomb did you get for your cookie?
By deegee
April 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Beegee, infirmed old people in nursing homes are defenseless as well but how many people that rail against abortion have no problem pulling the plug on grandma because she’s been unresponsive in a nursing home for the last couple of years and she is having a financial impact on the family?
By Don't say you weren't warned ...
April 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
Linda and Hugo, y’all obviously ain’t from around here. TFTT is fixin’ to lay one on y’all I’m a-bettin’ It’s gone be ugly, too. But y’all brought it on yourselves.
By Jeff
April 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
jbm:
Good arguments.
Did you see Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion? It was something like two pages long. Says basically, “Though I do concur with the opinion of the majority in this case, I MUST reiterate my position that the Government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY in this arena, consistent with my opinions of both Stenberg and Casey.
I truly do agree with Justice Thomas. A great Constitutional scholar.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
Conservatives. Devoid of all reasoning. They sure do love passing laws about what women do with their bodies. So why do they scream about any law concerning their pseudo-phallic objects called “guns”?
By Donna P.
April 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
Birth control is easier than a partial birth abortion. Men and women should be responsible sexual partners and use birth control instead of relying on abortions to take care of your “mistakes”. I’m a 41 year old woman who at 16, went to the FREE CLINIC and got on the pill. Responsibility is part of having sex. I find partial birth abortions disgusting and barbaric. The baby is birthed and then killed. Sweet Jesus who is for doing this? Who finds this acceptable?
By Jonny
April 19, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
In RE Time for Truth:
Holy crap, I thought I was a right wing nut but that tirade made me wince a few times. In my experience, and this is anecdotal, I can safely dismiss an individual when he uses “K” to substitute for “C”. The rest of the rant confirms the anecdotal evidence.
By Dan
April 19, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
The diff between life of the mother and health of the mother, is that when Health of the mother is the deciding factor, a doctor could consider it adverse to her health if she had anxiety over the child or even as far as saying the financial burden could ultimately adversely affect her health. In other words health of the mother is too broad and really no restriction at all.
By Janet
April 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
Donna P: Birth control is not foolproof.
By Don't say you weren't warned ...
April 19, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
TFTT must be suffering one of her epic bouts of diarrhea, or else Corey, Dan and y’all other ones would already be holding your backsides from the tonguelashing she would have laid on y’all.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
You can tell Sweet Jesus that a partial-birth abortion might be done on a baby that is horribly deformed and certain to die shortly after birth. If it even survives that long. Do you think women have this type of procedure because they couldn’t work an abortion into their dayplanner soon enough?
By Don't say you weren't warned ...
April 19, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Sorry Dan, I mean’t Jonny. He better watch out.
By Carrie
April 19, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
According to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute partial birth abortions make up about 0.17% of all abortions performed. That’s it? People are all in a lather over 0.17%? Clearly, doctors are not using this procedure willy nilly.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Then that baby needs to die on God’s schedule, not it’s wh*re mama’s or some namby pamby doctor’s.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Does anybody really think that if abortion were illegal and one of George Bush’s daughters wanted one that she wouldn’t be on an airplane, first class of course, to a clinic in Europe where such a procedure would be performed safely and privately?
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Amen Donna P!
RepubliChick, I didn’t get anything for it. That’s not my style. I give my faithful commitment to my husband in return for his love and faithfulness. I am sorry that you haven’t had the pleasure of the company of that type of man. As to your rants about making your own decisions, no one is taking that from you. If you decide to have sex, that is your decision. No one is stopping you. But if your behavior results in a child that has not yet been born, aborting it is murder. We don’t allow folks to go around making decisions to murder those who have already been born; why should we let folks murder the unborn?
And Janet, don’t kid yourself honey. If you take the birth control methods properly, they are almost 100% effective. People who say they were on one of these methods and still got pregnant are almost always lying, because they are too ashamed to admit they were not acting responsibly. Our society loves to blame someone else and not take ownership of our own responsibilities. I, like Donna P, got free pills when I was 16 as well. To my shame, I did not wait until I was married to have sex. I had quite the active sex life from the time I was 16, until I married at 21, and through my marriage until age 23. I took my pill every day and never got pregnant. I stopped taking the pill when the husband and I decided it was time for a child, and presto! Pregnant! And when we had 4 children and decided to stop, we agreed that, at birth of the 4th, if I got a C-section, I got fixed; if not, he got fixed. (Hee-hee….. lucky me, not so lucky him…..) Anyway, that was 12 years ago, and since I responsibly do not have sex with anyone but him, miracle of miracles! No more pregnancies. It’s not rocket science.
By Donna P.
April 19, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
I guess only “horribly deformed” babies deserve to be birthed and killed. They are going to die anyway, so what’s the big deal?
By Ted
April 19, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
TGTT, that “blonde haired nut job”, Nikki Giovanni- a noted Black poet- expelled Mr. Cho from her class after she realized he was nuts for fear of losing others in her class. Read “Professor Expelled Cho form Her Class” in today’s AJC. You are probably one of those individuals who deride the mention of Black History. Ignorance is not bliss.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Angel - you wil lfind that bloggers like ttft, rednekk, etc. will not respond when you raise a serious issue as they’re only trying to get a reaction. I’m sorry for what happened to you, but the partial-birth abortion is more complicated. If you’ve ever seen pictures of the aftermath, I think you’d understand. It is simply one of the most horrific, if not the horrific, medical procedures devised and I for one cannot believe that modern medicine cannot come up with another procedure that is not so heinous. The larger issue of course is the “right” set out in Roe vs. protection of an unborn life. Given that everytime an egg is fertilized it creates a unique, never to be seen again DNA sequence, I can’t help but wonder how many Mandelas, Ghandis, Mother Teresas, MLKS, Salks, etc. we killed in the name of “choice” and for “health” (which is not clearly defined ergo open to a wide variety of interpretations). Given how sick our society has become, we can use all the help we can find and maybe one of those aborted unborns were it. Sadly, abortion is just another symptom of our illness.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
However, I doubt that any state would even try to establish a state religion.
Ever heard of Alabama?
By Donna P.
April 19, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
I agree with Filster. You said everything I feel about abortion. All of us are sick if we accept this and think it is ok. As a society, we should want to protect our unborn children. We should want to protect life.
By deegee
April 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Barbara, those pills might have been free for you but they cost somebody something. Who subsidized your fornicating? Was it the taxpayers? Are you aware that a young woman at age 16 is at them most fertile stage in her life? When the pill is taken perfectly the failure rate is 1 in 1000. When taken imperfectly it is 3 in 1000. I hope you tied your daughters’ knees shut.
By Shar
April 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Yesterday, five men decided that the health of every American woman of childbearing age is not an adequate reason to permit her and her doctor to make private, informed decisions about her medical care. Instead, the moral judgements of these five men take supremacy.
If this kind of decision were made regarding the private medical decisions to treat other medical conditions, there would be an outcry. But because this has to do with sex and reproduction, some amorphous definition of personal morality is permitted to trump medical advice and personal choice.
The abortion debate comes down to the right of a fetus to be born versus the right of a woman to control her body and the structure of her life. On a broader level, it pits those who believe that a moral society protects life, even hypothetical life, and those who believe that an existing individual’s quality of life andn right to self determination is more worthy of protection.
The debate is theoretical, but the battleground has become the medical choices and procedures that put moral decisions into practice. If the means by which to abort are circumscribed, the debate can be won de facto, even if the moral position is not generally accepted. And if inserting some floating idea of morality between a patient and her doctor can make that happen, so much the better.
Except it isn’t. Mandating that a patient’s health not be the primary concern of her physicial sets a dangerous and insupportable precedent. More broadly, if abortion is made increasingly difficult, women who do not want to bear children will go back to self-abortion or backstreet methods. No one favors that.
If the argument is in the theoretical, moral, policy sphere, leave it there - do not drag it into the realm of implementation. The issue is whether or not the woman has the right to make this decision. The way in which it is done is no one’s business besides the woman and her physician.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
deegee, yes, I’m sure the “free” pills were paid for by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I would gladly contribute to providing young women with the pill to prevent pregnancy. Happily for me, I don’t have to tie my 16 year old’s legs shut. She has shown no signs of wanting an intimate relationship and has even made agreements with other youth in her school and in her church youth group that they will not have sex before marriage. However, should she fall off the wagon before she is married, I would never encourage her to have an abortion. I would encourage adoption first.
Shar, I know you and I agree on this issue, but I want to add one thing to your post. I think the debate comes down more along the line of when life begins; not the right of a fetus to be born versus termination of a “hypothetical life”. (Aweful term, by the way. A fetus is a life; there’s nothing hypoththetical about it.) The woman’s right to a decision is when she decides to have sex. If she makes that decision, she must live with the consequences. I know you are a very intelligent and kind lady. Surely you leave a little room to see that an unborn child is a unique life that God created? I expect we will probably never agree on this point, but I just want to make one more appeal to you.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
If that horribly deformed baby has severe hydroencephalitis it can cripple the mother during birth, then die. But that’s just all part of God’s plan! So Sandman if you have severe chest pains, instead of going to an ER, just trust in Him. Or the Supreme Court.
And Shar @ 2:03—-well said.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
The woman’s right to a decision is when she decides to have sex.
Have you ever heard of rape?
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Oops, Shar, I meant to say I know you and I disagree on this issue…..
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
lovelyliz, yes I have. You can’t possibly think that the majority of abortion-seekers are victims of rape? Where is the evidence? And don’t think that some won’t say that when they’re down at the abortion clinic, because, like I said earlier, people would rather lie than admit they were acting carelessly. So I would expect that any numbers kept by abortion clinics would have artificially high counts of rape or failed birth control being the reason.
I’ve got mixed feelings on pregnancies resulting from rape. I agree that rape is a terrible crime, but a child is never a terrible outcome, regardless of how that child was conceived.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
I put my trust in the Lord Almighty, George W. Bush and Sonny Perdue.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah, and the newly crowned Supreme Deacon of Whitfield County.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
I think Sonny’s a veterinarian, so he should be able to render the appropriate care for you Sandman.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
He’s already clipped me, but only the left one. I might want to knock a woman up one day.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
I don’t like abortion, but I also don’t like the government passing legislation that they & theirs will never have to follow.
By deegee
April 19, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
Abortion is a horribly painful decision for a woman to make. It’s not done capriciously and as long as it is legal it should be the woman’s right to make the decision and not the church/state’s decision. The term partial birth was coined by a congressman in order to sensationalize what is truly a medical procedure, IDX. They are rare prodedures and unfortunately they are being used as a hot button issue in political races. As soon as a candidate declares his/her position on partial birth abortion the battle line is drawn. Sad.
I would prefer to see the stigma removed from adoption in order to encourage more young people to give a child up to a couple that would like to adopt a child. It’s ridiculously expensive to adopt and that’s if you can find a suitable birth mother.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
You can’t possibly think that the majority of abortion-seekers are victims of rape?
No, but evidently some think that every woman who ever got pregnant did so willing. Abortion can’t be an easy thing for the vast majority of people to consider. I just know that if the government bans all procedures, those who are most likely to sit in their ivory towers will still have abortion as a viable option to them.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Sandman, just be glad you don’t have the VA on the list of things you trust. They would have taken the wrong one.
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 12:45, I apologize for short-hand. The law, ruled constitutional yesterday, is a Federal prohibition of the procedure often called partial birth abortion; Jim mentioned it in his opening essay today, although I supposed you skipped over that. My question, that left you flummoxed, asks why the left whines and fails to take concrete steps to repeal the law. I perceive you think the Congress is for mere posturing and the real work is to be done by the President and by the Court? Why do you not condemn the lazy worthless junta that has seized control of the Congress? (Please note, I’m not suggesting that the one who fails to see it is ignorant.)
As to your preoccupation with your private parts, obviously you know of some emasculating legislation wending its way through our new radical Congress; I fear that knowledge escapes me, but I would not be surprised to hear of such by Ms. Pelosi and her moonbat cohorts.
Dear Corey @ 12:46 and Hugo @ 12:55, I disagree. I thought TFTT’s opening post was a hoot. I don’t know why you leftists wallow in hatred; just learn to laugh. He was not talking about you in particular.
Dear Jeff @ 1:07, thanks for the heads up. I had not seen it.
Dear Carrie @ 1:52, if I read your note correctly, since this is a rare procedure, you have no dispute with the Congressional condemnation, affirmed by the Supreme Court?
Dear Shar @ 2:03, I think you misperceive what happened. Yesterday five men decided that five men should not preclude the work of the political representatives in an area not otherwise precluded to Congress. The original Roe decision reflects breathtaking arrogance.
I suspect the presence of an unrepresented third party with a potentially fatal interest in the status quo calculus (at least status quo before yesterday) also caused some concern for the majority of the court. For many of us, the “patient” is the unborn child.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
Deegee - I’m sure that many of Josef Mengeles’ experiments were truly medical experiments, but that does not dismiss their heinous nature. Folks, the only thing banned yesterday was the partial-birth abortion. All the “pros” argue how rare it is, extreme it is, etc. So since yesterday’s decision only affected the so-called handful of cases, what’s the big uproar? There are alternative procedures, yes? Early-term abortions were not affected, yes? Barbara, well said but I think your appeal is lost on Shar. She seems like a my way or no way individual and once again, this only affects one single abortive technique.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
Good point. By now you have figured out I actually agree with you, but am just a satirist, aka smart@$$. My apologies for pulling your chain.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
lovelyliz, I am not sure I agree with that arguement. I’ve heard it used many times (that those who can most afford it will still have access). If it is made illegal, I just don’t think it will be that easy to get. I’ve also heard the arguements that desperate folks will be performing self-abortions. While that is a tragic possibility, I still believe that the number of unwanted pregnancies will go down, because a few of those more careless individuals will be a little more careful if they think they might have to endure that type of procedure.
I don’t believe that all pregnant women got that way willingly, but I would bet my salary that 99.99% of them did (or maybe more than that even.) Pregnancies that are the result of rape are extremely rare. But I know 2 different ladies who went ahead with their pregnancies after being raped, and their children are wonderful loving kids. And the fathers are loving parents to those kids. Getting pregnant is not the end of the world. It just puts certain things on hold for a while.
By Ewwww. Sick.
April 19, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
“But I know 2 different ladies who went ahead with their pregnancies after being raped, and their children are wonderful loving kids. And the fathers are loving parents to those kids.”
Do you live in Ellijay or what? Yuck.
By Law and Order
April 19, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Barbara those rapists belong in prison. For life.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Oh, so you actually still have two…never mind.
I know it’s satire when someone mentions the Lord Almighty, George W. Bush, and Sonny Perdue in the same sentence. Unfortunately, the satire is often unknown to the ones who are typing it.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Those who can afford to take private abortion vacations to clinics in Europe will continue to do so no matter what the laws of this country are.
And they will do so easily.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this
Law and Order, you misunderstood what I meant by “Fathers”. I’m not talking about the rapists; I’m talking about the husbands of the rape victims.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
Eww and Aquagirl - shame on you. You ridicule someone for an act of kindness you yourselves apparently are not capable of. Someone who chooses life over abortion in those circumstances is a remarkable individual whose humanity goes far deeper than yours or mine. Oh, I forgot. Your acceptance only goes to those individuals who goose step to your views.
By Law and Order
April 19, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the clarification.
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
Dear lovelyliz @ 3:02, why do you omit the people’s paradise of Cuba from your argument. We often hear about their great medical care. You can imagine the advertising,”Vacuum your womb, and samba tonight.”
By Ewww
April 19, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
No, shame on you Filster. Rapists belong behind bars, not playing any role whatsoever in the lives of their victims.
By Ellen
April 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Barbara, what you wrote is a travesty to anyone who has ever been raped. How dare you imply how any rape victim should handle the consequences of such brutality. What’s right for one person isn’t right for another. It’s people like you that victimize rape victims all over again.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw
If abortion become illegal and that’s an option, the privileged who can afford to do so will.
By Sandman
April 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
Actually, three. My dad was a deformed rapist.
Help me. Can’t stop myself. AAAARGH!
OK. I’m done now. Good day all, especially Aquagirl ;)
By Filster
April 19, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
Eww - however did you distort my email to allege that rapists should play any role in the lives of their victims? Someone I don’t think those families are allowing visitation rights. All I said (feel free to re-read it) is that those 2 families Barbara referred to chose (key word) life over abortion. Sort of turning the other cheek and not holding another’s sin against the innocent. Look at it that way if you’re capable of it. And remember, rape is a crime of vioence intended to control, degrade, etc. Sex is only the method though which it’s perpetrated. And I concur with you. Rapists belong behind bars, or worse.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Filster, I ridiculed the Lord Almighty, George W, and Sonny Perdue. And perhaps Sandman with his one…nevermind. None of them possess a uterus (especially the Lord, being unquestionably a man) so I’m not sure who you think I was talking about.
But let me point out that those who want laws to force others to their point of view are more properly called goosesteppers. I think the choice should be up to the woman and her doctor. You’re the one who thinks you’re smarter, and silly women need you or a bunch of politicians to make the decision. Go polish up those boots.
By Slotl
April 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
So, according to the Supreme Court, a fetus has more rights than the mother.
By Shar
April 19, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
Barbara: we agree on many things, but I fear this is not one of them. I respect your right to hold your beliefs, and I appreciate the faith from which they spring. However, I don’t share them. I would perhaps agree with jbmlaw when he suggests that one side believes the patient to be the fetus, and the other side the woman. In deciding between their rival interests, I support the person who is actual (and saying that a fetus is “hypothetical” is not meant to be offensive, just truthful, particularly in light of current estimates that over 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort within the first three months). I do so because I recognize that having a baby is an intensely personal choice, that it changes the form and priorities of the parent’s life, that raising a child to be a productive contributing person requires total commitment from well before the moment of conception. If a woman does not feel that she can do this, whether because she is a teenager and has not yet developed the resources to care for herself and her child, or because she already has more children than she can care for, or because she does not wish to make that commitment, or because the nature of the conception (rape, incest, etc) made it impossible for her to bond with the resultant child, or because carrying or delivering a child will endanger her own health, I support her right to weigh her options and make her own choice. Having made it, she should be allowed to implement it in whatever manner she and her doctor believe is most appropriate.
My own health was compromised by a molar pregnancy. I subsequently chose and successfully carried three pregnancies and have dedicated my time to raising those children. I am intimately aware of the myriad costs of my husband’s and my decision to have those children, and I have read many, many complaints on this blog from those who bitterly resent “welfare mothers” who irresponsibly bring children into the world without the means, or the motivation, to care for them. Those children are frequently neglected from conception, giving rise to low birth weights, developmental problems, and later behavioral and academic problems.
Children, I will agree, are a gift. They are also a huge responsibility. I don’t believe that anyone is well served by forcing women to carry babies against their will, or by curtailing their access to medical care that puts their health first. I believe that is immoral and wrong, just as you believe that abortion is immoral and wrong. Does your morality trump mine, or does mine trump yours? I say neither. I make choices that serve my beliefs, and I absolutely respect your right to do likewise. Instead of what Filster calls “my way or no way”, I’d say that I respect and support whichever “way” each woman carefully and thoughtfully chooses.
And you’re still invited over to try out my fainting couch.
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
Dear aquagirl @ 3:22, would you agree that those who would murder the unborn innocent qualify as goosesteppers by your definition?
By jbmlaw
April 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this
Dear slotti @ 3:25, it is customary in law to give greater government protection to those less able to protect themselves. Trustees and other fiduciaries are held to the highest ethical standard of performance. To many of us, the mother is the child’s “trustee.”
By Me!
April 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this
Filster, maybe you should go back and read Barbara’s comment again. The way her comment was written it implied the biological fathers (rapists) of these children were good fathers to them. This is why I beleive Ewwww was bothered.
By ChrisD3
April 19, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
For an example of someone who skirts the law and performs late term abortions on demand (by making up a reason that the mother’s health is threatened), research Dr. Tillman, a Kansas abortion provider.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
Aqua - once again I reiterate that yesterday’s decision affected only one single abortive technique, which according to abortion’s supporters is rarely used, etc. It did nothing to affect your rights elsewhere yet you act as if all abortions were just outlawed. As I said earlier I just have to believe that modern medicine has an alternative to partial birth abortions. Ever seen one? Ever seen the fetus afterwards? Add to the fact that a fetus aborted via this technique is, or at least can be, viable. Why not a ceasarian and place the child up for adoption. Not all partial-borths are for children with birth deformities, etc. And since “health” is not defined it is subject to varying definitions. Your health might be my convenience and vice versa. And no, I am not smarter than anyone here (except maybe ttft…) I base my thoughts and words on conversation with friends who have been assaulted, victims of incest, etc. as well as personal beliefs. Unfortunately this subject is an all or nothing and allows no middle ground or compromise. But again, no one has taken away your “rights” (and I sue that because legal rights come from either the Declaration, legislature, etc. and no State anywhere has a law on the books specifically saying a woman has a right to abortion. That was Roe. Perhaps “liberty” but I don’t think abortion was included in that thought process. As for goosestepping, it was an alluded to incident and unfair but I did not mean you in particular. Shar, it’s not a my way or no way. If it were my way, I would hope that all abortions would be outlawed but then again I would hope that they’d never be needed in the frist place. Again, this is merely one, supposedly seldom used procedure. Can’t you give one little bit, or is it really your way or no way. And to head everyone off, no, I don’t support shooting or bombings, ok?
By Jack
April 19, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
I think a woman has the right to choose but they need to do so in the first trimester.
By Shar
April 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw@3:32 - there are more of us who believe that the mother is a person, an individual with her own rights, not a “trustee” first and foremost.
A woman is considerably more than a vessel. Motherhood, like fiduciary responsibility, should be voluntary.
By Louise
April 19, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Filster wrote, “I just have to believe that modern medicine has an alternative to partial birth abortions”
If Filster has facts to support his faith in medicine, then it’s reality…otherwise, it’s ideology. Ideology (i.e. “I just have to believe”) is no way to run a country.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
Me! If that was indeed Barbara’s meaning then I misread it. By fathers, I took it that she meant these women’s husbands who embraced these children. If it was the rapist being a “loving father” that’s kind of an oxymoron considering they’re RAPISTS!!!! Slotl - not greater rights. Just equal. After all, they’re human too.
By Ewww
April 19, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
No Filster YOU misinterpreted my post. The only thing I objected to was a rapist having any contact with a victim. Thankfully Barbara later pointed out these fathers were not the rapists, but husbands of the victims. The women are indeed commendably strong.
By ChrisD3
April 19, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
For an example of someone who skirts the law and performs late term abortions on demand (by making up a reason that the mother’s health is threatened), research Dr. Tillman, a Kansas abortion provider.
By JK
April 19, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
ChrisD3, please post your name and address so we can send you “salvation” mail and walk peacefully with signs in the street in front of your house. Thanks!
By Filster
April 19, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Eww - then I unjustly accused you and I apologize. Well, at least we kept to the subject of the column today, which is saying a lot. As usual, we all agree to disagree and despite opposing views resorted to very little insulting and namecalling. Isn’t it a shame that those with access to the media can’t behave the same.
Eww, Aqua and all. Peace be upon you. And here’s to one day when perhaps we’ll never have to have this argument becausee no abortion will ever be needed. Then again, I have yet to lose hope that humanity may one day realize the full potential of the gift of life and choice. And maybe even one day I can actually type something without typos…..
By Joe
April 19, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Filster,
Civics 101 — legal rights are provided for in the U.S. Constitution. With regard to the right of privacy (of which abortion rights are included), it’s not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. However, read up on the Ninth Amendment.
By ChrisD3
April 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
JK, I’ll to the salvation mailings. I am Godly and you are not. If you show up my house, understand I believe in the Second Amendment as well.
By Shar
April 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
Filster@3:42 - It was you who earlier suggested that I am a “my way or no way” person, and that suggestion was what I alluded to above. As far as giving a little bit, I think that subjugating medical recommendations to an uninterested party’s definition of morality is a radical notion, not a little issue.
IDX is, indeed, rarely used, which makes me think that it serves a very particular medical need, and is therefore employed by doctors in very particular circumstances. No, I have never seen it performed, but I have never seen most medical procedures performed. They are ALL more gruesome than I care to witness, but where do we draw the “too icky” line? Amputation? Colon removal? Brain tumor? By this reasoning, anything requiring more than a bandaid or a medicinal kiss on the forehead is at risk. Remember, that is about as far as Christian Scientists are willing to go with medical intervention. Do we all have to concur with their beliefs?
As I posted earlier, the method used is between the doc (assumably inurred to the repellant nature of surgery) and the woman. The decision to abort is the policy issue, not the means by which to do it.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this
Uhh, Joe. The 9th Amendment deals with “the enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights.” Please show me where abortion is, in plain language, set forth in the Const. Can’t find it? Didn;t think so. What you might find is a right according to your interpretation. I hope you realize that is the current Court were on the bench when Roe came before it then abortion might not have been deemed a “right” and we wouldn’t be having this discussion ergo I place greater emphasis on rights which are explicitly provided for and spelled out rather than find their genesis in someone’s interpretation du jour. I knew someone who claimed that “people have a right to have pizza delivered to their door” in bringing a lawsuit because Dominos would not go into a housing project where 3 of its drivers had been robbed, and then shot. Rights. An oft-overused and frequently misunderstood word. Privilege is more like it. Explain my take mate?
By time for the truth
April 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
@ Puko and the other humourless leftist wankpigs on here … that blond black lesbo dwarf is a deranged leftist nutter … poetry, especially narcissistic vile multi-culti poetry as this sad inadequate self congratulating, self absorbed hag puked up is utterly inappropriate at such a solemn occasion as the recent aftermath of a massacre by some bloodthirsty asian psychopath. Did someone spike his ‘hot dog’, or roast leg of Dalmatian the night before with some really bad acid or something … I know Koreans all eat dogs regularly, so its just a well informed guess as to the trigger of his depraved Queertin Tarantino like rampage.
I note with utter disgust that some pathetic spoiled skoolgirl morons are pimping a website in his defence … and the leftist party of hate media is not subjecting them to the same kind of hate speech it is cheerily vomiting up for the NRA.
Just because some black lesbian midget and a literal leftist t wat labels itself a “p o e t” is NO reason to respect it … poetry of the feminazi multi-culti putrid kind (as if there were any other any afrocentric d yke type could conjure) is no more socially acceptable than say having a known Arkansas rapist preying on vulnerable fat ugly interns with knee pads in the White House.
The leftist scum on here continuously debase themselves and this blog with their bloated smug hypocrisy and their refusal to EVER condemn anyone to the left of AZ Senator John McKennedy.
It seems that the execrable Fister is becoming unhinged on this topic …
My new Glock is great Barbara - quite loud and very fast firing rate - perfect for dealing with any anal obsessive leftist stalker who haplesly slithers down my way …
Oh Yeah … Cheers once again jbm …
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 19, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
To Jbmlaw@11:42 and Van@11:45,
Sorry I am only responding now, but I do have to complete my “honey do” list.
First, to Jbmlaw@11:42, I suspect that right of any state to establish a religion, via the 1st and 10th Amendment, would be mitigated by the application of the 14th Amendment. However, Justice Thomas has made his feelings clear on this matter. I am not sure how many of the other conservatives on the Court share his view.
Second to Van@11:45, I was being somewhat facetious. Given the strong social conservative jib of this legislature, if the new good ole boys and girls now meeting under the gold dome thought they could get away with it, Sonny might become First High Priest of the Corporatist Church of Georgia….hallelujah!
It amazes me how social conservatives, who decry the power of the national government (as I do), are so willing to submit to the usurpations of LIBERTY that more often come from state government.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Shar - guess I’m just used to the more liberal bloggers being all or nothing. AS for “IDX” (so much more palatable than a partial birth abortion, which aptly names the delivery of the fetus’ legs and torso and then inserting a vaccuum currette through the base of the skull to suck out the brains and collapse the skull to a more managable diameter). [Sorry, played dirty there but it is what it is]. Not all medical procedures are gruesome, and many are simply incredible to watch at what we’ve learned to do to heal/cure. Unfortunately, IDX ain’t one of them. Though we disagree in part, you have my utmost respect for carrying your 3 pregnancies to term, and I’m being neither condescending nor sanctimonious. Common ground maybe? Nite all.
By I told y'all ...
April 19, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
I told all y’all newbies that once she got off the pot from her diahrrea fit, tftt would get on here and rip y’all a new one with her truthful descriptions. Better y’all than me. You’ns was warned.
By time for the truth
April 19, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
as for the sad snivelling wanker who bloviated earlier about “black history” … you sad racist turd … history is simply history - only racist d!ckheads seek to ascribe colour to history. white folks aren’t pathetic enough or arrogant enough to ever demand a “white history” event, let alone turn a mercifully short pointless history “week” into a long and decidedly turgid and embarassing “month” … endlessly rehashing mostly pretty worthless and lame “achievments” HA HA HA … NOTE THE SARDONIC IRONY … dismally puffed up by a pandering guilt ridden media mafia that love to impose their own narrow, bigoted, hate America agenda on the rest of us.
By JK
April 19, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
By ChrisD3 April 19, 2007 4:07 PM | JK, I’ll to the salvation mailings. I am Godly and you are not. If you show up my house, understand I believe in the Second Amendment as well.
Oooooo, not only godly, but SMART TOO! Wow, you don’t even know me, but from one simple request, you know the depths of my soul. Do you gaze in crystal balls as the bible forbids, or is the Lord sitting on your shoulder whispering details of the lives of bloggers?
And you forgot COURAGEOUS! Brave enough to call for the persecution of another but not brave enough to show yourself! My my my… are you saying you don’t think the LORD will protect you from lil’ ol’ ME? Is that why you threaten lil’ ol’ me with a firearm? Is HE not greater than a cardboard sign?
Gosh, I’m learning so much about GOD today! Thanks buddy!
By Joe
April 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
Uhh Filster,
I wrote that the right of privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Yet you write, “Please show me where abortion is, in plain language, set forth in the Const. Can’t find it? Didn;t think so.” You’re sarcasm is not appreciated, especially since I addressed that point.
You also quoted a portion of the Ninth Amendment, not the entire thing. Here it is again: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Let me restate this “in plain language”. Just because certain rights are not specifically listed (ex: freedom of the press, freedom of speech) doesn’t mean that other rights “retained by the people” can be denied. The founders included the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically so that people couldn’t say “show me where blankety blank is set forth in the Constitution”. Our Constitutional rights are not limited to those specified in the other Amendments.
What are these rights “retained by the people”? As you stated, they’re open to interpretation. This is a major reason why it’s important for us to elect the right President. If the wrong person or persons are appointed to the Supreme Court, we’re usually stuck with their interpretations for a generation or more.
This decision chipping away at abortion rights was made, not the other day, but when we re-elected Bush in 2004 and gave him the opportunity to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Now we’re stuck with Roberts’ and Alito’s right wing activist views for decades.
By Dennis
April 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw April 19, 2007 2:47 PM Dear Dennis @ 12:45, “My question, that left you flummoxed, asks why the left whines and fails to take concrete steps to repeal the law.”
Interesting how on the one hand you apologize for your “shorthand” and then insinuate that somehow you have “flummoxed” me. But, if it makes you feel better, I’ll let that ride.
“As to your preoccupation with your private parts, obviously you know of some emasculating legislation wending its way through our new radical Congress; I fear that knowledge escapes me.”
I will suggest that you’ve read my post “posthaste” and didn’t read, nor comprehend, in either comment what I said. And that, for an “attorney” is scary.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
To Joe@4:33,
It would be interesting to know what the Founders of our nation and, more especially, the drafters of the Constitution in 1787, as well as those who added the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) in the period 1787-89 would think of the application of that document by activist justices from both the conservative and liberal camps…and there are and have been activists in both camps.
By lovelyliz
April 19, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
Don’t forget those 150 lawyers who graduated from Regents Law School and are now in government jobs. The same law school with a 60% bar exam failure rate that is a 4th tier law school the lowest ranking. The law school run by Pat Robertson. The law school that seems less intent on teaching law than it is in getting people into positions where they can ignore it or change it all together.
By Joe
April 19, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this
Mid-South,
You are entirely correct. However, it’s the conservatives (so-called) who claim to be strict constructionists while continually accusing liberals of being activists. On that point, they are hypocrites. I’m simply throwing their ludicrous statements back at them.
By Walter Klondyke
April 19, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
This just in…
The Supreme Deacon of Whitfield County has declared a halt to hostilities against heavily Holiness Murray County and withdrawn its forces back across the Conasauga River.
At the height of battle this afternoon, Gov. Sonny Perdue dispatched flack Dan McLagan to mediate a peace.
Upon hearing him speak, both side’s combatants said in unison, “This here boy’s the Devil,” and withdrew after McLagan promised to take his pitchfork back to Atlanta and never return.
By getalife
April 19, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
He hated the wealthy and right wing Christian fundamentalists. That sounds like a lib on the loony left to me. Jim is certainly no wingnut lib.
Yea right, that is why he was spewing about Moses and Jesus.
Blaming others for his disaster.
Like Jim, that is full blown wingnut.
Geez.
By Filster
April 19, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Joe - funny you should say that about Roberts and Alito. I felt the same when when brenan and marshall were put on the court. What goes around comes around, bwaaa hahahahaha. All kiding aside, we are both misconsturing each other, and while I may have been a bit glib (like I wasn’t stuck for years with Ginsberg and Souter’s left-wing activism… 8>) I wasn’t being sarcastic. My point, if I had one, was that “rights” which are not enumerated can come and go because they are left up to interpretations and that supports both of our positions. That said, the best solution would be for our political “leaders” to stand up and acutally take a position and then work onbringing whatever into a law. But the word “rights” is vastly overused and needs to be better defined.
By Aquagirl
April 19, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
Oh, it may not be just the Pat Robertson types… Activist judges indeed. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3587.html
By Dennis
April 19, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
By Mid-South Philosopher April 19, 2007 4:38 PM | “It would be interesting to know what the Founders of our nation and, more especially, the drafters of the Constitution in 1787, as well as those who added the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) in the period 1787-89 would think of the application of that document by activist justices from both the conservative and liberal camps…and there are and have been activists in both camps.”
Yes, in both camps. And it would be interesting to know their opinions as to whether the Constitution is a static or a viable instrument as to interpretation.
By the way, if you can get the book I mentioned earlier “Supreme Conflict” by Greenberg, I think will add to your statement of conservative “activist”. It isn’t just the liberals on the court who are, much to the shagrin of the presidents who championed them, activist.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By getalife
April 19, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
This decision kills both the child and the mother.
Happy now wingnuts?
By Gunny
April 19, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
getalife. Nah. Yer still walkin’ around, ain’t ya?
By JK
April 19, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this
C’mon ChrisD3, post your name & hometown like you posted that doctor’s. If the Lord and truth are on your side, you have nothing to fear. If you are armed, as you stated, then you’ll have a good time shooting unarmed peaceful protesters like a GOOD CHRISTIAN, now won’t you? Don’t be a yellow-livered sissy. Mr. Wooten will write wonderful things about you during your murder trial.
By ChrisD3
April 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
Dear Ellen @3:13, I am a rape victim, okay? And I would never bring disgrace to someone who suffered that dreadful crime. But there are more choices than abortion. And like I said, the number of abortions that are due to rapes is extremely rare.
Shar, you’re a cool cat. I’ll faint with you any time!
By Jeff
April 19, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this
Someone (jbm maybe?) please correct me if I’m wrong, as I haven’t read Roe in quite a while, but if I remember correctly (and read Justice Thomas’ opinions correctly), Roe was NOT decided under the 9th Ammendment, but rather under the power of the Congress to regulate commerce.
If I read Justice Thomas correctly, it seems that he would say that there may well exist a right to abortions under the 9th, but NOT under the Commerce Clause, as abortions cases are currently decided.
By Van
April 19, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher, Re: your 4:24
The First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law”. That seems clear, Congress can not make any laws regarding the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise of it.
So far, seems simple enough.
The 10th says what? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Well the states were not prohibited from any part of the first amendment.
Well thats 2 out of 3
On to the 14th. Possibly the worse written one in the group. Too broad and vague.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Notice there is no mention of rights, just “privileges or immunities of citizens”. I fail to see anything in the 14th to forbid a state from establishing a state religion. If Georgia’s legislature votes to make Southern Baptist the state religion, or Stone Mountain a state monument, what part would forbid the state from doing such. I agree, rational men would not take this course of action and the voters would rise up against them. But, I content that the state can name a state religion. They just can not change the form of government of the state.
By Barbara
April 19, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this
Good one Gunny!
By jm
April 19, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this
well, one good thing that might come out from this is that abortion rights might finally start being put on some ballots. It would be interesting to see what the results are, like the voters of South Dakota voting against banning abortions. I think too many government officials have been more than willing to let this stay in the court rather than take decisive action.
By Van
April 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this
Folks,
I see that the magical Harry Reid has pronounced that the “War is lost”. He must have such power that Harry Potter is in awe of him.
By getalife
April 19, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
Hard to accept another Vietnam huh Van?
Did not learn a damn thing.
Cheer up, the slaughter will continue war monger until we leave.
w wants to kill thousands more Iraqis to appease your blood lust wingnut.
By prodigy
April 19, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
JK is one of those loudmouth protesting nutty Dems intentially looking to instigate trouble. Threats to one’s person are open to interpretation, especially in Georgia now.
By CDog
April 19, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this
Hallelujah! Finally, a decision by the Supreme Court that undoes judicial activism of the past. It is sad that we need a court decision to tell us that murdering children is wrong. I agree with Jim Wooten that Anthony Kennedy is not really a strict contructionist. While siding with the conservatives on the court on the peripheral issues surround abortion, he still sides with liberals (supposedly) on the core finding of Roe. But regardless, this is great day for the unborn and for all who believe in protecting innocent life. Hopefully, this will start a chain reaction. We will have to wait until John Paul Stevens kicks the bucket for the final nail in the abortion coffin.
By CDog
April 19, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
Hallelujah! Finally, a decision by the Supreme Court that undoes judicial activism of the past. It is sad that we need a court decision to tell us that murdering children is wrong. I agree with Jim Wooten that Anthony Kennedy is not really a strict contructionist. While siding with the conservatives on the court on the peripheral issues surround abortion, he still sides with liberals (supposedly) on the core finding of Roe. But regardless, this is great day for the unborn and for all who believe in protecting innocent life. Hopefully, this will start a chain reaction. We will have to wait until John Paul Stevens kicks the bucket for the final nail in the abortion coffin.
By getalife
April 19, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this
getalife. Nah. Yer still walkin’ around, ain’t ya?
No, but thanks for asking.
Here ya go
Have a nice day.
By Van
April 19, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this
Folks,
This decision goes hand and glove with Roe V. wade. As part of the ruling in Roe,
“For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
Notice it said either the health or the life of the mother.
By Joe
April 19, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this
CDog wrote “Finally, a decision by the Supreme Court that undoes judicial activism of the past…Anthony Kennedy is not really a strict contructionist…”
Mid-South,
See what I mean?
By DJ
April 20, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this
Gosh - Jim Wooten - spewing the ultra-right wing party line about abortion AND the “liberal” media. Who would have thought?? How about adding something new to the debate instead of repeating the same right-wing apologist talking points again and again and again? A monkey with a typewriter could do that.