Login Here
Just now getting my hands on the full opinions and dissents, but SCOTUSblog has the rundown on today's opinion as a thumbnail for everyone.
Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a sweeping -- and only barely qualified -- victory to the federal government and to other opponents of abortion, upholding the 2003 law that banned what are often called "partial-birth abortions." The majority insisted it was following its abortion precedents, so none of those was expressly overruled. The dissenters strenuously disputed that the ruling was faithful to those precedents.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the first-ever decision by the Court to uphold a total ban on a specific abortion procedure -- prompting the dissenters to argue that the Court was walking away from the defense of abortion rights that it had made since the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 recognized a constitutional right to end pregnancy medically. Roe v. Wade was not overturned by the new ruling, as some filings before the Court had urged....
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling "an alarming decision" that refuses "to take seriously" the Court's 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law.
Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said "the Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health." She said the federal ban "and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power."
More on this as I get time to read and digest the rulings. Please link up commentary that you find useful or compelling on this in the comments below.
Share This 
Spotlight
I’d like to take this opportunity to say that it drives me nuts when the media refers to this as “partial birth abortion” — even if they put it in quotes. It should be referred to as late-term abortion
zed?
Breaking is the word
Alarming decision, o my. They refuse to take it seriously. Just great.
EPU’d right on topic ~ h/t Marie Roget
I’m too disgusted to say anything coherent.
Ugh. Period.
while i won’t applaud this
decision in any way, i am not
convinced that it will result
in any meaningful reduction of
any woman’s legitimate right to
choose what happens with her body. . .
i did see this one as a rove-political
wedge-stunt when it came out, and i never
would want to see roe v. wade over-
turned, but as losses go, this one does
not strike me as very momentous. . .
just my $0.02 — and i am happy to
be told i am all wrong. . .
shame
AP has excerpts from the SCOTUS abortion decision here.
Again, at this point Kennedy is definitely the swing vote in this SCOTUS.
I just dont want to hear them crow.
Sad to say. I saw the news and said a loud, Oh Sh*t at the office. Then I realized that i was not surprised. The theocrats have been planning this for a long time. Be aware that there are very few places in the country that even did late term abortions and those that did it saw the most horridly tragic circumstances imaginable. These abortions are done only as a last resort and because to not do them would do grave harm to the woman.
Imagine having cancer, going through chemo and then finding out that no one asked if you were pregnant before starting the chemo. Imagine the effect on a fetus. This happens.
For the women who face this kind of procedure it is a tragedy to begin with. These are wanted babies where something has gone very very wrong. Now, the woman will suffer twice. First the loss of the fetus—it will have to happen anyway—and then the effects on her health because appropriate medical care can no longer be administered.
Sad day.
Lou Costello @
5
Thanks for pulling the ACLU link up to this thread, Lou.
Facts are important when dealing w/such a hot button issue…
and so it begins.
This now means a surgical procedure for a woman to save her life, and an attempt by doctors to try to keep an unviable fetus alive.
Of course, insurance companies will probably not reimburse and the whole thing will put a women’s lives in greater danger, but who the heck cares?
It’s a sad day for our nation.
Back in October, Hadley Arkes at firstthings.com had this to say on the ramifications of yesterday’s decision - yeah, let’s hope it isn’t too accurate of a prediction:
if Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, “We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion.”
That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.
Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified.
So, now the wingnuts have an entirely new reason to bring through a slew of initiatives and legislation designed to get their voters out of their pews and into the voting booths…
I am so confused about this topic. I can’t see a reason to allow elective abortions past a specific point in the pregnancy, but always the health of the woman must be paramount. Is there somewhere to get clear non-biased information about abortion and abortion issues?
Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother. Often if the mother dies, the baby dies.
Stupid, stupid people. It is all about crusty old white guys telling the rest of us how to live and die.
Aren’t you glad that powder was kept dry?
In success the right has lost a rallying cry, but they have not had much of an effect on outcomes.
They will want to follow it up with more radical measures.
Those more radical measures won’t be supported by the population as a whole. They will end up with abortion being a domestic version of the Iraq war — something they can’t run from or their base will disown them, but they can’t run to or the public will disown them.
If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.
EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:
I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.
People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.
We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.
adam @ 22
A decade is not nearly long enough. They must be out of power until a fundamental change takes place within the party and it no longer represents the most authoritarian, regressive, anti-science, anti-liberty and human rights theologically warped elements in society.
No offense, egregious, but I don’t want you drawing any lines when it comes to my body.
Ed*ard Teller @ 18
This has already been happening around the country for the past 15 years or so. Very few states have very few restrictions, even the so-called liberal states. The action moved to state legislatures long ago and much of the damage done is already irreversible. That is why it is important to pay attention to and get involved with local and state elections. The only way the tide will change is by looking for, supporting, and electing progressives across the country.
Ultimately we have been stripped of our inherent ability to choose for ourselves…AGAIN. O Canada!
Hi Nolo and all. As I was saying in the last thread, it is my understanding that this law outlaws all “Dialation and Extraction” abortion procedures. This is the procedure that is done after twelve weeks of pregnancy (may not always be necessary to do D&E until about 14 weeks). Right after the law passed I read a story in the Times about a twelve year old girl in NY who had been raped by her cousin. Her mother discovered this when the little girl’s pregnancy started to show. She was 16 weeks pregnant and under this ban she would not have been allowed to have an abortion. It really doesn’t matter to me if it affects a lot of women because it will certainly have a huge effect on some women (and girls).
After Roberts and Alito testified in their Senate confirmation hearings that they both would adhere to stare decisis (i.e. long-established precedent), who knew they were just kidding…wink, wink?
And who knew at NARAL when they backed Joe4Joe Lieberloser’s
RepugIndependent candidacy that his vote to allow cloture on the Alito vote would mean that someday (today, ya think?) there would be consequences?I guess when dirty feckin’ hippies continually and accurately predict the future results from cynical, malevolent or perhaps even criminally moronic decisions, one should never, ever take DFHs seriously!
Who knew?…ahmmm, excuse me, but we did!
At that late-term stage there is usually either something dreadfully wrong with the fetus or the mother’s life is in danger — I’m sure it’s not a casual decision. Good friends of ours faced a decision where they had 3 days to decide whether to abort a fetus whose heart was malformed and would most certainly die, or bring it to term and have heroic measures to reconstruct the heart so it might live a week. The 3 days was to comply with state regulations on abortions. They went on to have two more children after this.
#1: What egregious said at #23! The voice of experience, working in the trenches right now, relating each baby she saves to her own life! I can’t express how much I admire you, eg.
#2: Nina Totenberg, reading from Ruth Ginsberg’s dissent on NPR right now. Far more emotion in Totenberg’s voice than I’ve heard in a long, long time.
Thanks Nancy Keenan.
Now might be a good time to call NARAL (which as of this writing has nothing on their site about the SCOTUS decision) and tell them thanks for nothing, which is exactly what they did to stop Alito’s confirmation.
Thank them for supporting Joe Lieberman while you’re at it.
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
Media Relations: 202.973.3032
Membership Information: membership@ProChoiceAmerica.org
Legacy Gifts: plannedgiving@ProChoiceAmerica.org
Information Line: 202.973.3018
egregious @ 23
I’d challenge you to cite specific statistics on the number of late-term abortions done on normally-developed, “nearly-formed” fetuses. It’s not some elective procedure like getting an eye lift. This is a procedure that is done only in severe circumstances. Do you think doctors, who are dedicated to heal others, would casually recommend or do this?
It is this kind of emotional response that the theocrats rely on to push their anti-woman agenda.
White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.
Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they’re covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/.....092874.htm
“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”
For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.
egregious @
23
Thank you for your words, egregious. Your work and your experience have more than earned you the right to voice your opinion, and it should be given heed.
In order to better form my own opinion, I would be interested to know what, “For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health,” actually pertains too.
A simple google shows numbers in the amount of 2000 of these procedures performed in the US, annually. What is the actual benefit to a woman’s health to perform this procedure?
There are always a myriad of sides to complex issues of life and death in the medical arena; and I refuse to let the rabid right or the left frame this as a black and white issue, even if the resulting legal decisions must be.
From AP:
SilenceIris @ 25
Yes, I agree with you and am not trying to draw any lines there.
I worked FOR abortion rights in the 60’s and still am pro-choice while I am also pro-life, not the customary position. None of my 11 pregnancies ended in abortion but I supported people close to me who felt they needed to go this route.
Being pregnant is a huge responsibility, I would never advocate forcing this on anyone. It must be done freely.
Am only trying to offer my perspective as someone who works in a department with premature infants, while not trying to limit anyone’s freedom of choice.
I hope we are able to discuss this with respect for each others positions. Almost certainly I am missing something important in the debate.
Mae @
1
In fact, it’s the safest way to do late-term therapeutic abortions. What happens now in cases of eclampsia?
People can agree to disagree. As gentle folks are want to do. ;0)
sonate @ 35
They don’t have to overturn it. They just have to make abortions impossible to get. They are well on their way to doing that.
Mad Dogs @ 29
Yup. I did in 2000, even though there were those who said there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Bush and Gore. Gore wouldn’t have appointed Alito and Roberts. (And neither would Kerry, for that matter.)
RevDeb @ 12
to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!
egregious @
23
Very sorry to hear your experience but IIRC during the testimony on this subject before congress, there are certain conditions, malformations of the fetus, in which cause the pregnancy to go on indefinitely even though the fetus is not viable. The fetus does not produce the right hormones to trigger labor and delivery. So, essentially, the woman carries around this baby who will not be born and when it is born, it can not be saved. If intact dilation and extraction is good for anything, this is surely one of those cases.
So, where do women go now to get a medically necessary procedure done? Canada?
puppethead @ 33
You have no idea what I was faced with. We wanted a child. Please be careful. Some of us have been to hell and back.
egregious @ 23
Fair point, however:
It is my understanding that this procedure is very rare, and only takes place when there is a distinct danger to the mother and/or the fetus is severly compromised already and stands little chance of survival and no other method would be as safe in terms of protecting the life, health or ability to bear childeren later of the mother. This does not fit the description of “unwanted child” in common parlance, as in if the child, if carried to term, would be embarrassing, a financial burden or merely inconvenient. Under these circumstances, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes not “something bad,” but certainly something tragic. Tragedy cannot be legislated. If I’m wrong please correct me.
There is no contradiction in being pro-choice and pro-life.
Most people who are pro-choice are for life and mean life beyond birth as well. Most people who claim to be “pro-life” are really anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti- woman’s rights, and have little interest or energy to invest in what happens to the unwanted babies or those who are born into tragic circumstances.
RevDeb @ 41
Exactly, Rev.
Passive agressive move by the Republics. And, they’ll enlist the insurance companies to that end.
“After Roberts and Alito testified in their Senate confirmation hearings that they both would adhere to stare decisis (i.e. long-established precedent), who knew they were
just kidding…lying, wink, wink?”I know I can’t blame this decision on one person but Short Ride Joe bears much of the responsibility for this. And now when it comes to the life of the woman, not even a “short ride” will matter.
But, taking a step back (deep breath) what does this really mean? Is the abortion issue now becoming a legislative battle, rather than a legal issue? And with even larger Democratic majorities on the horizon, could that be a positive thing? A commenter above noted that the far right has now lost a voting isssue. I agree. And now the social progressives/moderates (I would argue the majority of people in this country) have gained a voting issue.
egregious @ 23
I would disagree; everyone I know who is pro-choice is pro-life, we’re just not antiabortion.
And in this case, I think you might have a leg to stand on if late-term abortion were an elective procedure, but it’s not. I find it extremely doubtful that any of the doctors performing this procedure have not sought alternatives that preserve the health of the mother, and I do not consider it “pro-life” to have lawmakers and Supreme Court justices deciding they can better make that determination.
From AP:
I’m missing something in the last sentence. Isn’t the method related to the when?
musicsleuth @ 21
oh yeah. we should be kicking ass and taking names.
The difficulty I have with state (and national?) regs on medical procedures is that they apply to all equally for circumstances that are anything BUT equal. I can’t help but see them as a big ban on trust — both of the families involved and the trained professionals treating them. Help me understand how this isn’t a total pandering to the religious reich.
The last two extremists put on the court assure everyone they believe in that “let it stand” principle. So, they were lying? Can they be impeached for obviously lying to during their confirmation hearings?
It is sad to recall that significant numbers of Democrats supported the legislation that so jeopardized women’s health and reproductive rights:
Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on October 22, 2003. Large numbers of Democrats joined a nearly unanimous GOP in both houses; the bill passed 63-34 in the Senate, and 281-142 in the House. President Bush signed it into law at a White House ceremony on November 5.
For the disturbing history, see:
“Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights.”
What a horrible week this is turning out to be. My heart continues to break.
egregious, I really hope to meet you in person some day. You are truly a remarkable woman.
And I think today’s decision reinforces the stance that Jane and Christy took for being so harshly against NARAL and their support of JoeLie. (They took quite a bit of heat for that, as I recall…) Chickens roosting and all that. We are not surprised are we?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Obstruction of justice in the first degree.
The GOP base most assuredly desires the overturning of Roe. This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy concerning messing with individual liberties and injecting themselves into people’s personal lives where they have no business being.
martha—
Thank you. Just trying to share my observations from our hospital work.
OT, but maybe important with the current re’ whitehouse/Rove E-mail/blackberry thingy going on.
BlackBerry service back
Service problems disrupted e-mail traffic but the company says most service is restored.
April 18 2007: 10:16 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A system failure knocked out BlackBerry service to millions of customers late Tuesday but the company said Wednesday morning that service for “most customers” was restored.
A statement from the company said: “A service interruption occurred Tuesday night that affected BlackBerry in North America. E-mail delivery was delayed or intermittent during the service interruption.”
“Root cause is currently under review, but service for most customers was restored overnight and RIM is closely monitoring systems in order to maintain normal service levels,” the statement said.
The stock of Research in Motion (Charts), which sells the BlackBerry device and service, sank about 1 percent at the open but recovered somewhat and was off about 0.3 percent in morning trading on Nasdaq.
Research in Motion said phone service on the handsets was unaffected.
Some users had reported intermittent service, others have gotten bundles of backed-up emails, and still others had no access at all.
BlackBerry devices became popular in the 1990s for people who wanted to get e-mail, phone calls and Internet access while on the go. It’s now often called “CrackBerry” by many users who joke about their “addiction” to the devices.
The service problems started about 8 p.m. ET Tuesday and affected users across the Western hemisphere, WNBC, a New York TV news channel, reported. Some reports said users were also affected in Hong Kong and London.
Even with the system back, some users may experience delays as the company processes the backlog.
A spokeswoman for Verizon, one of the service providers for Research in Motion, said the outage didn’t involve Verizon’s networks.
sonate @ 35
respectfully disagree. there is plenty of wingnuttery left if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Observation:
I find it interesting that pro-life people are also more likely to be pro-death penalty.
I’m sorry but I must break into this discussion with an important message from Doug Ireland:
Begin message:
“Dear friends,
I’ve received the urgent appeal below from my friend Arsham Parsi, the young Secretary-General of the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO, formerly the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization or PGLO), who as you may know is now living in Toronto after having been granted asylum by Canada as a sexual refugee from persecution in Iran. Arsham telephoned me today in desperate search of help for Babak, this poor, persecuted Iranian gay activist who faces certain prison if he cannot be quickly smuggled out of Iran.
I urge you to make a contribution, even a small one, to IRQO in support of Babak (that’s easy to do on your credit card via the PayPal link on the IRQO’s website). Please read Babak’s story, which you’ll find below.
Regards,
DOUG IRELAND (see below)
An Iranian Gay Blogger Activist, who fled Iran’s police, captured by Turkey’s Police and was deported back to Iran, needs your help
irqo link
April 17, 2007
Dear Friends,
This is an urgent appeal on behalf of a courageous Iranian gay activist who was deported
back to Iran from Turkey two weeks ago.
For security reasons we call him Babak in this letter. He is 27-years-old, and has been working as a translator/writer for Cheraq magazine, the Iranian Queer Organization’s on-line monthly magazine (formerly Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization – PGLO) for the last year. He is also a gay blogger/writer who actively pursued queer rights through his resourceful articles, received suspicious threats from the under-cover Iranian police. He fled Iran through the mountains and went to Turkey. Unfortunately, he was stopped in Turkey by the police and was arrested for the lack of documents. Before he could claim refugee statutes at the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.), Arsham Parsi, Executive Director of IRQO, who was in Turkey at the time to prepare a report about Iranian queer asylum seeker’s situation in Turkey, called the U.N.H.C.R. and informed them about Babak’s case. U.N.H.C.R. office in Ankara called Turkey’s police, informing the police that Babak must be released so he could go to U.N.H.C.R and make his claim. However, he was, most probably, deported back to Iran by Turkish police. Once deported, he was taken to jail in Iran, and was released only after he was badly beaten and tortured. A friend had paid $1500.00 fine for him to be let out of jail. He will have to show up in court, soon, to be tried. At present he is in hiding. Only one person has contact with him. Babak has no access to internet or phone services. It is very important that he is smuggled out of Iran as soon as possible and before he is summoned to report in a court.
Babak was born in Iran and send to Bahrain as a child, as a child laborer. He came back to Iran a young man with a cause to follow. Fluent in both Arabic and Farsi he was a precious source. He translated and wrote vigorously for LGBTQ community in Arabic and Farsi newspapers. His research in Persian and Arab classic gave countless evident of the long history of Gay men’s existents in both nations, giving the identity of gay men in Iran a more legitimate presence in contrast to the government’s claim that labeled homosexuality: a disease imported from the West in order to attack Persian social values.
We are a global gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender family, and we need to help out members of this family who are in desperate need — particularly individual activists like Babak and Mani who have been persecuted for the way they love and for the crime of defending the rights of our brothers and sisters. We at IRQO have scarcely any financial
resources ourselves, since we do not ask dues from our membership, and while we have sent
Babak a few paltry dollars, our treasury is bare. Please consider making an urgent donation to IRQO to help Babak, who needs to flee to Turkey again, and other Iranian queer asylum seekers residing in Turkey at present, needing financial help to survive until they are granted official refugee status by the U.N.H.C.R. and find asylum in a gay-friendly country.
Even $10 or $20 would be enormously helpful. You can help them now by clicking on the “Donate” button on the homepage of our website at http://www.irqo.net and using your credit card via the secure PayPal system. Or, you mail a check to us and earmark it for “Refugees” at:
Arsham Parsi
41 Waddington Cr.
M2J 2Z9
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
We look forward to your support. Please do not forget Iran’s persecuted gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender people. To bring Babak out of his hiding and across the border to Turkey money is urgently needed. Please give your support, and donate.
Do not leave us Abandoned!”
*******
End message
Biodun @ 51
Yes, that’s right. So I suppose if docs can come up with another sage way to do a second trimester abortion this law will be moot, but in the meantime some women and girls will suffer desperately.
mc @ 49
I hope that we can build large enough majorities to take advantage of this as a legislative issue, but I have to disagree that the far right has lost a voting issue. This is a signal that if they can elect people who will pass these restrictions, they will stand instead of being overturned. Why would that not motivate them to elect more such people?
The best development would be if it also makes it a voting issue for the complacent pro-choice majority. You’d think it would, but since none of the other restrictions have done that, I don’t have a lot of confidence.
TiredFed @ 43
Voting for Nader - I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 - cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.
“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
egregious @ 23
I think I must be pretty close to your view. I believe the choice should be between a woman and her doctor, taking into account the viability of the fetus. Late-term abortions are always scary propositions, but in my wife’s case, she would have to have one if a pregnancy went undetected (very unlikely in her case, but possible), or she would die. My sense is that the issue is, whose choice is it, the woman’s or the law. I vote for the woman.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
I wanna kick Boner in the nuts. He’s already reproduced though, hasn’t he? Still…
Biodun @ 51
It sure is. In fact, it’s the safest way for a woman to get a late-term abortion; the other options are much, much nastier. That’s why the the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports its use.
The Fundies won by doing things we find distasteful, like running around with trucks showing aborted fetuses. Maybe it’s time for us to send out trucks showing women dead of eclampsia because they weren’t allowed to terminate their pregancies.
I can’t endure hearing those people called “pro life.” They are anything but.
Oklahoma kiddo @
68
But once the child is born - its on its own.
This was posted on TalkLeft:
Framing again by authoritarian men.
Thom Hartmann talking about it in detail on AirAmerica right now. Stream it through their website or through iTunes.
Ed*ard Teller @ 66
Gore was close in lots of other states, not just Florida, and Nader’s margins in those states kept Gore from winning them outright. Without Nader, Jeb could have still stolen Florida but Gore would be in the White House.
Frankly, I think we should focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies by promoting abstinence based education….It’s been proven successful—in making money for conservative Christian propagandadists.
-GSD
The same people who are making abortions more difficult to obtain are making them more necessary by promoting faith based programs that have proven to be ineffective.
I’m sensing a major pushback “surge” on a number of fronts by the minority Bushie loyalists. Stay on the Attack, Attack, Attack.
Nervous @ 54
yes, they can.
Phoenix Woman @ 70
Show the children left behind after their mother was taken from them and rail against state-sponsored mother killings… (only half joking)
I have had fears about a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court for a long while, especially a fear that Justice Kennedy would “get religion” in his old age, and today Kennedy’s siding with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has born out my fears. Bush and the media will portray this as a great victory for Bush, and it will “motivate the base” for the next election so it is a victory for Rove as well. It is very sad because the Catholic church and most Catholics in the US will see Bush as a hero and support him on all issues not just the single one. Pope Ratzinger will be praising Bush too when they meet, thereby influencing the Catholic vote.
I do hope the Democrats will be savvy enough not to let abortion be turned into the major issue of the 2008 election when there is so much that is wrong with this country and this administration.
Now that these pro-lifers got what they want, do you think they might get a conscience about some of the other issues that Bush pushed through on their pro-life vote?
GeorgeSimian @ 79
no
What I see happening is that instead of a D&E, doctors will end up doing caesareans for women who have pregnancies that for one reason or another are not viable and can cause harm to the patient if induced to be born vaginally. What has been eliminated is a technique, not a final outcome. In this case, it’s worse than we thought because the techniques that can cause abortion are many: vacuum extraction, RU486, salting out, dilation and curretage. Where do we draw the line?
Well, it looks like there *is* no line anymore.
I wonder how long it will be before a string of lawsuits end up against hospitals and the law that had their wives and daughters die for a fetus that didn’t survive anyway. It’s a nasty thought, but it will happen. Inevitable after this.
The cases are rare as all the rest of you have said. I just wish it didn’t have to end up this way. I’ve heard fights over this issue my entire life, now this happens.
GeorgeSimian @ 80
There is no chance of that.
This issue is really good for those left of, say, Gnewt Gingrich.
Why? Because the wing-nuts isolate themselves from the mainstream who feels abortion is a woman’s choice. It is akin to the wing-nuts showing their asses and unreasonableness on the Terry Shiavo issue.
Sometimes one does not need to confront unreasonableness. One only needs to step aside and let the opposition speak, and speak. The extremists then take over the dialog and more reasonable positions stand, quietly, for themselves.
Slash and burn, SCOTUS! It isolates the wing-nuts and shows people how unreasonable their positions are.
“Partial
Phoenix Woman @ 71
I feel women are far more capable of framing reproductive rights issues than are men. Keeping this particular issue in the context of women’s rights overall probably has the most resonance. Watching Buthayna Nasser’s confrontation with a Saudi cleric on fdl latenight yesterday is just one example of the power of a woman framing arguments on global feminism.
OT again, sorry..
Does anyone know anything about this?
And could there be a tie-in with Blackberry going down yesterday? Or is my tin-foil hat too tight?
April 17, 2007 — Our sources inform us that a possible fire today has knocked out classified communications services at the US State Department’s Communications Annex facility (State Communications Annex - SA26 - in Beltsville, Maryland), just outside of Washington, DC. Also affected by the outage is the joint National Security Agency-Central Intelligence Agency Special Collection Service (SCS) (F6) (”CSSG”) located in a building off Springfield Road and located adjacent to SA-26, which is located at 8101 Odell Road. The SCS relies on the State Department backbone secure satellite communications for its links to covert listening posts and devices around the world. Agencies affected by the communications outage are the State Department, NSA, CIA, and Department of Defense. The State Department has been forced to use its backup facility. a CIA facility located at Brandy Station in northern Virginia.
egregious @ 38
I certainly respect the work you do, but I’m still not getting how yours is “not the customary position.” Most pro-choice people do not routinely describe themselves as “pro-life” only because the Right has made it a code word for “anti-abortion.” But I see nothing in your statement above that any pro-choice person I know would have any argument with.
If you don’t mind, can you try to elucidate for me what about your position is not “customary”?
Biodun @ 63
yeah. must be hard for both ideas to coexist in one mind. kinda wish their brains were like the aliens in Alien Invasion and we could just play lotsa loud yodeling music about now.