Victory for Pro-Life Movement
The following post was published at my own blog. I wanted to cross post it here, but then saw that Holly had already posted about it. However, after talking to Joe, I have decided (with Joe actually) to publish my post on this anyway. For an interesting discussion be sure to check Holly’s post – she was on top of this news when it broke.
Mark Sherman reports for the AP (via Yahoo) that the U.S. Supreme Court “pheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.”
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and
President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.
As Sherman writes, the ruling by the U.S.S.C. “is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.”
From now on, quite clearly, ‘liberals’ in the U.S. will be on the defense – conservatives on the offense and… conservatives will be on the offense, from now on, with the idea that they can actually accomplish something.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meanwhile, wasn’t too happy with the decision; she called the decision “alarming” and ‘said the ruling “refuses to take … seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.’
She said that before mentioned decision “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.”
I for one believe that Roe v. Wade was not the best of decisions. I do not quite see how the U.S. Constitution protects the ‘right’ of abortion. It was never considered a ‘right’ before Roe v. Wade. The only way to label it a ‘right’ was by appointing some creative and ‘open-minded’ judges to the bench. That being said, it is established law now, of course.
That does not mean that it should not be legal, it just means that they should have chosen a different way to make it legal than by a court decision.
Also: I believe that Roe v. Wade was, in the long run, a bad decision for the feminist and progressive movement in general. Why? It came too early. It should have been the end result, the last ‘victory’ for the feminist movement. Now it came while they still had a long way to go, they still had to accomplish and change a lot.
Quite a historical decision and… the blogosphere is reacting: Happy Furry Puppy Story isn’t happy, neither is Beck at Unfogged. A.J. Strata and Wizbang’s Kim Priestap meanwhile, celebrate. I am awaiting reactions of some of the major bloggers, both Left and Right, so this post will be updated.
UPDATE
Ed Morrissey: “Today’s ruling is a victory for moderation and common sense.”
Feministe: “Thank you, Anthony Kennedy.”
Vanessa at Feministing: “We’re fucked.”
UPDATE II
Also more at:
Melissa at Shakesville: “Does any of that sound like these “pro-lifersâ€? give a diddly shit about healthy women and healthy babies? Of course not. Because it’s not about healthy women and healthy babies; it’s about control.”
Joe at AMERICAblog: “this looks like a victory for the theocrats. They’ve got the Supreme Court they want now — and they won’t stop here. Yes, this means a woman’s right to choose is in peril.”
UPDATE III
For those who are wondering: I already stated this in the past, so I thought it would be useless to repeat myself but.. seemingly, repeating myself would be useful. My view on abortion: I was a strong supporter of the woman’s right to choose. Nowadays, I am becoming more and more conservative perhaps, I am not sure anymore. My religion, I have to admit, plays a role in this. As a conservative liberal, this issue is an incredibly difficult issue. Above else, I value freedom, liberty. But… not if that means that one kills another human being / soul. Is it a human being, does it have a soul, or not? If so… I find it difficult to support abortion. On the other hand, separation of Church and State.
In other words: I really, really, don’t know.
It’s not the popular thing to do, to not have a strong opinion on this matter, but it is like it is.
122 Responses to “Victory for Pro-Life Movement”
Nic Rivera wrote:
> I don’t see this as a civil
> liberties question.
It isn’t a civil liberties question, actually.
> I see
> this as a question as to
> whether the government
> should be deciding whether
> or not women can have
> abortion and deciding for
> obstetricians/gynecologists
> how they should practice
> medicine.
If it’s a question of priopriety or libertarianism or just plain logic, the answer is obvious: government is not our doctor and should not make medical decisions.
However, government has regulated many things it is not competent to do itself and will continue to do so. Part of the nonsense of Roe v. Wade related to this matter was addressed in the dissent. Government has regulated abortion and other medical practice for ages. And the issue of competence is (in theory, at least, not when one’s own friends and relatives are given the job instead) is addressed by having doctors (and aviators, etc.) as part of government doing the regulating.
There is an additional element here with our nation and that is medicine is a subject of legislation reserved to state and local government, but the federal government has intervened for ages as it has in so many other state and local issues.
One must then be pragmatic — where the federal government wrongly intrudes into state and local affairs (2/3 or more of what the federal government does, which it is not truly authorized to be doing), it has widespread public support and will continue to; one then looks at “damage control” and seeking the best federal actions and limitations rather than absolute prohibition on federal interventionism.
Nobody,
Do you support the federal government’s War on Drugs?
Do you support the federal government’s ban on internet gambling?
Do you support the federal government’s prosecution of people who sell water pipes over the internet?
Do you support the federal government’s prosecution of people how distribution porn across state lines?
Do you support the USA PATRIOT Act?
Do you support the NSA electronic surveillance program?
Supporting smaller government doesn’t mean walking in lock step with the Republican Party. It means supporting smaller government. None of the things I listed above are consistent with smaller goverment (or the Constitution, I might add).
“go back to school” isn’t really a quality comment, now is it Nobody?
Nick: according to quite some social conservatives, abortion does have a victim: the unborn baby.
Now, what if you truly consider it to be ‘human’, to have a soul? Truly, truly consider abortion, then, to be murder?
You know… I have a hard time telling those people that they are wrong or that they are ‘trying to controll women’, ‘theocrats’, trying to keep women under, etc.
> I guess I shouldn’t get a haircut
> then, and if I get cancer I shouldn’t
> have the tumor removed.
False analogies. I can tell how you view the fetus by them, however — in a utilitarian sense to being alien and horrid, like a tumor. Well, I know others who feel that way, too (including the source of that word, “alien”). *sigh*
> If one denies that ““the
> Constitution is a living
> breathing document,�
> one is imposing a religious
> preference for biblical
> literalism on a document
> that was never intended
> to be read that way.
100% false.
It means what it says, and says what it was intended to mean. It can be “enlarged” with technological progress, but you cannot demand it mean something different or opposite what was originally wanted. If you want something else, you must change the law, and that means the words themselves. “Red” cannot later be claimed to “mean” green.
> To be perfectly blunt…..
> I’d rather pay the $500
Actually, “they” should pay the $500, but if we had govt. medical care, We would
> for an abortion than the
> $500,000 to raise the unwanted
> kid (or the 5 million to care for a
> very profoundly handicapped
> person because the parents
> weren’t provided with sound
> medical options).
(Yeah, it’s Society’s Fault.) Or the much more likely case the parents are irresponsible or incompetent.
Next come similar end-of-life decisions, particularly once Medicare costs go much higher in the next 10-20 years. I’m sure you’d love “expanded criteria” for euthanasia.
I stand by my comment. Laws are very much different then rights.
This was taught over and over in my school. I think perhaps Nic is trying too hard to make a case that we should have no laws because laws infringe upon our rights.
The constitution says the government shall make no laws that
Implication? The government is going to pass laws.
Two distinct and seperate entities entirely.
Michael,
My “victimless crimes” comment was not in response to abortion. It was in response to Nobody claiming that he supports smaller government, when, in fact, he has defended the Justice Department’s prosecution of victimless crimes (i.e. growing marijuana, selling bongs over the internet, distributing porn across state lines).
It’s not Nobody’s beliefs that frustrate me. It’s his hypocrisy. When progressive defend big government on fiscal/economic matters, Nobody accuses them of “wanting socialism.” But when he defends big government on social/personal matters, he rationalizes it on the basis that it’s supported by the will of the people and then accuses me of being on drugs.
BTW – lets not forget, SCOTUS did not make any law here, Congress did. SCOTUS just upheld it.
Why no righteous indignation at Congress? Maybe because the Left has thought of the courts as ‘theirs’ for way too long.
It’s not Nobody’s beliefs that frustrate me. It’s his hypocrisy
Ahh now the truth comes out. We’ve been arguing this for a week and he cant win so hes now turned to calling my a hypocrite for not renouncing my own beliefs and adopting his.
I don’t know how else to say this. The Department of Justice is charged with Enforcing Laws not Making Laws. What part of that don’t you understand.
So because I admit that the justice department must enforce the laws passed by the Government that makes me a proponent of Big Government?
I propose that what that really makes me is a law abiding citizen.
Nick – I can recognize quite some of my own views in your views, on the other hand… Hayek accepted the certain limitations of freedom as well.
Nobody,
Having a separate set of standards for the left and the right–that is hypocrisy. Criticizing the left when it defends big government on fiscal/economic matters while defending the right when it defends big government on social/personal matters–that is hypocrisy.
You’re welcome to believe whatever you want. But if you’re going to criticize the left for defending big government, then you ought to be prepared to be criticized when you defend big government. You can’t have it both ways.
Nic wrote:
Yes, his own daughter was one of the first to have a legal one, and he approved. He was a libertarian and a fiscal conservative-who really did believe that the government should not intrude on one’s private life. Goldwater decried the allignment in the ’80′s of the Republican party with the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition.
Its interesting that even as you pointed out, that Reagan himself was not a small gov’t conservative, his many disciples still see him that way. He has achieved Godlike status in the Republican party as every candidate is viewed in the lens of how much or little he resembles Reagan. I guess the Dems do it too, comparing their hopefuls with RFK and JFK. Interestingly enough – they don’t compare them to FDR or Truman? I think the GOP should look for a Lincoln Republican-instead of some cheap imitation of Reagan- that’s what Bush thinks he is.
He was not a social conservative- because the enforcement of social conservatism necessitates intrusion into the private life and big government. Of course, we’ve never seen if this actually works, since as you pointed out, we have had no real small- gov’t conservative elected in our lifetime. Herbert Hoover may have been the last of a dying breed.
Austin Roth,
Excellent point. For all of the talk about this being a victory for the pro-life side, the reality is that this decision will probably not stop a single abortion from occurring (just changes the manner in which some of them will be performed). And for all the talk from the pro-choice contingency about this being the beginning of a slippery slope, what they apparently are actually angry about here is that the court found nothing unconstitutional in this particular law. The law itself is not all that meaningful, but an awful lot of people seem upset that the principle of SCOTUS finding against any restriction of any abortion procedure at any time can no longer be assumed.
Holly,
> It can be “enlarged� with
> technological progress,
It can change (actually, enlarge) its meaning to accomodate modern developments and changes. But its fundamental meaning cannot be changed, and that is what activists want. (They want courts to give them what they cannot secure in legislatures after elections, the valid way to change laws, or by the amendment process in the case of the U.S. Constitution.)
Your position argues in favor of the Bush administration stripping away additional abortion rights, or engaging in Patriot Act activities, simply because they want to because “times have changed” since 9-11 and since they were elected.
As to your “biblical” reference, that was simply bizarre — as if you believe anyone who refutes your incorrect statement about the “malleability” of the Consitution is a fundamentalist or theocrat intent on who-knows-what form of suppression, or someone arrested in time as of when a given part of the Constitution was ratified.
Michael,
This isn’t about who’s the bigger smaller government purist. It’s about Nobody having a one set of standards for the left and a different set of standards for the right. If he wants to accuse progressives or Democrats of “wanting socialism” because of their naive big government policies, I’m cool with that. But then he should, in turn, expect to be criticized for defending big government policies on social/personal matters.
Do you support the federal government’s War on Drugs?
Do you support the federal government’s ban on internet gambling?
Do you support the federal government’s prosecution of people who sell water pipes over the internet?
Do you support the federal government’s prosecution of people how distribution porn across state lines?
Do you support the USA PATRIOT Act?
Do you support the NSA electronic surveillance program?
Point to the rulings that have struck down each of these as being Unconstitutional. These are laws. They infringe upon Illegal activity. The Justice department has been charged with enforcing these laws. The Justice Department is NOT charged with deciding which of these are legal and not legal. Which it WILL enforce and which it will not.
Until these things are struck down as unconstitutional then we have no other recourse but to believe they are legal and constitutional.
However I’m not gonna answer yes or no Nic. Because if I say I support them then Im a big government freak. But Big government in this debate is being Defined by you, Nic. I will not play to your definition of big government. I will play to my definition.
Passing laws does not make a government big unless such laws are in and of themselves conducive to increasing the physical size of the government.
You asked a question. By my definition the will of the people want universal health care so that makes the government big because the people want it and it gets passed but the consequences of said action creates a much larger physically sized government.
However Not in a neoconservative run government Nic. Neoconservatives would never pass such a law. Just because the people want something does not always mean its translated into a law or a program. If that were true there would be no need for parties. Majority rule rules and we all know thats not the case.
So I reject your definition of big government and choose to use mine and there in lies your problem. Your idea of big government is Andy Taylor and Barney Fife.
My definition is a bit larger then that.
>I want all kinds of regulation …
Nic not only wants the feds out of what are state and local affairs, as do I, but he would go farther than I and likely insist that occupational licenture and oversight be replaced by voluntary certification.
Side note, still relevent here as opposed to nutty statements about Iraq, say: today’s news includes increased concern about dialysis centers’ overprescription of EPO (erythropoetin, the drug abused by athletes as a performance enhancing drug, that controls red blood cell production), which exposes people to the risks of high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack, etc.
EPO is very expensive, provided by Amgen, who has a patent on it and is a monopoly provider. It is a great cash cow (Amgen is suing competitors for patent infringement) and will be even more so in the next decades with population aging.
Dialysis centers get reimbursed by Medicare for dispensing EPO. EPO is a cash cow for the centers, and will be even more so in the next decades with population aging.
The centers not only overprescribe the EPO for which they get reimbursed by Medicare, but get volume discounts (and some doctors have claimed rebates) from Amgen. There’s a lot of money floating around associated with this drug and what has become a problem of its overprescription.
Lay aside the patent issue (a patent for something that may have been developed in large part from public research); we have lots of money here and overuse of the drug and elevated risk of problems. Shouldn’t there be oversight?
(We aren’t going to get rid of Medicare and the answer is not “Medicare really is the problem; there should be no Medicare.” There would still be Medicaid in the states.)
But if you’re going to criticize the left for defending big government, then you ought to be prepared to be criticized when you defend big government. You can’t have it both ways.
I agree nic. But you are attributing to me that which I do not do and have not done at least to my knowledge.
> To be perfectly blunt…..
> I’d rather pay the $500
> for an abortion than the
> $500,000 to raise the
> unwanted kid
Purge the legal system of the BS, then what’s the cost of a lethal injection versus decades of incarceration (with the time bomb of medical care for elderly prisoners)?
By the way, Nic, drugs and porn aren’t victimless crimes in the real world; the user often harms not only himself but others in association with his use of these things.
“C Stanley Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Well at least your being honest with that cost analysis, Christine. Why draw the line at birth though? If we’re going to look at lives that way, then you could say the same about the already born and decide which ones are worth keeping, which one’s care is worth providing for.
Can you not see that for those of us who perceive the pre-born as human (those of us, for instance, who’ve carried a child and knew that we weren’t carrying something like a tumor, and those of us who’ve mourned the loss of a child when we’ve miscarried), that it’s not morally any different to analyze life on a cost basis if you do it before or after the organism in question has lungs that can breathe air? ”
First paragraph…. It all depends upon the patient, family, and doctors involved in whatever particular case. An example would be the Shivo (sp?) case, who are you (you being gov’t, non related person, not married to, no social interaction, no medical interaction, etc) to tell that family how that patient is to live and/or die?? How is it your right to tell a woman how to terminate a fatal pregnacy (where fatal is the fetus and maybe the mother)??
As stated by some, this law is vauge enough that even D&C procedures can be interpreted as being banned. What are you (general) going to tell a woman who’s just miscarried that if the whole of the fetus doesn’t ‘wash’ out naturally, too bad for you?? Or will she have to undergo major abdominal surgery to verify that all of the miscarried fetus (say at 6 weeks gestation) has been removed??
Trust me, I understand that many hold abortion at any stage of gestation is an abomination. That is their right to believe so. But, I do not believe it is their right to decide for someone else whether it be the unborn or born. RvW does provide the States the option to limit ‘convience’ termination sometime after the first trimester of pregnancy, but generally doesn’t limit for health of the mother. I believe most people are satisfied with that, IMO, and believe that a D&X is most typically performed when a pregnacy has gone terribly wrong, where the survival of one or the other may be at risk.
Nobody,
How about you point to me where in the Constitution it says that the government has the power to pass such laws.
Prohibition, as enacted by the federal government, is unconstitutional. We know this because before Congress passed a law banning alcohol, it acknowledged that it first had to amend the Constitution, and hence they and state legislatures passed the 18th Amendment. That amendment was subsequently repealed back in 1933 by the 21st Amendment.
On what grounds does the federal government have the power to enact drug prohibition when it didn’t have the power to enact alcohol prohibition? Nothing in the Constitution has changed with regards to prohibition since 1933, so where did congress derive its powers to enact the 1970 Controlled Substances Act?
What about the selling of water pipes (bongs) over the internet or pornography across states lines. What gives the federal government the right to ban these activities.
But even if you honestly believe that the government has the legal right to enact such bans, the question remains, how much power do you personally want to give the federal government with regards to such issues?
If you truly believe the federal government ought to be prosecuting people for growing pot, selling bongs over the internet, or distributing pornagraphy across state lines, you are a Big Government conservative, plain and simple.
Well, that’s a typical misrepresentation of the Schiavo case, which was at least in part a matter of the conflicting interests of various family members (why should the husband’s wish to terminate Terry Schiavo’s life have been more important than her parents who wished to keep her alive and provide for her care? I don’t like the way the case turned into a political circus, but the reason that the govt was involved at all is because there needs to be some arbiter when the patient himself/herself hasn’t made his or her wishes clear.
And on your point about the vagueness of the PBA act, I think you’re grossly overstating it. I’ll have to refer back to the actual wording but I’m pretty sure that there is no way that it could be misconstrued to include actions in cases of natural miscarriage when a fetus has already died.
> How about you point to me
> where in the Constitution it
> says that the government
> has the power to pass such
> laws.
That’s the key.
The “general welfare” clause doesn’t count — that is a qualification of the power granted to Congress to levy taxes.
The “necessary and proper” clause doesn’t count.
“Interstate commerce” has been stretched to absurd lengths.
The Preamble, of course, is not law at all.
DLS,
I completely disagree. Someone who does drugs in the privacy of his home isn’t hurting anyone but himself. Arguing that drug use isn’t a victimless crime is like arguing that possession of firearms isn’t a victimess. The tool isn’t the crime. The act of violence is.
I completely agree with you on this. Big government liberals used an elastic reading of this clause to justify federal government intervention in numerous areas where it had no authority to intervene.
Ironically, supporters of the Drug War (liberals and conservatives) have used the “Interstate commerce” clause to justify to the federal government’s involvement in the Drug War.
MVDG-
Your introduction of the soul into this discussion really highlights how very personal and different it is for various people. As such, the soul is a theological concept, and even theologically speaking, it can have many different varieties of condeptualization.
While this is a valid considereation for an individual, I can’t see how the soul can be addressed in law. If you bring in the soul pre viable life, that opens the door to considereing the soul after death.
We are all informed by personal beliefs and values, and rightly so, but enacting law should be confined to the more mundane quesions of how the competing rights of individuals are affected.
Christine:
Here’s the definition of the prohibited act, which as you can see applies only to fetuses who are alive at the beginning of the procedure:
From ThinkProgress:
“(why should the husband’s wish to terminate Terry Schiavo’s life have been more important than her parents who wished to keep her alive and provide for her care?”
Because according to the law, once you’ve turned 18, you get to decide for yourself. The law also recognizes that a married couple as a single unit. It presumes that the spouse would know the wishes of the affected spouse more so than the parents because of the intement (sp?) relationship / nature of the marriage. Also, for the more religiously inclinded, the bible states upon marriage not to cleave unto your parents, but to your spouse.
Just to ask…. How would you feel if your inlaws barged into the middle of a 30 year marriage to tell you that you are wrong about what their child would or wouldn’t want in medical treatment?? Even if the said ‘child’ and parents were on a reasonably sound relationship??
Now if the parents of Terri had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri would have wanted to continue to live in the manner she had become, then laws need to be made to take something like this into account. I think, in some states, it is required by law for an incompasitated (sp?) person to be ‘given’ a social worker/ patient advocate. (where I work patient advocates are required for patients with serious illnesses/procedures – my mother has been assiged advocates on each of her hospitalzations in the past 3 years to help her with decisions, regardless of what my dad wants. But they are in agreement with what treatment should be done for mom anyway – they’ve been married nearly 45 years.) But, as the law stands now, the spouse rules and maybe there should be a federal law mandating patient advocates for patients that can’t speak for themselves. I would definitely agree with you that in the Schaivo case, and any other case, where the wishes of the affected person are not clear enough, a court appointed advocate should have been appointed.
“And on your point about the vagueness of the PBA act, I think you’re grossly overstating it. I’ll have to refer back to the actual wording but I’m pretty sure that there is no way that it could be misconstrued to include actions in cases of natural miscarriage when a fetus has already died. ”
What about the D&X that is peformed because the fetus is fatally compromised by whatever condition?? This law now says that the woman can’t terminate the pregnacy in what may be the safest way for her.
I just don’t think that the government has the right to decide what is the best option of treatement between a doctor and a patient. You don’t see the government interferring in the creation of living wills (which defines what treatment can or can’t be done) or dnr requests (except the ‘sound’ mind part). I’ll go as far as to agree with you that the termination of a pregnacy after a certian point should not happen just because the woman decided she no longer wanted the child. But, it’s not *my* place to decide for that woman, unless she is incapable of making decisions for herself with her doctor. …. ok, this is probably rambling a bit….
I shudder to think that any woman would need to consider partial birth abortion as an option. But if that cross in the road comes up, I want my doctor to inform my decision, not some impersonal law.
That’s the crux of the matter and it got lost in this far ranging discussion. With this decision, the woman’s health can only be considered via a special dispensation by a court/judge.
In the meantime, the woman has to wait in limbo while her life ticks on.
Another matter got lost. Those who consicer abortion (partial birth or otherwise) immoral are not obliged to have one. Their liberty is in tact before and after this decision. This is a case of their intruding, via politics, into a neighbor’s private life. The only loser is the woman whose role is diminshed to next to zero in the whole complex situation.
I am not a feminist in daily life; I hardly know what that means these days. But discussions llke this are a troubling sign. It’s all about the morality of the state, of the role of Congress and the courts, someone else’s reading of the Constitution, but the individual woman is off in the wings, far from center stage.
This, even though she is the only one directly and forever impacted. The judge can go home to his family. The law can sleep on a shelf in a libaraty.
The father can disappear. But the woman is stuck with the decision for the rest of her life.
I don’t like this picture, at all.
Haha… I didn’t bring it up… not that I expect you to be able to adequately respond.
domajot,
Great post. You really struck at the heart of the problem.
How about you point to me where in the Constitution it says that the government has the power to pass such laws.
promote the general Welfare
10th amendment.
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.
I said.
The purpose of government is to rule the people by the passage of laws in accordance with the will of the people. Obviously the will of the people was to pass laws outlawing drugs. This has nothing to do with Big government.
> I just don’t think that
> the government has the
> right to decide what is
> the best option of
> treatement between a
> doctor and a patient.
That’s not the issue here; the federal government has simply made one thing illegal because it is repellant and is not considered medically necessary. Almost nobody else but the lunatic far-left fringe defends and even supports the procedure.
You will see government decide for more people what is the right treatment, as it does now for government programs, and will do so more stringently, in the future, once Medicare or its equivalent is extended to everybody. “Right” will in more and more cases come to mean “most cost-effective.”
# Chris Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Chris I wont respond to your post because this thread is about an Abortion ruling and not the Iraq war.
Haha… I didn’t bring it up… not that I expect you to be able to adequately respond.
Your a day late and a dollar short. I was responding to Shauns Challenge of 937.
Now let me throw all the pro-lifers out there a big fat hanging curve ball: How can you be opposed to abortion and support the Iraq War, which by any measure is the most virulently an anti-life initiative undertaken by the U.S. government in our time? Explanations please.
I had to bring in the Iraq war to meet his challenge. But this is Michaels Op on Abortion, not the Iraq war. Sorry. Ill be glad to respond elsewhere.
Truth in advertising re: abortion.
There are no pro-choicers nor pro-lifers. Only pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
I proudly stand with liberty and freedom. I am pro-abortion. 100%.
Let’s have all who post state what they really are- pro or anti-abs. Cut the BS and semantics.
> promote the general Welfare
Absolutely not. The “general welfare” clause (which is in Article 1 Section
is a qualification of the power to tax. (The clause in the Preamble is even less pertinent because the Preamble is not part of the body of the instrument or its amendments at all.)
See Federalist 41 is you have further questions. What I wrote actually closes the issue but if you’re demanding, #41 closes it, too.
> 10th amendment.
Completely backwards! “The people” refers to individuals and by implication local government. The federal government is specifically referred to (“United States”) and has no powers other than those delegated to it.
“Necessary and proper” (implied powers): It depends. Not most of what the feds do that they shouldn’t be doing, but pertaining to what you want, it depends.
You’re definitely a neocon in the broad sense — “liberals with economic common sense,” conservatives more than happy with Big Government (an oversized federal government that encroaches into what legitimately are state and local affairs only) as long as it is what suits you rather than those farther to the Left. You’re a less-than-far-left New Deal-Great Society American.
Shipping drug paraphernalia, you’d have been correct if you named the Interstate Commerce clause (“commerce among the states,” intended largely to be commerce between the states and prevent internal trade wars; can certainly be applied to prevent something illegal in one state from being sent there from another state), though that is highly stretched (should only apply to transactions that cross state lines or involve the Post Office or other federal agencies). (The Post Office obviously can regulate or prohibit what is sent using its services, and other federal laws may apply to using its services — “necessary and proper” laws).
OH I was just throwing out something so Nic would spend hours writing a long and drawn out post.
Law is not my specialty and I dont have to be a lawyer to argue what is big and what is little.
I vote for Andy Taylor and two Deputies. Nic wants just Andy Taylor and I think he wants to fire Barney Fife.
Truth in advertising re: abortion.
> There are no pro-choicers
> nor pro-lifers. Only pro-
> abortion and anti-abortion.
Thank you for insistence on correct English in place of weasel words.
“Choice” of WHAT? Evasion (or contemporary nose-picky trendiness) irritates me. Coke vs. Pepsi? grrrrrrrrrrr
“Pro-life” is on former ground but is still vague, and they are often in favor of capital punishment (which actually is a different issue, that being primarily punishment rather than its capital nature).
> I proudly stand with liberty and freedom.
Careful, as you’re slipping with your words yourself…
> I am pro-abortion. 100%.
… Some would argue you are against the liberty and freedom of the unborn. I happen to be pro-abortion, 85% or so (I presume most abortions happen quite early in the term and the idea is to prevent the need for more soul-searching later.) I view abortion in a manner similar to contraception. It’s been sought since pregnancies have been possible. (So have other people’s property and lives been sought, for the taking; it’s not only that simple.)
> Let’s have all who post state
> what they really are- pro or
> anti-abs. Cut the BS and semantics.
Thanks again.
> I vote for Andy Taylor
> and two Deputies. Nic
> wants just Andy Taylor
> and I think he wants to
> fire Barney Fife.
If the Police Department is too big and meddling where it shouldn’t, then good.
And we’re talking about the proper role of Washington, not the Mayberry P.D..
I find the introduction of the Schiavo case in this discussion about abortion very relevant. It’s about the intrusion of governemtn into private life.
I was the decider when my mother died, when my father died and when my husband died – three episodes that constiture the most gut wrenching, complex and heart breaking experiences of my life.
This, even though the considerations were never close to the issues in the Schiavo case.
The idea of Sen. Firist becomeing another voice among the advisors I was tapping for advice was horrifying. I literally had nightmares about it.
There are already ethics boards in hospitals, preachers and counselors in addition to family and friends.
I want politicians to stay away and let real people dealing with real problems to get on with it.
Nic Rivera wrote:
> Prohibition, as enacted by
> the federal government, is
> unconstitutional.
That would refer not only to the ban on partial birth abortions, but also 2/3 or more of what the federal government does nowadays (Social Security and Medicare being notable as well as dear to the heart of liberals).
However, most people like having the feds do as much as possible, and rush to the federal government as their first rather than last resort — government to them, mainly still liberals (which involves the modern welfare state and has since the 1930s — welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare already dwarf everything else, and we have yet to age greatly; government already is seen by them as a surrogate parent), but also conservatives happy to exploit this heavy trend, have come to prefer things this way.
(It’s technically not legitimate, but it often is seen as practical as well as desireable, one set of rules and one governing body to deal with rather than fifty.)
My own choice is pragmatic — to oppose federal overreach if possible, but in (ordinary, expected) lieu of badly-needed victories for the Constitution, hope that the feds do the best they can, as well as do the least harm (to us and our wallets).
> Can you not see that
> for those of us who
> perceive the pre-born
> as human
1. Start at birth. Is killing the child murder? What about one hour prior to birth while the mother is in labor? What about the previous day? Keep going backward. Where do each of you people draw the line, and why? If you refuse to face this dual question, what does that say about you?
then, also,
2. Not only pre-born, but at the end of life, and likely with disability, and the handicapped … and then (an “Issue” in some countries) what if a developing fetus isn’t of the preferred *gender*, as the more radical people say?
3. We already know about some radicals like Singer who go beyond (after) childbirth in consideration of killing decisions.
4. I was going to add a remark about hypocrisy of those who want 100% abortion rights throughout a term, who say a fetus has no rights, but who also want prosecution of any violent crime that results in miscarriage because of the loss of the fetus. It may not merely be hypocrisy, but also inhumanity.
Nic Rivera:
> growing pot
Illegimate of the Feds to stick their nose into, except on federal property.
Abortion, same thing, incidentally. (Providing abortion, or any other medical care other than to federal employees, same thing, incidentally.)
> selling bongs over the internet
Interstate commerce — just like mail-order guns
> distributing pornagraphy
> across state lines
Interstate commerce — just like mail-order guns
Not just using the mail and the Internet, but private transport across state lines is OK for the feds to
regulate.
DLS I was starting to get the feeling that Nic perfers no government at all and in fact believes in Anarchy.
Thats why the Andy Taylor comparison and firing Barney Fife. Guess the irony doesnt translate well in a fast moving thread.
> Prohibition, as enacted by
> the federal government, is
> unconstitutional.
that would refer not only to the ban on partial birth abortions, but also 2/3 or more of what the federal government does nowadays (Social Security and Medicare being notable as well as dear to the heart of liberals).
Nic Rivera said:
> Someone who does drugs
> in the privacy of his home
> isn’t hurting anyone but
> himself.
“In the privacy of his home” is an important qualifier.
Even if we no longer expose kids to the sight of such use in public, what about the effect not only on the person but on his family (and his co-workers and friends) if he abuses his drug?
Others are affected, be it by public or by private use. This is true for pornography as well. Never mind the exposure-to-it-and-related behaviors aspect, what about child porn, which depends on exploiting children to exist? I’m no Scrooge, no matter how much I seem that way on here, but I diverge at times from pure libertarianism.
> Arguing that drug use
Or porn, or for that matter, prostitution
> isn’t a victimless crime is like
> arguing that possession of
> firearms isn’t a victimess. The
> tool isn’t the crime. The act of
> violence is.
The consumption and the effects of it are the “act of violence,” more closely tied to the acquisition and possession than with firearms and firearms are more neutral (mix of good and bad uses) than porn or drugs.
I am against the Drug War! But I do not consider drugs harmless. Even legalizers typically don’t want all drugs to be legalized, just those that have proven to be less harmful than others (note).
Nic Rivera said:
> Big government liberals used
> an elastic reading of this clause
> to justify federal government
> intervention in numerous areas
> where it had no authority to
> intervene.
Exactly. And don’t forget the stuff by FDR that was originally attempted that was struck down by a saner Court. (It was not just a matter of the feds encroaching where they had no power to rule, but an unlawful delegation of power from Congress to the executive branch, which has remained with us — the US Code and Congress are hardly what we face so much as we do all those executive branch agency regulations.)
> Ironically, supporters of the
> Drug War (liberals and conservatives)
> have used the “Interstate
> commerce� clause to justify to
> the federal government’s
> involvement in the Drug War.
Right, down to individual behavior.
Since the Civil War we’ve been officially citizens of the nation as well as of the respective states — we have “national” (federal) citizenship — but without more powers being granted to the federal government, that enables the feds to do next to nothing additionally, to govern us as individuals. And we know that — FDR never attempted to argue that, nor did modern liberals try reaching that far in their arguments.
Nobody said:
> I was starting to get the
> feeling that Nic perfers no
> government at all and in
> fact believes in Anarchy.
1. I was taking pains to distinguish between size of any government at all and the constitutional federalism aspect of much of this. (Where does the federal government have the power to regulate abortion, any more than it can provide replacement income to people? It has no such powers, in fact. Many people simply are happy that it will exercise such powers. In the case of abortion, which state and local governments of course may regulate — they retain powers not granted to the federal government — as Bork said about Roe, the Court should have said that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution and handed the case back to state or local officials, who obviously were and still are left by the Constitution to handle on their own.)
2. Nic is a pure libertarian and wants government, the line that is drawn short of anarchy, to be as close to is as can be drawn (as thinly as possible). Related to that is the US constitutional federalism aspect, which is to keep as much government local as possible as well as, as small as possible.
doma,
I know that you and I have had some touchy conversations on abortion so I’m a bit hesitant to ask this but at the same time I really want to know your response. If you prefer not to answer, that’s fine, but what I would like to know is if you really don’t see how it’s not enough, if one considers abortion to be murder, to say that I personally won’t have one? Doesn’t it make sense to you that someone like myself who does believe that the unborn human is already human, that this means that the act of abortion is murder and therefore I can’t sit by and allow others to choose to do this?
I can understand the concern for the plight of the mother, and I can understand that some people don’t view the fetus as yet human enough to have the right to life, but what I can’t understand is the position that society doesn’t have a right (in my view, it’s an obligation) to decide whether or not the fetus has that right and then to defend it if the decision is that it does. The argument that I don’t have to commit the act doesn’t make any more sense to me than saying that I shouldn’t condemn the VA Tech shooter because no one is forcing me to enter campus buildings and shoot people. It’s not about whether or not I’d be forced to commit the act, it’s about whether or not I (and other citizens, and the govt) should have a say in the matter in order to protect the life of the unborn who don’t have a voice.