We have for sale a luxury villa in Spain, on the“ ……

As long as some states had abortion available it would be inconvienient but folkes could go there if they felt strongly about having an abortion. If they couldn't be troubled to drive a few hundred miles, or hop on a plane, they proably didn't feel strongly about it anyhow.

This restricts the options for those that cannot afford to drive those miles or hop on a plane, specifically the lowest to lower middle class families and individuals. Limiting abortion rights to those that can brings an economic injustice in one of the more basic abilities, namely family planning.

From DLS:

The correct terms are “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”; “choice” has been the weasel word of choice by those who prefer euphemism and evasion in the form of imprecision through over-generality.

While this is true, the same can be said about the use of “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion.”

A strong sense of duty towards family and the decision for abortion aren't mutually exclusive to each other. Personally, I would like the energy shown by both sides of this debate to shift their focus to solving our adoption/foster problems before more children are brought into such situations as they exist now. Unfortunately, it seems that arguing about potential children is more newsworthy than benefiting the ones we already have amongst us.

Roe v. Wade is not that much more likely to be overturned than Baker v. Carr (another activist ruling that shouldn't have happened — and why didn't the Justices insist on consistency and completeness and require the US Senate also be forced to under recomposition in addition to the affected houses of state legislatures?). It takes a lot to overturn a precedent ruling, no matter what people may think of that ruling.

* * *

“'moderate' = liberal”

True, for the name of this site and so many users on here (who seem afraid, as even Teddy Kennedy was during his speech, to be open and honest and use the word “liberal” instead — why has that word been avoided? Discreditation?)

Overturning Roe v. Wade is not an easy thing to do, even though it was an illegitimate activist ruling (the “trimester rule,” most of all, is inventing legislation out of _nothing_ but the Justices' whims and desires), no matter how acceptable the _results_ were to many (including the neurotic-to-psychotic who are obscessed with it and with defending it and other activism at all costs — it is befitting and highly deserved that they should experience anguish about the possibility nevertheless).

Even the feeblest of literally radical reform of Washington (“radix,” “root”) that reverses the growth of government in Washington and can even result in an absolute as well as relative reduction in federal spending, long overdue, is not guaranteed by a reformer McCain-Palin ticket, though the ticket is primarily seen as offering reform and this is why it is more appealing to so many of us Americans than many still fail to realize, even among those of us who never have been impressed by or even liked McCain.

https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h…

I think the fact that there will most likely be a democratic run Senate might make McCain's pick more moderate, there is no guarantee that it will stay in the hands of Democrats. The court really seems to be at a tipping point.

SCOTUS justices, no matter who appoints them, have a long history of moderating their views once appointed

Is there some reason why you think that list includes Scalia, Thomas and Alito? You know, people who currently serve on the court .

You're welcome to your opinions. Also to your denial and your rationalizations.

I suspect that particular definition does not fit most democrats, who generally believe it should be safe, legal and rare. I am pro-choice, but have issues with abortion beyond the first trimester. But then I've voted democrat, independent, and republican over the years. That said, I'm proud to say I never voted for either of the Bush's or the much over-rated, but well loved Reagan.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcon…

<snip>

“I saw someone characterize our profits the other day in terms of $1,400 in profit per second,” Tillerson told Gibson.

“Well, they also need to understand we paid $4,000 a second in taxes, and we spent $15,000 a second in cost. We spend $1 billion a day just running our business. So this is a business where large numbers are just characteristic of it.”

We can't think of anyone who would be willing to pay $4,000 in taxes for every $5,400 they earn in salary or wages. Yet many in our country believe it's OK, even desirable, for oil companies to do just that.

———————–

Does big oil have some influence? sure. Is it part of the Illuminati? nope.

And like I said, BigOil won't allow its puppets to rock the boat with such a controversial issue, with Hillary and her millions looming in four years. You'd do well to pick another hip to shoot from. This one is, for all practical purposes, a dead-end street.

The issue is oil. Whoever grabs onto it and runs wins the Whitehouse.

I think if it came down to it, I'd have to support the Constitution and just get real active to fight for my State to pass its own protection of the right to choose (up to a certain point). As long as some states had abortion available it would be inconvienient but folkes could go there if they felt strongly about having an abortion. If they couldn't be troubled to drive a few hundred miles, or hop on a plane, they proably didn't feel strongly about it anyhow.

There is a difference.

Pro-choice (as defined in the democrat party) is the unfettered ability to terminate a pregnancy from conception through delivery. It tolerates late term partial birth abortions.

Pro-abortion (as defined by me, because I’m the only one who uses it) is the unfettered ability to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of viability. Of course, I take it farther in that I believe there are some women who need to be aborted and sterilized when extreme circumstances present themselves.

Does anyone think it remotely possible that the McCain ticket if victorious could possibly overturn Roe vs Wade?

Presidents (and thus Presidential teams, by extension) have the ability to nominate Supreme Court Justices. While it is rare, the Supreme Court has reversed decisions on various topics. A victorious McCain could conceivably result in an overturning of Roe vs Wade. As such, it's a factor in the decision-making process for me.