Just for clarification, the crack whore featured in the HBO documentary was white.

“…unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.”

But tanks brah, and Aloha!

Your words I replied to. Your claim that the legislative process and the will of the people will prevent civil rights from moving forward was, in my mind, ill-informed. To say that we need judges to make law when us ignoramuses won;t id offensive. That is the point I was trying to make by pointing out a few, high-visibility examples of the process doing what it should. We absolutely SHOULD NOT count on judges to make our laws, IMHO.

Plenty like Spears in Pasco county (Florida), but without the wealth…

CAREFUL. The Ninth Amendment does in fact state that the list of rights (as opposed to powers held by the federal government, the part lefties have ignored since the 1930s along with some righties) is not limited to those enumerated. But the concept of “rights” does not include claims on public or other people's money or other assets. (This was what many of us feared with ClintonCare in the early 1990s, that the Ninth Amendment would be deliberately misconstrued and used to support the federal takeover of health care in this country.) There is no “right to privacy” (interpreted specifically as contraception and abortion) in the Bill of Rights, that state and local governments may not govern. Under the real Constitution, the rights in question are not in the document, and thus are reserved to state and local governments to legislate as these governments see fit. That is correct construction.

Roe v. Wade (along with other rulings such as Baker v. Carr) was substitution of judges' left-wing views and wishes for real law. The “trimester rule” portion of Roe v. Wade is perhaps the most remarkable and clearly activist portion of the ruling: it obviously is coming from nothing but thin air (inside some Justices' crania). (See below) Only a fool cannot realize this upon even the most brief contemplation or introspection. (That is, if they're able and willing to think rather than to feel.) This is properly a state and local issue, and abortion rights are recognized in nearly every state in the Union currently. There is no bogus cause for panic, even were Roe v. Wade endangered, which it is in no imminent danger — rulings are rarely overturned.

[Roe v. Wade, the "trimester rule," determination of legality of abortion personnel, from the Summary -- anyone with a brain can see the legislation being done by the Court rather than the state and local governments as should be the case, or even in lieu of this, by Congress, not a federal court]

“1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) 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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term 'physician,' as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. “

[from Reynolds v. Sims, carrying Baker v. Carr "forward," another example of judicial activism -- why not demand the U.S. Senate reconstitute itself, too?]

“The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside.

(a) Legislators represent people, not areas.

(b) Weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

4. The seats in both houses of a bicameral legislature must, under the Equal Protection Clause, be apportioned substantially on a population basis.”

Not true, of course. The correct terms always have been “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion.” The issue always has been abortion. “Choice” is weasel language; we have all kinds of choices we make throughout every day once we awaken.

There are extremists on both sides (those who want abortion always legal — and in the most extreme cases in our population, want provided for by “society,” raising a large threat related to federal health care for childbearing-age women and in the case of extremists, minors — as well as those who want abortion always illegal).

The current distribution, according to the most recent good poll on this subject, is as follows:

Abortion — people think it should be (by current voting preference)

Legal in all cases:

All, 18%; GOP, 10%; Dem, 23%; Ind., 20%.

Legal in most cases:

All, 38%; GOP, 32%; Dem, 42%; Ind., 39%.

Illegal in most cases:

All, 27%; GOP, 37%; Dem, 18%; Ind., 26%.

Illegal in all cases:

All, 13%; GOP, 18%; Dem, 12%; Ind., 10%.

Don't know, Refused:

All, 4%; GOP, 3%; Dem, 5%; Ind., 6%.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/933.pdf

* * *

“late-40’s crack whore who was pregnant with her 5th child”

And each by a different father, probably, just as was true with the woman in New York City at a public hearing in the _1960s_, exposing the _real_ societal-burden problem that was engendered by well-meaning (or in some cases, radical) leftists (the same kind who make up all kinds of stupid sterotypes and straw men about the Right these days): “Each of these babies has a different daddy. It's my job to have these kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to care for them!” Some haven't learned after 40+ years. They'd rather insist on being typically dishonest when not outright delusional. They want to extend though logical rape (pun intended) the attitude some idiots have toward “breeders” toward Palin because she's not a militant leftist in the PC mold, rather than promptly think of the welfare-mom stereotype that _normal_ people do. The abnormal can be exploited by the Dems (complete with fright, of the mythical Far Right! that encompasses everyone right of Brookings Institution) and this makes the case for qualification and weighting of the suffrage.

Maybe that wasn't your point, though. In which case, I ask again: do they not count for what?

Ok. Now I'll run away before the tar and feathers shipment arrives. (*snickers*)

Most 'pro-choice' advocates also advocate sex education, contraceptives and greater availability of professional family planning consultation. 'Pro-choice' is just that 'pro-choice' which at times concludes with an abortion.

If a woman (let's say Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter) chooses to carry her baby to term and raise it… that's FINE, it was her CHOICE! If she chose to carry it to term and put it up for adoption… again, that's FINE, it was her CHOICE! AND if she chooses abortion as her only option… unfortunate, but still FINE, it's her choice.

Parroting the “pro-choice = pro-abortion” talking point is at best disingenuous and at worst an intentional lie used to further the personal view of the parrot.

* * *

casualobserver said: “Do whatever you want ladies, just don't contemplate sending me the bill.“

CO, Can we assume that you meant don't “send me the bill” UNLESS I'm the father? Or are you from the “she should have known better” camp?

How about the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1957, 1960, 1964 1968 and 1991?

Those don't count, either?

Do whatever you want ladies, just don't contemplate sending me the bill.

AR — Most of my last post had to do with your “the people have spoken” line, meaning, I thought, that voters should have a say, but perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying. I think it's also important that the Bill of Rights is very clear that it is not an exhaustive list, and that it covers rights not explicitly stated therein. I agree with Barbara that abortion does fall under right to privacy, which is the basis of the Roe decision. The government doesn't get to choose whether or not you have a blood transfusion or go onto dialysis or donate a kidney or get a physical every year. It also should not be able to tell me what I can do with a group of cells about to implant into my uterus, or what to do with it once it's implanted.

To your final question: I'm not intimately familiar with all the intricacies of the myriad ways a law gets into the books, but I know that most civil rights gains have not come along with a majority of the general population's backing; making popular vote a touchstone for civil rights will necessarily mean a stymying of civil rights gains. Many have come along due to a judge/judges interpreting an agreed-upon law in a way such that it applies to all people (not just the few that may have been originally intended), or due to a judge ruling a particular law unconstitutional. I guess what I'm saying is that the balance of powers is vital, and I don't think your suggestion is a logical extension of my argument.

“I have indeed read posts by the extreme left about abortion the way I characterized it. “

I suppose you can find people of all sorts who believe just about anything. However, I point out again that *none of the active abortion rights advocacy groups takes that position.” Not NOW, not NARAL, not Planned Parenthood, not anyone else I can think of. However, you can find many active and well-funded advocacy groups pushing for the most extreme right-wing positions, including a ban on all abortions and even bans on some forms of birth control.

So, it's just plain not even. The idea that there are equal extreme forces pushing against each other in this debate is just plain wrong. For all practical purposes, the abortion debate in America comes down to extremist right-wing whackjobs versus everybody else.

“However, the abortion debate was short-cut by the Supreme Court. “

To me, this is a bit like saying that Emerson v. Board of Ed. short-cut the productive national discussion we were having on racial equality in 1954. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of citizens against the government, including state governments per the 14th Amendment. I know right-wingers object to the notion of a “right to privacy,” but to me abortion is a 4th Amendment issue. See Scott Lemieux's series “The Rightness of Roe” is you want the constitutional argument.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/01/rightness…

Returning the abortion decision to the states is, to me, like returning slavery to the states or to allow states to practice censorship and establish religions. Some things even a majority may not do.

And look at the legislatures that have voted for same-sex marriage. In the end, we all think 'our' ideas are right, and want them forced on the 'un-enlightened'. I pointed out, I am pro-choice, but I do not like how we got to where we are on this issue.

And if we followed your logic, why pass laws at all? Why not just put the issues in front of the Supreme Court, and let them make ALL our laws?

I’m an advocate of forced abortion/sterilization in certain circumstances. This may seem cruel or insensitive, but we are ever going to have healthcare for everyone some things need to change.

HBO ran a documentary a few years back highlighting a late-40’s crack whore who was pregnant with her 5th child. Each of her previous children were born addicted, underweight and with developmental problems. Each needed hundreds of thousands in neonatal care and naturally each had serious problems as they grew.

This woman should have been strapped down on her second pregnancy and not only aborted, but permanently sterilized.