DANGER! No Roe v. Wade= RNC Controls Regional Elections 4Ever

[McCamy Taylor]

We all saw how the RNC used the nonissue of gay marriage to mobilize its base to vote in state and local elections across the country. While the Christian Coalition was voting "no" to sodomy, it was also voting in Republicans, giving tax breaks to businesses and in general doing the GOP's bidding.

When Scalito overturns Roe v. Wade, the RNC will not flood the state ballots of the nation with initiatives to ban all abortion. This would mobilize all voters, and the Democrats would actually gain. Instead, it will start tossing out nickel and dime abortion restriction legislation that wont amount to much at first. A municipality here will ban abortion. A state will ban abortion for minors under the age of 14 except to save the mother's life. Right to Life will be told that they have to take it slow in order not to mobilize the Democrats. Right to Life will do what it is told, like they always do.

Meanwhile, everytime one of these nickel and dime abortion restriction laws shows up on the ballot somewhere, GOP turnout will increase, while Dems wont pay much attention, and the RNC will use this to push through initiatives or candidates who normally would not have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.

Unlike no gay marriage, this can go on literally FOREVER! There is no end to the number of permutations of abortion restrictions the RNC can dream up. They can come up with laws that affect providers, documentation, reimbursement, spouses, every aspect of the issue. And every new law will mean a new GOP voter surge timed just when the RNC needs it. As long as people can cross a state line and get a legal abortion in the blue state next door, Democrats will mostly stay home.

This is just one more reason for the Dems to fillibuster Scalito.

[gordianot]

1. That's not happening now?

Correct there needs to be a fillibuster.

[zanne]

2. True.

They wouldn't want to be without the issue of abortion. Without it, they wouldn't be able to fire up "the troops".

[ourbluenation]

3. regardless of roe v wade, what you decribe is allready happening...

individual states are already limiting and restricing up the wazoo. There's only one abortion clinic left in Mississippi. Rather then traveling to another state, which is expensive, poor women are just having the babies. It's maddening.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. Imagine what is happening now exponential. Roe v. Wade limits

the possible permutations of abortion limitations you can legally put on the books now. States dont like to waste millions of dollars defending laws that are going to be overturned in federal court as violating Roe v. Wade. Plus, laws that pass the Roe v. Wade test are not "sexy" enough to mobilize the Right Wing base effectively.

[TheFarseer]

5. The only way this will ever stop

is if they pack the court with Alito and they STILL can't get Roe overturned. IF that happened, it would be terribly demoralizing. All but the most crazed foaming at the mouth wing nuts would stop this none-sense and let settled law be settled law. I can think of no other scenario in which this would not continue indefinitely.

[ourbluenation]

6. It doesn't matter - red states are already limiting and restricting...

To some degree they accepted long ago that roe would most likely never be overturned, so they came up with a new strategy and it's working, brilliantly I might add. Look - if red state voters cared about the issue of reproductive rights enough, they would let their rightie reps know...they just don't care and many of them are anti-choice to boot...capiche? The pro-lifers also realized that all this abortion clinic bombing and protesting just kept abortion in the publics awareness, and to their detriment. Most americans are pro choice - they don't want the option of abortion to go away and with all the protesting it just reminded americans of how they are pro-choice. So, they stopped protesting by and large, and quietly lobbied every and all rightie, red state legislators and they have been very successful with this quiet stratedgy.

So, the bottom line...

Roe will never get overturned
Individual state can and are restricting and limiting access to abortion
Many poor women do not have the resources to go out of state for an abortion

It's maddening...

[BigYawn]

16. UR correct, Roe will never be overturned, but restrictions will increase,

with Scalito on the court.

[oneoftheboys]

7. Actually, you have demonstrated why there is no need to worry.

<<When Scalito overturns Roe v. Wade...This would mobilize all voters, and the Democrats would actually gain.>>

I have no problem with Roe being overturned precisely because of that. I happen to be pretty much pro-choice; however, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. No matter how you read it, it ain't there.

So, when/if Roe is overturned, abortion will only become illegal in a few red states. At that point, the electorate will rise up in those states and they will become blue.

"There only thing to fear is fear itself."

[Bridget Burke]

8. Punishing women in "a few red states" is not a good way to get votes.

And since when have voters risen up?

(PS: You got the quotation wrong.)

[oneoftheboys]

9. Punishing...? Oh, Bridget, you are too hysterical.

It is true, a few women in red states may have to get into a car and drive to a blue state.

Inconvenient? Yes. Punishing? No.

(PS: I know)

[OKNancy]

10. It depends on what your think "punishing" is

Certainly a woman in a red state who lives close to a metropolitan area might not have too much trouble, but a woman in Montana, South/North Dakota and any number of other states would have to drive or fly many, many miles. It would be cost prohibitive for many. If she really was determined to get an abortion, I imagine some rent and food money would have to be used. For this reason we get to the matter of fairness.

I'm trying to think where I would go as a resident of Oklahoma ( won't happen, I'm 57 ) but I guess I would have to go to Chicago. ( That's assuming every red state banned abortion)

Personally I'm not so sure it will be that easy to overturn Roe. In every other case where old decisions were overturned it was to establish rights, not take them away. And let's not forget the Constitutional disaster that was Prohibition. There an established custom/right was messed with. That didn't turn out too well, did it?

[oneoftheboys]

12. Well, what do you know...?

A well reasoned reply. I haven't seen too many of those around here today.

Anyway, I can appreciate where you are coming from and I tend to agree with you regarding Roe. However, I do believe that an overturning of Roe would serve Democrats well. As it stands, legislatures in the red states only nibble around the edges with parental notification, partial birth, etc. If Roe were reversed, there would be tremendous pressure on these legislatures to bring about an outright ban on abortion.

At that point, I believe there would be a shakeup at the state level that would lead to some red states becoming blue on the national level.

When I analyze the "punishment" aspect of it, I see it a transient loss of liberty; rather than a permanent one. I know, that's an easy conclusion for me to arrive at, after all, I'm a man. But there would also be quite a few men (drivers) who would be affected by this scenario. Thus, there would be some sharing of any pain that might occur. And that would help shake things up even more. I suppose that's why I don't view the imminent Alito confirmation with as much anxiety as others.

You are right with respect to the Constitutional disaster of Prohibition. However, Prohibition was enacted by means of the legislative process not by a judicial one.

[OKNancy]

13. The sentence about Prohibition

was written and deleted several times - lol but I decided to let it stay in my post because I was trying to think about a similar crisis.
I think I'm a lot like most Democrats and DUers in particular. I'd rather not have to face the overturning of Roe. I went through the bad old days and it is something I'd rather my daughter didn't have to face. As far as Alito is concerned, I think he is much more dangerous to our side than Roberts. I think Roberts might not be as bad as some fear. I base this on what some of my liberal lawyer friends have said, not my own limited knowledge of the law.

Interesting times we live in. That guy who said that it was the end of history is probably really embarrassed.

[oneoftheboys]

20. I don’t think we will have to face that situation either.

And it is probably better that we not have to. Still, it would make the interesting times we live in, even more interesting.

[CTyankee]

17. "transient loss of liberty"? Tell me, sir, which of your

constitutional rights would you give up without a fight? Which contitutional right do you have that you regard as one that could be lightly transient and that's ok? I would like a response.

[oneoftheboys]

21. Actually, I don't think anyone would be giving up a...

Constitutional right.

Many constitutional scholars believe that Roe was decided wrongly in the first place. I agree with that assessment. This issue should have been left to elected representatives as opposed to appointed justices.

[CTyankee]

22. You may agree but my point was

that it is now established law AND many, many women in this country DO believe it is their constitutional right. Taking away that right to them (to half of the population actually)will have a huge societal consequence. People expect democracies to expand, not eliminate, constitutional rights. Give it a little more thought please.

[oneoftheboys]

23. I do see your point, but I really don't think you have anything to...

worry about. I think it is highly unlikely that Roe will be overturned. I was simply hypothesizing with respect to how things might play out if it were overturned. And I was trying to analyze it from a long term perspective. In my opinion, there would be nothing to fear other than the short term (transient) inconvenience.

Not only would the possibility exist for several red states to turn blue, but there would be also be a push to enact legislation legalizing abortion at the national level.

I think that would settle the question for once and for all. Would that not be a good thing?

[CTyankee]

24. I don't think just enacting legislation at the national level will

take care of it once and for all. Legislation can be overturned depending on which party has a majority of votes. And, as my Republican sister in law who is also prochoice says, "Abortion is not the only issue." So people vote in an antichoice legislator because he or she is "good" on other issues that the voter likes.

What really bothers me in your use of the term "transient inconvenience" is that this is not about some pesky local traffic ordinance. It can be literally a life or death situation. The poor and the young are the most likely to be affected. I don't know how old you are but you seem to have no idea of what was going on before Roe was decided. Emergency rooms all over the country were seeing women maimed or dying from the effects of a self induced or unsafe illegal abortion. That stopped after Roe. Making abortion illegal kills women. The Alan Guttmacher Institute shows the stunning drop in morbidity and mortality among women having abortions from the year before Roe to the year following. This is no hypothetical musing about what would happen if Roe is overturned. We KNOW what happens when abortion is illegal. We have the actual statistics. I for one cannot understand any progressive making an argument for this outcome.

[oneoftheboys]

27. Yes, legislation can be overturned, but so can...

decisions made by the courts. I believe that legislation legalizing abortion (on the national level) would be more difficult to overturn than legal precedents.

I am 32, so I do not remember what it like before Roe. But a decision to abort is something that can be planned well in advance of the procedure. Therefore, I really don't see the dreadful scenario you described being the norm.

Furthermore, I'm confident that groups like Planned Parenthood would provide the means for the poor and young.

[CTyankee]

29. "in advance of the procedure"

What decision to abort is something that can be "in advance of a procedure" if that procedure has been declared by state law as illegal? How can Planned Parenthood or anybody else come into a state that has declared abortion illegal after the overturn of Roe to "provide means for the poor and the young."?

Please. The "dreadful scenario" you say I describe was a reality. Please educate yourself about the numbers of women who died from illegal abortions before Roe! If you are progressive and a liberal you need to know the facts. You need to know history. God knows we don't need to go through this again!

The whole reason behind Griswold v. Connecticut, which started the push toward Roe, was that Connecticut women were tired of going to NY and other states for their contraceptives because CT was the ONLY state (at that time in the mid 60s) that forbade any use of contraceptives! INSANITY! Year after year women would trudge up to Hartford to testify, along with docs from Yale Medical School, to testify on the beneficial effects of women having birth control. NOTHING HAPPENED!!!

I would love to think that our federal legislature would be responsive to the majority of the American people on the issue of reproductive rights and privacy. That is evidently not the case. We simply cannot ensure our rights with our federal legislature. That is for our judiciary branch of government to do and we are losing in that arena also. This has been the game plan of the RW for a very long time.

I have 3 granddaughters. You may have daughters and granddaughters someday also. Think what I think now: my granddaughters may not have the protection of constitutional law and rights that I and my daughters enjoyed for the last 33 years since the Roe decision. That is a stab in my heart. They are little girls who do not know what life will give them. I MUST fight for them; they cannot fight for themselves.

What constitutional right would YOU give up without a fight?

[oneoftheboys]

31. I guess I didn't make my point very understandable. Sorry.

What I was trying to state is that a woman desiring to abort would have plenty of time to arrange for the procedure to be performed in another state. As long as the actual procedure didn't take place in a state where it was illegal, all of the arrangements could be made in her home state. Thus, it would be just a matter of driving to a legal state once everything is scheduled.

Likewise, I believe that Planned Parenthood would organize the scheduling and then make travel arrangements for the poor.

This is all hypothetical of course; I'm only trying to demonstrate that there are ways to overcome obstacles that others place before us.

I would not give up any of my constitutional rights without a fight. But which article and section of the Constitution defines the right to an abortion?

[CTyankee]

33. Yes, that is hypothetical

if the state forbidding abortion is next door to a prochoice your scenario could work IF the woman has the transportation and the time off from work to take the trip. But notif the woman is a minor and the law forbids her friends or relatives to cross state lines for an abortion. You see, the RW has envisioned exactly what you are suggesting. Expect a spate of antichoice saws such as waiting times (requiring a woman to stay overnight adding the cost)

Once there is a distance of several hundred miles to get to a prochoice state, the costs can get prohibitive for poor women.

As to the article and section of the Constitution defining the right to an abortion, you should read "A Clash of Absolutes" written by a Harvard Law professor whose name now escapes me. He explains the rationale of the court in Roe.

Contraception is not specified in the original Constitution either. Do you think you have a constitutional right to privacy in that area? If you do, how do you square that and then turn around and say it doesn't apply to the decision by a woman whether or not to bear a child?

[oneoftheboys]

34. Apples and oranges...

relate to one another the same as contraception and abortion.

During the first trimester, abortion is arguably the elimination of a human life. During the third trimester, abortion is without a doubt, the elimination of human life. Contraception is neither.

It is interesting to note that you cannot point to the specific segment of the Constitution that defines abortion rights. The best thing about the Constitution is the fact that it is very easy to understand. Therefore, if it is not explicit, it is not there.

[CTyankee]

38. It is interesting to note that you didn't answer my question

Do you believe that you have a constitutional right to contraception? If so, where do you find the specific segment of the Constitution that defines contraceptive rights?

Again the book you should read is "Clash of Absolutes" by Lawrence Tribe, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School. In his book he outlines the specific areas of the Constitution or in case law that argues in favor of a Constitutional right to reproductive freedom. You believe your constitutional experts and I'll believe mine.

The Founders could not anticipate every technological, medical and sociological advance that would be made in the future when they wrote the Constitution. We have always had to apply reasoning when dealing with rights under circumstances unknown to the Founders. There was little in the way of contraception in the 18th century (altho there were forms of crude condoms)and abortion, tho certainly practiced, was not against any law when the Constitution was written.

[oneoftheboys]

42. I didn't answer your question because it has nothing to do with Roe.

However, I have no problem at all with answering it.

If you are talking about physical forms of contraception like condoms and other barriers, the answer is yes. On the other hand if you are referring to drugs, the answer is no.

You are wrong; the Founders did anticipate changes to our society. That is why they allowed for the amendment process. The latest example is the 26th Amendment; which lowered the voting age to 18.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that I trust American democracy. And while there may be a few hiccups along the way, things always work out for the best. If a few misguided politicians pass irresponsible legislation, the people will awaken and put things right. The latest example of this can be found in the recent Dover school board elections. Eight Republicans were replaced with Democrats who want intelligent design removed from science curriculum.

So, try having a little more trust in your fellow citizens. They may not pay attention all of the time, but they are more important to liberty than SC judges will ever be.

[CTyankee]

43. Where in the Constitution does it refer to a right to use a condom?

You did not answer my second question. I haven't found the word "contraception" in my copy of the Constitution. Where exactly is that pesky section of the Constitution that you found and I couldn't?

No, indeed. You have your constitutional right to use contraception due to Griswold v. Connecticut, a SC decision, not legislation passed by enlightened lawmakers. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the legislative route was tried again and again here in CT to get the state lege to decriminalize contraception. The state law was a folly and largely ignored by the citizenry who could cross state lines to get contraception.

I find it interesting that women during the early days of our Republic had an English common law right that preceded the Bill of Rights. We should ponder the durability of that before we take such a "tout va bien" attitude toward a woman's right whether and when to bear children.

[oneoftheboys]

45. Condoms are property and you are your property.

Thus, the SC wrongly decided that case. But as you stated, it was a "folly" since it didn't affect the citizenry anyway. If they had been affected, they would have done what was necessary set matters straight.

So, you really have made my point regarding the wisdom of investing faith in the American democracy.

(BTW) Drugs are property too, but our society has decided that we are going to protect ourselves (legislatively) by having the FDA evaluate drugs prior to approving them for mass consumption.

[CTyankee]

46. The lege can also decide that condoms

or birth control pills or diaphragms are not simply property: they are against the will of God and the dogma of the church that says only "natural" means of birth control (e.g. rhythm) can be allowed.

What do you do then, that is if you can't persuade the lege to change or get better people elected? You could move to a pro-reproductive rigths state.

What happens if after you've hypothetically moved the federal legislature makes them illegal, for reasons cited above. The RW courts uphold the constitutionality of the law and you're SOL.

Yes, women in CT could easily go out of state for birth control. That was an option for them then. This is now.

The RW will not let prochoice, proreproductive rights states get away with their own agendas when Roe and Griswold are overturned. Giving away rights we have won through blood, sweat and tears is, to me, inconsistent with my idea of a free people.

[oneoftheboys]

49. You seem to be suggesting that the majority...

of Americans are a bunch of far right loons. That is not the case at all. Here in Virginia (a red state), home of the loony Revs. Falwell and Robertson, we have elected our 2nd straight Dem governor. There is nothing to fear. Just give them enough rope and you will discover that the far right is nothing more than a paper tiger.

The entire abortion mess stems from the fact that these rights were not "won through blood, sweat and tears." Rather, they were granted by people in black robes.

Like the civil rights struggle, the struggle for abortion rights must be won by means of the legislative process.

[CTyankee]

50. I would love to think that about legislatures

but I have seen too much in the past 5 years to be too optimistic. We should hope for a swing in the pendulum but here again hopes are dashed unless we can get the voting machine thing resolved and reverse the gerrymandering that Tom Delay was so great at. Even when he is gone we will have to deal with that. So it is not just the people voting in fine democratic fashion, it is the corruption and fixing of the process of voting that has occurred. If, because of gerrymandering, we can't get progressives elected, if the counting of votes is "fixed" to guarantee that REpublicans only win, this is a problem that transcends the formula you describe as the legislative process.

While it would be desirable that a majority of voters would approve of the basic human dignity of privacy over one's "person" that the state simply cannot invade and control, which is the essential rationale of Griswold and Roe, this is sadly not the case. That is why we have the judiciary. The Founders also created this judiciary and early on in the American Republic set the Marbury principle.

One of the most stirring evocations of Griswold (and Roe to an extent)is found in the majority opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas decision of a few years back. Please go and read it. It describes the majesty of a constitutional right to sexual privacy that is far better than my own efforts at words. If we have to ground our right to such privacy on ownership of a piece of latex, instead of the Enlightenment principles of privacy described in Lawrence, well I guess that's just about what we deserve.

[oneoftheboys]

57. I do think that about legislatures;

but the point you make about gerrymandering is a strong one. I'm definitely concerned about the fact that there will only be 16 or 17 House seats that will truly be up for grabs (that's ridiculous). It makes me think that term limits might not be such a bad idea after all.

But then again, the pendulum has always been slow to reverse.

As far as your efforts at words go, you have definitely presented me with some thoughts that I had not considered. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that when the "People" are stirred, they do the right thing.

[tenshi816]

47. In your scenario,

do you anticipate that Planned Parenthood would also be paying all the expenses involved for the abortions of poor women? Travel? Accommodation? Paying for the abortion itself?

I don't think so.

[oneoftheboys]

48. In some cases, yes.

However, I'm quite certain that some very creative techniques would emerge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to overcome obstacles.

[Mr. Blonde]

30. Re:

Believing something is a constitutional right and it actually being one are two totally different things. I don't personally believe that abortion should be outright banned, but the court overstepped its power with the decision. It should be up to the states and elected representatives not a court on nine unelected justices.

[jefferson_dem]

25. I've never understood this logic - that our liberties are not guarantees

but may be denied through some strong-armed *democratic* action. The legal rationale for the right to privacy generally and the right to abortion specifically are founded in constitutional jurisprudence.

I'm curious if rights to free speech, assembly, religion, etc should also be subjected to state or local-level restrictions if the mobs within their jurisdictions demand it?

[oneoftheboys]

26. No...,

"rights to free speech, assembly, religion, etc should (cannot) also be subjected to state or local-level restrictions." Like the right to redress, these rights are clearly enshrined in the Constitution. It would take an Amendment to overturn those.

[formernaderite]

37. Women in those states already have to drive hundreds of miles

because of how few clinics exist. Overturning Roe v wade wouldn't change that. I'm sure planned parenthood etc. would be able to fund abortion buses, that would bring poor women to another state if necessary.

[sendero]

35. Hey..

..... women voted for Bush 2004 (in higher numbers than usual) knowing full well (or certainly should have known) that he would appoint anti-choice judges on the SC.

They apparently are more worried about "terra" (they are 10 times more likely to die in an auto accident, but who's counting) than their rights.

I'm old, vasectomized, with 3 sons. If they don't care about the choice issue, I don't care. If they don't "rise up", well, what can be done?

[McCamy Taylor]

15. No Roe v. Wade will mean loss of medical autonomy for fertile women.

The crazy laws they keep passing in some red states that only affect women in their third thrimester--those will start getting passed for all fertile women. Like no Accutane. No work in jobs with radiation exposure. No travel to certain places. All to protect the welfare of a hypothetical baby that cant be aborted. The insurance industry, Chamber of Commerce, Christian Coalition will find ways to use women's new loss of medical autonomy to turn them into second class citizens in red states.

Re; driving to get an abortion, have you considered the possibility that states could declare the unborn child a ward of the state and forbid the mother the right to travel outside the state to obtain an abortion?

It is going to get ugly when there is a patch work of states some with and some without.

[oneoftheboys]

28. You are absolutely right. Some states would...

would enact very restrictive (crazy) legislation and some would probably ban abortion outright. But as I previously stated (hypothetically), this would lead to Democrats and other pro-choice candidates being elected in these states. So, the ugliness would be short lived and once the dust settles, the issue would be settled once and for all.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Mmmm, stealth candidates.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stealth+candidates

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Right

They've been using the abortion thing for years. Hook, line and sinker for years to mobilize people to get out and vote. Than they can not do anything and they can blame the mean old democrats who don't care about God or "saving the babies" or whatever. Mean while they're tearing down social programs that HELP families. Why else do they use those issues? Because they know it's what gets people out. Look at Ann Richards, John McCain, Al Gore, John Kerry. (Of course Gore and Kerry won their elctions)

[ruggerson]

18. I disagree

the religious right won't stand for that.

They oppose abortion with their hearts and souls. The VERY moment it is overturned, legislation will be introduced in almost all the Southern states to criminalize it. If Republicans vote against it, or the national party stands in the way, it will ENRAGE these people.

They only care about two thing: preventing women from having control over their reproductive freedoms and hating fags.

That is their agenda.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Dont forget segregation. They care about that, too.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

32. I agree.

And when they do get it overturned, they will constantly remind their sycophantic following this:
"if the evil, terrorist-enabling liberals ever get back into power, they'll start killing babies again!!!!"

They've build this machine up for nearly 40 years. This IS their goal: overturn it. And keep it overturned forever.
To believe that they'll not overturn it is quite, quite foolish. Besides, they also have gays to kick around.

With Roberts and probably Alito on the bench, they'll have a solid lock on the Supreme Court until the middle of the century.

[formernaderite]

36. This will occurr in red states....

no blue states will tolerate this. So electorally, what difference does it make? I actually see overturning roe v wade as a plus-plus for democrats. If the repubs try to ban abortion in moderate red states, they'll lose big time. So a few high red states will ban abortion....big deal. There certainly is enough money to create abortion buses to bring low income women to another state for the procedure. I think we'll see a ground swell build for a real womens rights amendment, protecting her rights to her own body.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Abortion buses? That will be outlawed, too. Fetus will be a "citizen".

The feds will pass a version of the Mann Act making it illegal to cross state lines to violate a states' laws which relate to protection of a minor. That means no travel in red states if you are pregnant. Or else.

We will be back to pre-Civil War, except it will be women living in slave states and free states. And we all know how well that worked out.

[formernaderite]

41. sorry....but if I live in a dry county...it's still legal for me to go

to the next county for alcohol. People also used to run over to the next state to get married if it was easier or they were too damn young. Your doomsday scenario is just not going to happen. Like I said, overturning roe v wade would be the best thing that could ever happen to the democrats. Every citizen would assess whether or not they live in a state that protects their interests.

[CTyankee]

44. Don't you think the RWers have already figured out what to do

about those women going over the border to another state for an abortion? They are smart enough to have developed a strategy to frustrate any attempts around their antichoice laws. They will ram through some interesting state legislation, which will be challenged in court, but then of course rubber stamped by a judiciary controlled by judges appointed by Bush.

I hope you are right about an aroused citizenry trumping all of this right wing zealotry. Unfortunately, there will be dying women to pay for Roe's overturn. Hope it's not anybody you know and love

[McCamy Taylor]

40. Lookie! Ohio bill makes it felony to cross state line for abortion.

See what I mean about the noose tightening around women? And this is just a "what if" bill in case the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060119/NEWS01/601190364/1056

"ntroduced nine months ago by Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, House Bill 228 would make it a felony to carry out abortions or transport a woman across state lines to have one. It would allow abortions only to save the life of a mother"

This kind of craziness could be introduced everytime the RNC wants to get some corporate special interest's money making bill passed in a special session or even in a general election. Bring out an off the wall piece of shit legislation like this that will probably get overturned in federal court (criminalize crossing state lines? how do you enforce this?) put it on the list of things to vote upon and VIOLA---massive GOP base turn out that will favor Big Business's agenda.

I will bet you a nickel that some candidate or measure plans to coat tail on this sucker.

So what if it depletes states legal coffers defending this crap in federal court? Big Business will have its pork. Republicans will get voted into office.

Wake up and smell the GOP shit before you are sitting in it chin deep (you are only waist deep now).

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. I'm sure one could go for a vacation and happen to have an abortion

Simple to get around that restriction, although I'm totally against the entire idea of it.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. In Alabama...

... Where these ALLEGED Christians are very strong. I keep telling people in my local Democratic Party it's not an abortion issue. The REAL issue here is "A WOMAN'S GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT HER OWN BODY." It's much less divisive in the Bible belt, when we call a spade a spade.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. I would say it's a privacy issue

It's about privacy and one's medical care, primarily. If one concedes privacy is unimportant and merely argues about rights to choose, one has already moved closer to losing the debate, IMHO.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[CTyankee]

54. who in the prochoice community says privacy is unimportant?

I have heard not one single argument against the privacy argument. The privacy argument is at the heart of Roe v. Wade, that and due process.

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. If you argure about choice, you have already conceded privacy

If you think the government should allow you to choose, you concede that the government has that power. If you argue that the government should NOT allow you to choose, you argue that the government has that power.

If you argue that the government has no domain over your privacy, reproductive choice is a personal decision. I didn't make this argument up. It's the best argument for civil rights, including but not limited to one's right to make one's own medical decisions without governmental interference. Abortion is merely a subset of this argument.

As for arguing against the privacy argument (can one argue against an argument?), the question is moot if one addresses "abortion rights" or the "right to choose" since one has already conceded the privacy argument at that point. No one has to argue against it, one simply has to ignore or concede it to lose it.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[CTyankee]

58. Then why do we have the Bill of Rights that says "Congress shall

make no law..." If the Founders believed we had these rights why do you think they wrote the Bill of Rights forbidding the government to usurp our rights?

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. The founders stated in their documents that we HAVE these rights

Of course they believed we have these rights, and more. They stated that we have rights including but not limited to... and so on.

Writing some of them into a document was not giving the government power to take them away, or to grant rights thet are already inalienable but to ensure that the government they envisioned would NOT be able to take these rights away. Conceding any of your inalienable rights, written specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, is a disgrace to the founders intentions.

inalienable

adj 1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" 2: not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[CTyankee]

60. So when Roe is overturned all we have to do is assert

our inalienable right of privacy and that will keep abortion legal and clinics open? Gee.

[greiner3]

55. I thought that Roe would be the first to go;

But I did not expect it to actually be freedom from search and seizures!