I’d like to take this opportunity to say that it drives me nuts when the media refers to this as “partial birth abortion” — even if they put it in quotes. It should be referred to as late-term abortion

zed?

Breaking is the word

Alarming decision, o my. They refuse to take it seriously. Just great.

EPU’d right on topic ~ h/t Marie Roget

Abortion Bans: Myths and Facts
http://www.aclu.org/reproducti…..40326.html

I’m too disgusted to say anything coherent.

Ugh. Period.

while i won’t applaud this
decision in any way, i am not
convinced that it will result
in any meaningful reduction of
any woman’s legitimate right to
choose what happens with her body. . .

i did see this one as a rove-political
wedge-stunt when it came out, and i never
would want to see roe v. wade over-
turned, but as losses go, this one does
not strike me as very momentous. . .

just my $0.02 — and i am happy to
be told i am all wrong. . .

shame

AP has excerpts from the SCOTUS abortion decision here.

Again, at this point Kennedy is definitely the swing vote in this SCOTUS.

I just dont want to hear them crow.

Sad to say. I saw the news and said a loud, Oh Sh*t at the office. Then I realized that i was not surprised. The theocrats have been planning this for a long time. Be aware that there are very few places in the country that even did late term abortions and those that did it saw the most horridly tragic circumstances imaginable. These abortions are done only as a last resort and because to not do them would do grave harm to the woman.

Imagine having cancer, going through chemo and then finding out that no one asked if you were pregnant before starting the chemo. Imagine the effect on a fetus. This happens.

For the women who face this kind of procedure it is a tragedy to begin with. These are wanted babies where something has gone very very wrong. Now, the woman will suffer twice. First the loss of the fetus—it will have to happen anyway—and then the effects on her health because appropriate medical care can no longer be administered.

Sad day.

Lou Costello @
5

EPU’d right on topic ~ h/t Marie Roget

Abortion Bans: Myths and Facts
aclu link

Thanks for pulling the ACLU link up to this thread, Lou.
Facts are important when dealing w/such a hot button issue…

and so it begins.

This now means a surgical procedure for a woman to save her life, and an attempt by doctors to try to keep an unviable fetus alive.

Of course, insurance companies will probably not reimburse and the whole thing will put a women’s lives in greater danger, but who the heck cares?

It’s a sad day for our nation.

Back in October, Hadley Arkes at firstthings.com had this to say on the ramifications of yesterday’s decision – yeah, let’s hope it isn’t too accurate of a prediction:

if Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, “We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion.”

That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.

Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified.

So, now the wingnuts have an entirely new reason to bring through a slew of initiatives and legislation designed to get their voters out of their pews and into the voting booths…

I am so confused about this topic. I can’t see a reason to allow elective abortions past a specific point in the pregnancy, but always the health of the woman must be paramount. Is there somewhere to get clear non-biased information about abortion and abortion issues?

Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother. Often if the mother dies, the baby dies.

Stupid, stupid people. It is all about crusty old white guys telling the rest of us how to live and die.

Aren’t you glad that powder was kept dry?

In success the right has lost a rallying cry, but they have not had much of an effect on outcomes.

They will want to follow it up with more radical measures.

Those more radical measures won’t be supported by the population as a whole. They will end up with abortion being a domestic version of the Iraq war — something they can’t run from or their base will disown them, but they can’t run to or the public will disown them.

If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.

adam @ 22

In success the right has lost a rallying cry, but they have not had much of an effect on outcomes.

They will want to follow it up with more radical measures.

Those more radical measures won’t be supported by the population as a whole. They will end up with abortion being a domestic version of the Iraq war — something they can’t run from or their base will disown them, but they can’t run to or the public will disown them.

If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.

A decade is not nearly long enough. They must be out of power until a fundamental change takes place within the party and it no longer represents the most authoritarian, regressive, anti-science, anti-liberty and human rights theologically warped elements in society.

No offense, egregious, but I don’t want you drawing any lines when it comes to my body.

Ed*ard Teller @ 18

Back in October, Hadley Arkes at firstthings.com had this to say on the ramifications of yesterday’s decision – yeah, let’s hope it isn’t too accurate of a prediction:

if Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, “We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion.”

That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.

Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified.

So, now the wingnuts have an entirely new reason to bring through a slew of initiatives and legislation designed to get their voters out of their pews and into the voting booths…

This has already been happening around the country for the past 15 years or so. Very few states have very few restrictions, even the so-called liberal states. The action moved to state legislatures long ago and much of the damage done is already irreversible. That is why it is important to pay attention to and get involved with local and state elections. The only way the tide will change is by looking for, supporting, and electing progressives across the country.

Ultimately we have been stripped of our inherent ability to choose for ourselves…AGAIN. O Canada!

Hi Nolo and all. As I was saying in the last thread, it is my understanding that this law outlaws all “Dialation and Extraction” abortion procedures. This is the procedure that is done after twelve weeks of pregnancy (may not always be necessary to do D&E until about 14 weeks). Right after the law passed I read a story in the Times about a twelve year old girl in NY who had been raped by her cousin. Her mother discovered this when the little girl’s pregnancy started to show. She was 16 weeks pregnant and under this ban she would not have been allowed to have an abortion. It really doesn’t matter to me if it affects a lot of women because it will certainly have a huge effect on some women (and girls).

After Roberts and Alito testified in their Senate confirmation hearings that they both would adhere to stare decisis (i.e. long-established precedent), who knew they were just kidding…wink, wink?

And who knew at NARAL when they backed Joe4Joe Lieberloser’s Repug Independent candidacy that his vote to allow cloture on the Alito vote would mean that someday (today, ya think?) there would be consequences?

I guess when dirty feckin’ hippies continually and accurately predict the future results from cynical, malevolent or perhaps even criminally moronic decisions, one should never, ever take DFHs seriously!

Who knew?…ahmmm, excuse me, but we did!

At that late-term stage there is usually either something dreadfully wrong with the fetus or the mother’s life is in danger — I’m sure it’s not a casual decision. Good friends of ours faced a decision where they had 3 days to decide whether to abort a fetus whose heart was malformed and would most certainly die, or bring it to term and have heroic measures to reconstruct the heart so it might live a week. The 3 days was to comply with state regulations on abortions. They went on to have two more children after this.

#1: What egregious said at #23! The voice of experience, working in the trenches right now, relating each baby she saves to her own life! I can’t express how much I admire you, eg.

#2: Nina Totenberg, reading from Ruth Ginsberg’s dissent on NPR right now. Far more emotion in Totenberg’s voice than I’ve heard in a long, long time.

Thanks Nancy Keenan.

Now might be a good time to call NARAL (which as of this writing has nothing on their site about the SCOTUS decision) and tell them thanks for nothing, which is exactly what they did to stop Alito’s confirmation.
Thank them for supporting Joe Lieberman while you’re at it.
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
Media Relations: 202.973.3032
Membership Information: membership@ProChoiceAmerica.org
Legacy Gifts: plannedgiving@ProChoiceAmerica.org
Information Line: 202.973.3018

egregious @ 23

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

I’d challenge you to cite specific statistics on the number of late-term abortions done on normally-developed, “nearly-formed” fetuses. It’s not some elective procedure like getting an eye lift. This is a procedure that is done only in severe circumstances. Do you think doctors, who are dedicated to heal others, would casually recommend or do this?

It is this kind of emotional response that the theocrats rely on to push their anti-woman agenda.

White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON – President Bush’s lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.

Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they’re covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/…..092874.htm

“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.

egregious @
23

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here

Thank you for your words, egregious. Your work and your experience have more than earned you the right to voice your opinion, and it should be given heed.

In order to better form my own opinion, I would be interested to know what, “For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health,” actually pertains too.

A simple google shows numbers in the amount of 2000 of these procedures performed in the US, annually. What is the actual benefit to a woman’s health to perform this procedure?

There are always a myriad of sides to complex issues of life and death in the medical arena; and I refuse to let the rabid right or the left frame this as a black and white issue, even if the resulting legal decisions must be.

From AP:

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

SilenceIris @ 25

No offense, egregious, but I don’t want you drawing any lines when it comes to my body.

Yes, I agree with you and am not trying to draw any lines there.

I worked FOR abortion rights in the 60’s and still am pro-choice while I am also pro-life, not the customary position. None of my 11 pregnancies ended in abortion but I supported people close to me who felt they needed to go this route.

Being pregnant is a huge responsibility, I would never advocate forcing this on anyone. It must be done freely.

Am only trying to offer my perspective as someone who works in a department with premature infants, while not trying to limit anyone’s freedom of choice.

I hope we are able to discuss this with respect for each others positions. Almost certainly I am missing something important in the debate.

Mae @
1

I’d like to take this opportunity to say that it drives me nuts when the media refers to this as “partial birth abortion” — even if they put it in quotes. It should be referred to as late-term abortion

In fact, it’s the safest way to do late-term therapeutic abortions. What happens now in cases of eclampsia?

People can agree to disagree. As gentle folks are want to do. ;0)

sonate @ 35

“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.

They don’t have to overturn it. They just have to make abortions impossible to get. They are well on their way to doing that.

Mad Dogs @ 29

After Roberts and Alito testified in their Senate confirmation hearings that they both would adhere to stare decisis (i.e. long-established precedent), who knew they were just kidding…wink, wink?

And who knew at NARAL when they backed Joe4Joe Lieberloser’s Repug Independent candidacy that his vote to allow cloture on the Alito vote would mean that someday (today, ya think?) there would be consequences?

I guess when dirty feckin’ hippies continually and accurately predict the future results from cynical, malevolent or perhaps even criminally moronic decisions, one should never, ever take DFHs seriously!

Who knew?…ahmmm, excuse me, but we did!

Yup. I did in 2000, even though there were those who said there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Bush and Gore. Gore wouldn’t have appointed Alito and Roberts. (And neither would Kerry, for that matter.)

RevDeb @ 12

Sad to say. I saw the news and said a loud, Oh Sh*t at the office. Then I realized that i was not surprised. The theocrats have been planning this for a long time. Be aware that there are very few places in the country that even did late term abortions and those that did it saw the most horridly tragic circumstances imaginable. These abortions are done only as a last resort and because to not do them would do grave harm to the woman.

Imagine having cancer, going through chemo and then finding out that no one asked if you were pregnant before starting the chemo. Imagine the effect on a fetus. This happens.

For the women who face this kind of procedure it is a tragedy to begin with. These are wanted babies where something has gone very very wrong. Now, the woman will suffer twice. First the loss of the fetus—it will have to happen anyway—and then the effects on her health because appropriate medical care can no longer be administered.

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

egregious @
23

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.

Very sorry to hear your experience but IIRC during the testimony on this subject before congress, there are certain conditions, malformations of the fetus, in which cause the pregnancy to go on indefinitely even though the fetus is not viable. The fetus does not produce the right hormones to trigger labor and delivery. So, essentially, the woman carries around this baby who will not be born and when it is born, it can not be saved. If intact dilation and extraction is good for anything, this is surely one of those cases.
So, where do women go now to get a medically necessary procedure done? Canada?

puppethead @ 33

egregious @ 23

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

I’d challenge you to cite specific statistics on the number of late-term abortions done on normally-developed, “nearly-formed” fetuses. It’s not some elective procedure like getting an eye lift. This is a procedure that is done only in severe circumstances. Do you think doctors, who are dedicated to heal others, would casually recommend or do this?

It is this kind of emotional response that the theocrats rely on to push their anti-woman agenda.

You have no idea what I was faced with. We wanted a child. Please be careful. Some of us have been to hell and back.

egregious @ 23

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.

Fair point, however:

It is my understanding that this procedure is very rare, and only takes place when there is a distinct danger to the mother and/or the fetus is severly compromised already and stands little chance of survival and no other method would be as safe in terms of protecting the life, health or ability to bear childeren later of the mother. This does not fit the description of “unwanted child” in common parlance, as in if the child, if carried to term, would be embarrassing, a financial burden or merely inconvenient. Under these circumstances, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes not “something bad,” but certainly something tragic. Tragedy cannot be legislated. If I’m wrong please correct me.

There is no contradiction in being pro-choice and pro-life.

Most people who are pro-choice are for life and mean life beyond birth as well. Most people who claim to be “pro-life” are really anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti- woman’s rights, and have little interest or energy to invest in what happens to the unwanted babies or those who are born into tragic circumstances.

RevDeb @ 41

sonate @ 35

“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.

They don’t have to overturn it. They just have to make abortions impossible to get. They are well on their way to doing that.

Exactly, Rev.

Passive agressive move by the Republics. And, they’ll enlist the insurance companies to that end.

“After Roberts and Alito testified in their Senate confirmation hearings that they both would adhere to stare decisis (i.e. long-established precedent), who knew they were just kidding…lying, wink, wink?”

I know I can’t blame this decision on one person but Short Ride Joe bears much of the responsibility for this. And now when it comes to the life of the woman, not even a “short ride” will matter.

But, taking a step back (deep breath) what does this really mean? Is the abortion issue now becoming a legislative battle, rather than a legal issue? And with even larger Democratic majorities on the horizon, could that be a positive thing? A commenter above noted that the far right has now lost a voting isssue. I agree. And now the social progressives/moderates (I would argue the majority of people in this country) have gained a voting issue.

egregious @ 23

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.

I would disagree; everyone I know who is pro-choice is pro-life, we’re just not antiabortion.

And in this case, I think you might have a leg to stand on if late-term abortion were an elective procedure, but it’s not. I find it extremely doubtful that any of the doctors performing this procedure have not sought alternatives that preserve the health of the mother, and I do not consider it “pro-life” to have lawmakers and Supreme Court justices deciding they can better make that determination.

From AP:

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

I’m missing something in the last sentence. Isn’t the method related to the when?

musicsleuth @ 21

Aren’t you glad that powder was kept dry?

oh yeah. we should be kicking ass and taking names.

The difficulty I have with state (and national?) regs on medical procedures is that they apply to all equally for circumstances that are anything BUT equal. I can’t help but see them as a big ban on trust — both of the families involved and the trained professionals treating them. Help me understand how this isn’t a total pandering to the religious reich.

The last two extremists put on the court assure everyone they believe in that “let it stand” principle. So, they were lying? Can they be impeached for obviously lying to during their confirmation hearings?

It is sad to recall that significant numbers of Democrats supported the legislation that so jeopardized women’s health and reproductive rights:

Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on October 22, 2003. Large numbers of Democrats joined a nearly unanimous GOP in both houses; the bill passed 63-34 in the Senate, and 281-142 in the House. President Bush signed it into law at a White House ceremony on November 5.

For the disturbing history, see:
“Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights.”

What a horrible week this is turning out to be. My heart continues to break.

egregious, I really hope to meet you in person some day. You are truly a remarkable woman.

And I think today’s decision reinforces the stance that Jane and Christy took for being so harshly against NARAL and their support of JoeLie. (They took quite a bit of heat for that, as I recall…) Chickens roosting and all that. We are not surprised are we?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 34

White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON – President Bush’s lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.

Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they’re covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.

realcities link

Obstruction of justice in the first degree.

The GOP base most assuredly desires the overturning of Roe. This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy concerning messing with individual liberties and injecting themselves into people’s personal lives where they have no business being.

martha—

Thank you. Just trying to share my observations from our hospital work.

OT, but maybe important with the current re’ whitehouse/Rove E-mail/blackberry thingy going on.

BlackBerry service back
Service problems disrupted e-mail traffic but the company says most service is restored.
April 18 2007: 10:16 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A system failure knocked out BlackBerry service to millions of customers late Tuesday but the company said Wednesday morning that service for “most customers” was restored.

A statement from the company said: “A service interruption occurred Tuesday night that affected BlackBerry in North America. E-mail delivery was delayed or intermittent during the service interruption.”

“Root cause is currently under review, but service for most customers was restored overnight and RIM is closely monitoring systems in order to maintain normal service levels,” the statement said.

The stock of Research in Motion (Charts), which sells the BlackBerry device and service, sank about 1 percent at the open but recovered somewhat and was off about 0.3 percent in morning trading on Nasdaq.

Research in Motion said phone service on the handsets was unaffected.

Some users had reported intermittent service, others have gotten bundles of backed-up emails, and still others had no access at all.

BlackBerry devices became popular in the 1990s for people who wanted to get e-mail, phone calls and Internet access while on the go. It’s now often called “CrackBerry” by many users who joke about their “addiction” to the devices.

The service problems started about 8 p.m. ET Tuesday and affected users across the Western hemisphere, WNBC, a New York TV news channel, reported. Some reports said users were also affected in Hong Kong and London.

Even with the system back, some users may experience delays as the company processes the backlog.

A spokeswoman for Verizon, one of the service providers for Research in Motion, said the outage didn’t involve Verizon’s networks.

sonate @ 35

“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.

respectfully disagree. there is plenty of wingnuttery left if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Observation:

I find it interesting that pro-life people are also more likely to be pro-death penalty.

I’m sorry but I must break into this discussion with an important message from Doug Ireland:

Begin message:

“Dear friends,
I’ve received the urgent appeal below from my friend Arsham Parsi, the young Secretary-General of the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO, formerly the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization or PGLO), who as you may know is now living in Toronto after having been granted asylum by Canada as a sexual refugee from persecution in Iran. Arsham telephoned me today in desperate search of help for Babak, this poor, persecuted Iranian gay activist who faces certain prison if he cannot be quickly smuggled out of Iran.
I urge you to make a contribution, even a small one, to IRQO in support of Babak (that’s easy to do on your credit card via the PayPal link on the IRQO’s website). Please read Babak’s story, which you’ll find below.
Regards,
DOUG IRELAND (see below)

An Iranian Gay Blogger Activist, who fled Iran’s police, captured by Turkey’s Police and was deported back to Iran, needs your help
irqo link

April 17, 2007

Dear Friends,

This is an urgent appeal on behalf of a courageous Iranian gay activist who was deported
back to Iran from Turkey two weeks ago.

For security reasons we call him Babak in this letter. He is 27-years-old, and has been working as a translator/writer for Cheraq magazine, the Iranian Queer Organization’s on-line monthly magazine (formerly Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization – PGLO) for the last year. He is also a gay blogger/writer who actively pursued queer rights through his resourceful articles, received suspicious threats from the under-cover Iranian police. He fled Iran through the mountains and went to Turkey. Unfortunately, he was stopped in Turkey by the police and was arrested for the lack of documents. Before he could claim refugee statutes at the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.), Arsham Parsi, Executive Director of IRQO, who was in Turkey at the time to prepare a report about Iranian queer asylum seeker’s situation in Turkey, called the U.N.H.C.R. and informed them about Babak’s case. U.N.H.C.R. office in Ankara called Turkey’s police, informing the police that Babak must be released so he could go to U.N.H.C.R and make his claim. However, he was, most probably, deported back to Iran by Turkish police. Once deported, he was taken to jail in Iran, and was released only after he was badly beaten and tortured. A friend had paid $1500.00 fine for him to be let out of jail. He will have to show up in court, soon, to be tried. At present he is in hiding. Only one person has contact with him. Babak has no access to internet or phone services. It is very important that he is smuggled out of Iran as soon as possible and before he is summoned to report in a court.

Babak was born in Iran and send to Bahrain as a child, as a child laborer. He came back to Iran a young man with a cause to follow. Fluent in both Arabic and Farsi he was a precious source. He translated and wrote vigorously for LGBTQ community in Arabic and Farsi newspapers. His research in Persian and Arab classic gave countless evident of the long history of Gay men’s existents in both nations, giving the identity of gay men in Iran a more legitimate presence in contrast to the government’s claim that labeled homosexuality: a disease imported from the West in order to attack Persian social values.

We are a global gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender family, and we need to help out members of this family who are in desperate need — particularly individual activists like Babak and Mani who have been persecuted for the way they love and for the crime of defending the rights of our brothers and sisters. We at IRQO have scarcely any financial
resources ourselves, since we do not ask dues from our membership, and while we have sent
Babak a few paltry dollars, our treasury is bare. Please consider making an urgent donation to IRQO to help Babak, who needs to flee to Turkey again, and other Iranian queer asylum seekers residing in Turkey at present, needing financial help to survive until they are granted official refugee status by the U.N.H.C.R. and find asylum in a gay-friendly country.

Even $10 or $20 would be enormously helpful. You can help them now by clicking on the “Donate” button on the homepage of our website at http://www.irqo.net and using your credit card via the secure PayPal system. Or, you mail a check to us and earmark it for “Refugees” at:

Arsham Parsi
41 Waddington Cr.
M2J 2Z9
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

We look forward to your support. Please do not forget Iran’s persecuted gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender people. To bring Babak out of his hiding and across the border to Turkey money is urgently needed. Please give your support, and donate.

Do not leave us Abandoned!”
*******
End message

Biodun @ 51

From AP:

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

I’m missing something in the last sentence. Isn’t the method related to the when?

Yes, that’s right. So I suppose if docs can come up with another sage way to do a second trimester abortion this law will be moot, but in the meantime some women and girls will suffer desperately.

mc @ 49

But, taking a step back (deep breath) what does this really mean? Is the abortion issue now becoming a legislative battle, rather than a legal issue? And with even larger Democratic majorities on the horizon, could that be a positive thing? A commenter above noted that the far right has now lost a voting issue. I agree. And now the social progressives/moderates (I would argue the majority of people in this country) have gained a voting issue.

I hope that we can build large enough majorities to take advantage of this as a legislative issue, but I have to disagree that the far right has lost a voting issue. This is a signal that if they can elect people who will pass these restrictions, they will stand instead of being overturned. Why would that not motivate them to elect more such people?

The best development would be if it also makes it a voting issue for the complacent pro-choice majority. You’d think it would, but since none of the other restrictions have done that, I don’t have a lot of confidence.

TiredFed @ 43

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

Voting for Nader – I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 – cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

egregious @ 23

EPU’d and with great respect for those folks who disagree with my views here:

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life. I had 8 miscarriages and 3 live births. No one must be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will: it is horrible even when you do want the baby.

People of good will can disagree about much that happens with regard to abortions and the politics surrounding them. It is my view, which you may not share, that puncturing the brain of a nearly formed fetus constitutes something bad, even if it is an unwanted child. We have to draw the line somewhere.

We do surgery on premies smaller and younger than those who are involved with so-called partial birth abortions. I work to save them; other people’s mileage may vary.

I think I must be pretty close to your view. I believe the choice should be between a woman and her doctor, taking into account the viability of the fetus. Late-term abortions are always scary propositions, but in my wife’s case, she would have to have one if a pregnancy went undetected (very unlikely in her case, but possible), or she would die. My sense is that the issue is, whose choice is it, the woman’s or the law. I vote for the woman.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 67

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

I wanna kick Boner in the nuts. He’s already reproduced though, hasn’t he? Still…

Biodun @ 51

From AP:

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

I’m missing something in the last sentence. Isn’t the method related to the when?

It sure is. In fact, it’s the safest way for a woman to get a late-term abortion; the other options are much, much nastier. That’s why the the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports its use.

The Fundies won by doing things we find distasteful, like running around with trucks showing aborted fetuses. Maybe it’s time for us to send out trucks showing women dead of eclampsia because they weren’t allowed to terminate their pregancies.

I can’t endure hearing those people called “pro life.” They are anything but.

Oklahoma kiddo @
68

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

But once the child is born – its on its own.

This was posted on TalkLeft:

From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:
One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus will hold in the face of the Court’s “moral concerns.” . . . The Court’s hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctors.”

Framing again by authoritarian men.

Thom Hartmann talking about it in detail on AirAmerica right now. Stream it through their website or through iTunes.

Ed*ard Teller @ 66

TiredFed @ 43

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

Voting for Nader – I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 – cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.

Gore was close in lots of other states, not just Florida, and Nader’s margins in those states kept Gore from winning them outright. Without Nader, Jeb could have still stolen Florida but Gore would be in the White House.

Frankly, I think we should focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies by promoting abstinence based education….It’s been proven successful—in making money for conservative Christian propagandadists.

-GSD

The same people who are making abortions more difficult to obtain are making them more necessary by promoting faith based programs that have proven to be ineffective.

I’m sensing a major pushback “surge” on a number of fronts by the minority Bushie loyalists. Stay on the Attack, Attack, Attack.

Nervous @ 54

The last two extremists put on the court assure everyone they believe in that “let it stand” principle. So, they were lying? Can they be impeached for obviously lying to during their confirmation hearings?

yes, they can.

Phoenix Woman @ 70

The Fundies won by doing things we find distasteful, like running around with trucks showing aborted fetuses. Maybe it’s time for us to send out trucks showing women dead of eclampsia because they weren’t allowed to terminate their pregancies.

Show the children left behind after their mother was taken from them and rail against state-sponsored mother killings… (only half joking)

I have had fears about a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court for a long while, especially a fear that Justice Kennedy would “get religion” in his old age, and today Kennedy’s siding with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has born out my fears. Bush and the media will portray this as a great victory for Bush, and it will “motivate the base” for the next election so it is a victory for Rove as well. It is very sad because the Catholic church and most Catholics in the US will see Bush as a hero and support him on all issues not just the single one. Pope Ratzinger will be praising Bush too when they meet, thereby influencing the Catholic vote.

I do hope the Democrats will be savvy enough not to let abortion be turned into the major issue of the 2008 election when there is so much that is wrong with this country and this administration.

Now that these pro-lifers got what they want, do you think they might get a conscience about some of the other issues that Bush pushed through on their pro-life vote?

GeorgeSimian @ 79

Now that these pro-lifers got what they want, do you think they might get a conscience about some of the other issues that Bush pushed through on their pro-life vote?

no

What I see happening is that instead of a D&E, doctors will end up doing caesareans for women who have pregnancies that for one reason or another are not viable and can cause harm to the patient if induced to be born vaginally. What has been eliminated is a technique, not a final outcome. In this case, it’s worse than we thought because the techniques that can cause abortion are many: vacuum extraction, RU486, salting out, dilation and curretage. Where do we draw the line?
Well, it looks like there *is* no line anymore.

I wonder how long it will be before a string of lawsuits end up against hospitals and the law that had their wives and daughters die for a fetus that didn’t survive anyway. It’s a nasty thought, but it will happen. Inevitable after this.

The cases are rare as all the rest of you have said. I just wish it didn’t have to end up this way. I’ve heard fights over this issue my entire life, now this happens.

GeorgeSimian @ 80

Now that these pro-lifers got what they want, do you think they might get a conscience about some of the other issues that Bush pushed through on their pro-life vote?

There is no chance of that.

This issue is really good for those left of, say, Gnewt Gingrich.

Why? Because the wing-nuts isolate themselves from the mainstream who feels abortion is a woman’s choice. It is akin to the wing-nuts showing their asses and unreasonableness on the Terry Shiavo issue.

Sometimes one does not need to confront unreasonableness. One only needs to step aside and let the opposition speak, and speak. The extremists then take over the dialog and more reasonable positions stand, quietly, for themselves.

Slash and burn, SCOTUS! It isolates the wing-nuts and shows people how unreasonable their positions are.

“Partial

Phoenix Woman @ 71

The Fundies won by doing things we find distasteful, like running around with trucks showing aborted fetuses. Maybe it’s time for us to send out trucks showing women dead of eclampsia because they weren’t allowed to terminate their pregancies.

I feel women are far more capable of framing reproductive rights issues than are men. Keeping this particular issue in the context of women’s rights overall probably has the most resonance. Watching Buthayna Nasser’s confrontation with a Saudi cleric on fdl latenight yesterday is just one example of the power of a woman framing arguments on global feminism.

OT again, sorry..
Does anyone know anything about this?
And could there be a tie-in with Blackberry going down yesterday? Or is my tin-foil hat too tight?

April 17, 2007 — Our sources inform us that a possible fire today has knocked out classified communications services at the US State Department’s Communications Annex facility (State Communications Annex – SA26 – in Beltsville, Maryland), just outside of Washington, DC. Also affected by the outage is the joint National Security Agency-Central Intelligence Agency Special Collection Service (SCS) (F6) (”CSSG”) located in a building off Springfield Road and located adjacent to SA-26, which is located at 8101 Odell Road. The SCS relies on the State Department backbone secure satellite communications for its links to covert listening posts and devices around the world. Agencies affected by the communications outage are the State Department, NSA, CIA, and Department of Defense. The State Department has been forced to use its backup facility. a CIA facility located at Brandy Station in northern Virginia.

egregious @ 38

I worked FOR abortion rights in the 60’s and still am pro-choice while I am also pro-life, not the customary position. None of my 11 pregnancies ended in abortion but I supported people close to me who felt they needed to go this route.

I certainly respect the work you do, but I’m still not getting how yours is “not the customary position.” Most pro-choice people do not routinely describe themselves as “pro-life” only because the Right has made it a code word for “anti-abortion.” But I see nothing in your statement above that any pro-choice person I know would have any argument with.

If you don’t mind, can you try to elucidate for me what about your position is not “customary”?

Biodun @ 63

Observation:

I find it interesting that pro-life people are also more likely to be pro-death penalty.

yeah. must be hard for both ideas to coexist in one mind. kinda wish their brains were like the aliens in Alien Invasion and we could just play lotsa loud yodeling music about now.

GeorgeSimian @ 80

Now that these pro-lifers got what they want, do you think they might get a conscience about some of the other issues that Bush pushed through on their pro-life vote?

No. They have no conscience.

aliasofwestgate @ 83

I wonder how long it will be before a string of lawsuits end up against hospitals and the law that had their wives and daughters die for a fetus that didn’t survive anyway. It’s a nasty thought, but it will happen. Inevitable after this.

The cases are rare as all the rest of you have said. I just wish it didn’t have to end up this way. I’ve heard fights over this issue my entire life, now this happens.

It would be the ultimate irony if Bush family or the famlies of these justices found themselves in that position. However, being wealthy they would most likely seek treatment outside of the US.

From AP:

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

OMG. Who’s saying–and writing–this stuff?

Ed*ard Teller @ 67

TiredFed @ 43

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

Voting for Nader – I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 – cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.

Ed,
Sounds good on the surface but it has an underlying blame the victim stance. The neocons cheated in 2006 also. Just not enough. They did not understand how angry we all are. Any votes garnered by Gore in Florida would have helped. And the idea that both parties are the same has not held up. Or maybe we just didn’t realize how bad the other side was going to get. :)
MMM

/OT: DAYum. missed the notification of new-thread-itude. Ranted on in an emptying room again… /OT

Redshift: “This is a signal that if they can elect people who will pass these restrictions, they will stand instead of being overturned. Why would that not motivate them to elect more such people?”

True. But it also could motivate the sane majority. We did it last year, after all.

The trouble with Roe v Wade is that it seems that decision, and the precedent it set, barely hangs on by a thread. Ever since the 2000 election, we clearly cannot rely on the “wisdom” of the SCOTUS anymore. At least as a legislative issue, we have more control over the direction of the abortion debate if we can continue electing social progressives at the local, state, and national levels.

Zee @ 73

Oklahoma kiddo @
68

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

But once the child is born – its on its own.

yes, and that drives me f****g crazy, too.
They don’t give a sh*t about living, breathing children — if they are sick, hungry, abused, or otherwise suffering.

God I hate those smug, sanctimonious bastards.

I went on the reproductive rights march here in DC in 2004….and just as we were starting out, this older woman behind me said in a tone of gloomy resignation, “Well, here we are, doing the same damn thing AGAIN.” WHen I complimented her she sighed, “I really thought we had it beat.”

Yes, little did anyone ever suspect that we would end up going f*****g backwards through progress.

So what is illegal here – performing a late term abortion or having one performed – is the doctor or the woman the “criminal”? What about if a woman had the procedure done outside the country? Could she still be charged?

Ed*ard Teller @ 67

TiredFed @ 43

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

Voting for Nader – I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 – cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.

ET. Was thinking more in terms of the future, in case some other spoiler shows up. Will not argue the woulda, coulda, shoulda. I have too much respect for you to even try. Would really have loved to have worked for President Gore and look forward to it in 2009!

Baghdad is exploding. Remember Katrina. The Republican “Pro-lifers” do NOT care about the lives of men, women, children, embryos, or fetuses — They only care about getting money for themselves and their campaigns any way they can acquire it (including criminal activities). Call their bluff – and stifle their bluster with the facts.

pai @ 28

Hi Nolo and all. As I was saying in the last thread, it is my understanding that this law outlaws all “Dialation and Extraction” abortion procedures. This is the procedure that is done after twelve weeks of pregnancy (may not always be necessary to do D&E until about 14 weeks). Right after the law passed I read a story in the Times about a twelve year old girl in NY who had been raped by her cousin. Her mother discovered this when the little girl’s pregnancy started to show. She was 16 weeks pregnant and under this ban she would not have been allowed to have an abortion. It really doesn’t matter to me if it affects a lot of women because it will certainly have a huge effect on some women (and girls).

hello pai –

i hear you — and i too support all womens’
right to choose — without regard to ability
to pay. and i agree that indigent women are
more likely, for a myriad of reasons, to not
get help in the first trimester.

but as i understand the decision — and to
do this, i will quote only from the dissent,
the justices disagreeing with the opinion:

“. . .But the Act scarcely furthers that
interest: The law saves not a single fetus
from destruction, for it targets only
a method of performing abortion. . .“

personally, i do not want to enter a
debate on views about abortions that
turn on which method is used. it is
my understanding that there are other
methods that may be used. if i am wrong,
i apologize. . . but even though i think
this case was wrongly-decided, i do not
think it will alter the landscape on
the right to choose significantly.

the fire should be saved to protect
roe v. wade directly, imo.

but i recognize how deeply personal
these issues are — and so i accept
your view, and wish to disagree no more.

okay? peace.

oddmommy @ 96

Zee @ 73

Oklahoma kiddo @
68

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

But once the child is born – its on its own.

yes, and that drives me f****g crazy, too.
They don’t give a sh*t about living, breathing children — if they are sick, hungry, abused, or otherwise suffering.

God I hate those smug, sanctimonious bastards.

I went on the reproductive rights march here in DC in 2004….and just as we were starting out, this older woman behind me said in a tone of gloomy resignation, “Well, here we are, doing the same damn thing AGAIN.” WHen I complimented her she sighed, “I really thought we had it beat.”

Yes, little did anyone ever suspect that we would end up going f*****g backwards through progress.

Once they’re old enough, the children can fight in the latest Republic vanity war.

Does anyone remember all the BS during the Roberts and to some extent the Alito hearings, all the promises about stare decisis? This is in fact it coming home to roost. Stare decisis (respect for previous decisions, literally to stand by things decided) was never going to stand against the sophistical reasoning in which the court abounds. I can’t say I’m surprised. Having read Roberts’ tortured reasoning in the recent Massachusetts vs EPA, the argument that they are respecting precedent by changing it seems typical of this court.

After Bush v. Gore 2000 (and its dimwitted ad hoc reasoning), I began to have doubts about the Supreme Court as the hallowed institution and impartial legal arbiter it is often portrayed to be. The truth is if you look at its history and compare it to what is going on in the country it is an incredibly reactionary force, usually 50 to 100 years behind the country. In its history, it has almost always favored the haves over the havenots, the powerful over the powerless, conservatives over liberals. The only times that it hasn’t are brief periods like the Warren Court or when political pressure becomes so extreme that the Court’s relevance comes into question and it changes course not out of conviction but as a matter of survival. Today’s ruling is not about the law. It is about politics. We would all like to believe that the Court is only about the law but the fact is it never has been.

Today the court said that women’s rights are a some time thing. It has asserted that it knows more about medicine than physicians. It has shown that ideological purity trumps facts. Hubris doesn’t begin to cover it.

Fern:

AFAIK, the doctor is the criminal. The answer to your second qustion: no.

I agree with Redshift at 88 comments and would also be interested in egregious’s response. I would also like to add that along those in the “Pro-Life” movement are also agains sexuality education, birth control, etc. which would all prevent abortions. Words matter. and the term “Pro-Life” has too much baggage, in my opinion

Thank you, Mrs. Alito’s tears.

Thank you, spineless non-filibustering Democratic Senators, who abrogated your Consitutional right to advise and consent.

Feh. As the father of daughters, I reject and loathe this invasion of their rights.

TiredFed @ 78

Nervous @ 54

The last two extremists put on the court assure everyone they believe in that “let it stand” principle. So, they were lying? Can they be impeached for obviously lying to during their confirmation hearings?

yes, they can.

Will they? No, they won’t.

naschkatze @ 80

I have had fears about a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court for a long while, especially a fear that Justice Kennedy would “get religion” in his old age, and today Kennedy’s siding with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has born out my fears. Bush and the media will portray this as a great victory for Bush, and it will “motivate the base” for the next election so it is a victory for Rove as well. It is very sad because the Catholic church and most Catholics in the US will see Bush as a hero and support him on all issues not just the single one. Pope Ratzinger will be praising Bush too when they meet, thereby influencing the Catholic vote.

I do hope the Democrats will be savvy enough not to let abortion be turned into the major issue of the 2008 election when there is so much that is wrong with this country and this administration.

Most Catholics in the US are the same as the rest of us. They and fundies use abortion and family planning services at the same rate as the general population.

As for Kennedy, UGH. We will never know how he will rule on something and as the so-called swing vote on the court he wields more power than almost anyone in govt. today. Except for the administration that breaks the laws every day, of course.

TiredFed @
52

musicsleuth @ 21

Aren’t you glad that powder was kept dry?

oh yeah. we should be kicking ass and taking names.

Names? I got your names RIGHT here, the democrats who voted for cloture and the “pro-choice” republicans who did the same:

Thanks Joe Lieberman. Thanks Arlen Specter. Thanks Olympia Snowe. Thanks Ken Salazar. Thanks Maria Cantwell. Thanks Dan Akaka. Thanks Jeff Bingaman. Thanks Tom Carper, and an emeritus thanks to Lincoln Chaffee, you fuckwad. Big props to Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan. Way to go Mary Landrieu. Thanks to the Nelsons and Tim Johnson as well. Blanche Lincoln, way to stick up for women!

Ed*ard Teller @ 67

TiredFed @ 43

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

Voting for Nader – I’ll assume you mean Nader 2000 – cost nobody anything. Gore clearly won the popular and electoral votes in that election, including the popular vote in Florida. Ralph Nader didn’t run Al Gore’s 200 campaign or Florida recount campaign, Gore and the Democratic Party did. Had the Democratic Party initiated actions strongly urged upon the Clinton administration by the Green Party USA in the 1990s, to stem minority voter suppression in Florida and elsewhere, Gore would have won Florida by far more than the 30,000 or so people he actually won by.

Nader provided an extra voice out there with enough perceived credibility to muddy the waters thus helping the Republics steal the election. He should be forever ashamed.

Redshift—there have been advances in neonatalogy since the original Supreme Court neatly decided to break everything down by trimesters. There are a lot of kids who are born in the second trimester, and now medicine has advanced to save some of them.

Consider what we are asking of medical personnel. Save the baby in bed A and dispose of the “tissue” from bed B. I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability. I couldn’t do it.

I don’t have the answer. Please see previous comment that no woman should be forced to carry a child. There are going to be circumstances, including near total brain destruction, where parents will seek to have an abortion near the end of the second trimester. My heart goes out to them and legally I think no one should try to stop this.

I am only asking that we not be so ideological in our support for a position that we overlook new information about the viability of a child. Probably all of us would be horrified at the abortion of a 36 week old child. Where to draw the line, I am only asking us to keep an open mind.

Fern @ 97

So what is illegal here – performing a late term abortion or having one performed – is the doctor or the woman the “criminal”? What about if a woman had the procedure done outside the country? Could she still be charged?

She’ll probably be stoned by the theocrats at USCustoms, if they have their way.

By the way, just got off the phone with NARAL in DC. I explained why I was calling, and their role in the matter.

I have never been treated so rudely in my life. The woman kept interrupting me, tellign me I didn’t know what I was talking about, feigned ignorance, and basically called me a liar when i said I had been a member up until the Alito cave-in.

Call them, see if your treatment is any better.
202.973.3000
NARAL needs to hear from people. And they need to be put out of business. With friends like Nancy Keenan, pro-choice people don’t need enemies.

brendancalling:

Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee are Repugs.

Hey Nolo, if I sounded shrill it wasn’t intentional; no problem with you on my end- we’re just talking here, right? I don’t know what other options are available for 2nd trimester abortions but I know D&E is the most common, which makes me think it is the safest and simplest way. Peace indeed; we’ll save any anger for the “other side”.

… and another “emeritus thank-you” to ex-SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for being the swing vote on the date that will live in infamy that selected our ClusterPOTUS and by extension his entire criminal enterprise. Good goin’, gal.

If guns were called “post birth abortion devices”, would Republics be less willing to have them so easily available?

“I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability.”

Oh Lord, egregious, what heartbreaking work you must have.

Your opinions carry great weight with me.

So when will IMPEACHMENT be back on the table? We gonna wait til another wingnut is on the Supreme Court?!?

So the doctor does a procedure to save a woman’s life, and loses his license over it. Lovely catch-22 there. Ugh. It’s disgusting.

No to choice.
No to gun control.
No to gay rights
No to pulling out of Iraq.
No to diplomacy.
No to environmental safeguards.
No to privacy.
Not to health care for all.
No to peace.
No, no no… on and on and… The Grand Old Party.

Badwater @ 117

If guns were called “post birth abortion devices”, would Republics be less willing to have them so easily available?

I don’t know, but it’s worth a try.

Re Gore 2000 and Nader as spoiler. Again, Gore won the popular and electoral votes. The only other states beside FL within which the Nader margin might have subtracted from Bush’s so-called advantage were NH and NV. But assigning all Nader votes to Gore is erroneous methodology. Many Nader voters would not have voted for any other candidate than a Green Party rep at that time. Some would have voted for Bush or Buchanan instead of voted for Gore.

Again, Gore won the 2000 election in both electoral and voter terms.

GORE – TESTER – 2008!

D&E is still legal. Women seeking the D&X will simply go with the D&E where the fetus is dimemebered wholey within the uterus and then removed. The victory for the fundies is hollow.

nolo @ 98

pai @ 28

Hi Nolo and all. As I was saying in the last thread, it is my understanding that this law outlaws all “Dialation and Extraction” abortion procedures. This is the procedure that is done after twelve weeks of pregnancy (may not always be necessary to do D&E until about 14 weeks). Right after the law passed I read a story in the Times about a twelve year old girl in NY who had been raped by her cousin. Her mother discovered this when the little girl’s pregnancy started to show. She was 16 weeks pregnant and under this ban she would not have been allowed to have an abortion. It really doesn’t matter to me if it affects a lot of women because it will certainly have a huge effect on some women (and girls).

hello pai –

i hear you — and i too support all womens’
right to choose — without regard to ability
to pay. and i agree that indigent women are
more likely, for a myriad of reasons, to not
get help in the first trimester.

but as i understand the decision — and to
do this, i will quote only from the dissent,
the justices disagreeing with the opinion:

“. . .But the Act scarcely furthers that
interest: The law saves not a single fetus
from destruction, for it targets only
a method of performing abortion. . .“

personally, i do not want to enter a
debate on views about abortions that
turn on which method is used. it is
my understanding that there are other
methods that may be used. if i am wrong,
i apologize. . . but even though i think
this case was wrongly-decided, i do not
think it will alter the landscape on
the right to choose significantly.

the fire should be saved to protect
roe v. wade directly, imo.

but i recognize how deeply personal
these issues are — and so i accept
your view, and wish to disagree no more.

okay? peace.

Question: Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the pernicious aspect of this decision an incremental step in defining a fetus as a living human? The procedure, is really off point then.

I do not believe any previous SCOTUS (Love that acronym… sounds like scrotum!) decision made this incremental, but critical distinction.

In other words the basis for government’s “compelling interest” is to save a human, not a zygote.. or whatever (I’m certainly not a biologist)

kdh22 @ 70

Oklahoma kiddo @ 67

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

I wanna kick Boner in the nuts. He’s already reproduced though, hasn’t he? Still…

It will still hurt. Trust me.

Elliott @ 121

Badwater @ 117

If guns were called “post birth abortion devices”, would Republics be less willing to have them so easily available?

I don’t know, but it’s worth a try.

No, no, no…that’s their Population Control stratergy.

Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood, co-counsels in this case, holding conf call press conference at 12:30 EST

http://www.reproductiverights.org

–Amanda

I’ve known the pro-life Xtian type that shouts about how everybody should have the baby, but when their own daughter gets knocked up, run to the abortion doc pretty quick. The other alternative: shotgun wedding that doesn’t last, since the partents hate the guy that “did the deed”.

An anaylsis of right wing hypocracy should be a popular book if anybody of substance ever writes one, since this type of thinking sure is wide spread.

egregious @ 109

Redshift—there have been advances in neonatalogy since the original Supreme Court neatly decided to break everything down by trimesters. There are a lot of kids who are born in the second trimester, and now medicine has advanced to save some of them.

Consider what we are asking of medical personnel. Save the baby in bed A and dispose of the “tissue” from bed B. I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability. I couldn’t do it.

I don’t have the answer. Please see previous comment that no woman should be forced to carry a child. There are going to be circumstances, including near total brain destruction, where parents will seek to have an abortion near the end of the second trimester. My heart goes out to them and legally I think no one should try to stop this.

I am only asking that we not be so ideological in our support for a position that we overlook new information about the viability of a child. Probably all of us would be horrified at the abortion of a 36 week old child. Where to draw the line, I am only asking us to keep an open mind.

I think I’m with you there, egregious. I pass no judgment on any choice anyone makes, but past a certain point in pregnancy (and I don’t know when it is) the idea of a purely elective abortion of a healthy fetus makes me — privately — uncomfortable.

When I was in college a prof wrote an essay that had an interesting perspective on this….he said the question shouldn’t be
when “life” begins but when “personhood” begins.

mc @ 118

“I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability.”

Oh Lord, egregious, what heartbreaking work you must have.

Your opinions carry great weight with me.

I work to save newborns because my own brother died at age 3 hours. He was born at age 6 months. To me this was a living human being with a birthday that we will always remember.

We are taking care of smaller and smaller babies in our surgery. Last time we operated one that was 700 grams, about 1.5 pounds, with success.

I totally understand the need for it to be legal for parents to end a pregnancy with a potentially hideous outcome, yet it breaks my heart to see people give zero value to the life that is being taken.

It’s like killing in war, sometimes you have to kill, but can we at least honor the life?

Nervous @
54

The last two extremists put on the court assure everyone they believe in that “let it stand” principle. So, they were lying? Can they be impeached for obviously lying to during their confirmation hearings?

damn good question.

Although it is difficult to defend the procedure, in the case of the mother’s life it would be defensible.

Gore was close in lots of other states, not just Florida, and Nader’s margins in those states kept Gore from winning them outright. Without Nader, Jeb could have still stolen Florida but Gore would be in the White House.

plus, it’s not a hypothetical argument any more! please let’s not let it happen again. I’m tired enough already. :)

Gore. The promise of a future. Dawn in America.

Again, from TalkLeft:

Of special interest in today’s SCOTUS decision upholding a late term abortion ban is that the mantra “leave abortion to the States” has been utterly abandoned by the Republican Party and anti-choice forces. This is a federal ban. This line from Justice Thomas’ concurrence is ironic:

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a legitimate exercise of the Congress’ Commerce Power is not before the Court.

For those of you who might have thought the conservative Justices were conceding the point.

The repigs don’t give a sh*t about leaving anything to the states to decide. They are authoritarian thugs who want their way and will do anything to get it.

Biodun @ 93

From AP:

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

OMG. Who’s saying–and writing–this stuff?

The AP is simply wrong and it shows an abysmal ignorance of basic anatomy. The head of the fetus is the part largest in diameter. Its extraction intact through an undilated uterus would be difficult to impossible. This is the reason why it must be done by deforming the head or removing it in pieces. This can still be done internally. It is just I think more difficult and possibly more dangerous for the woman.

Parenthetically, reporting on medical issues in general is almost always awful.

Subpoena SCOTUS email…

This horrible back door vote to reverse Roe v. Wade sooner rather than later has such hypocrisy behind it. Women have the right to choose . Men who have only sperm to offer in the discussion, should respect this and butt out.. What happens to women faced with death if this late-term procedure is forbidden? Oh, I get it.
Men already allow illegal wars that kill and mutilate innocents.
Men already allow famine and ethnic cleansing around the world.
Men already justify rape, even incest rape.
Men already make their bones by deflowering young girls, as a right.
So SOME men want ALL the power and will abide ALL the hate for women that they faintly deny.
A woman’s right to choose is inviolate. This latest betrayal by the neocons on the Supreme Court will not stand. MOST men cannot agree with this vote.

RevDeb @
12

Sad to say. I saw the news and said a loud, Oh Sh*t at the office. Then I realized that i was not surprised. The theocrats have been planning this for a long time. Be aware that there are very few places in the country that even did late term abortions and those that did it saw the most horridly tragic circumstances imaginable. These abortions are done only as a last resort and because to not do them would do grave harm to the woman.

Imagine having cancer, going through chemo and then finding out that no one asked if you were pregnant before starting the chemo. Imagine the effect on a fetus. This happens.

For the women who face this kind of procedure it is a tragedy to begin with. These are wanted babies where something has gone very very wrong. Now, the woman will suffer twice. First the loss of the fetus—it will have to happen anyway—and then the effects on her health because appropriate medical care can no longer be administered.

Deb–

This not a law wrt late term abortions. This is a ruling on a procedure that sometimes takes place within the first two trimesters. Roe v Wade permits government intervention on behalf of the fetus in the third trimester, using a viability test. (IANAL, but I’ve followed this issue for some time.) While the anti-choice people who have advocated this often refer to late-term abortions, the law applies regardless of the length of the pregnancy.

This is a direct reversal of Roe v Wade, one I’m very surprised to see even this court affirm. IMO, these laws were meant to be overturned in court, because they fire up movement conservatives but are broadly unpopular.

There was a good NY Times article back at least a year ago about late term abortions when the pregnancy goes bad. Some of the women they interviewed had been anti-abortion before this happened to them. I don’t have time to find the link.

egregious. I respect you, and appreciate your work. But who is saying that people who strongly agree with the SCOTUS decision “give zero value to the life that is being taken.” I am sorry, but this is a trick often used by the Bushies as in “the democrats don’t support the troops.”

Biodun @ 113

brendancalling:

Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee are Repugs.

yes, I know.
But they are so-called “pro-choice” repugs, as I mentioned in the comment.

And boy oh boy did Arlen Specter’s cabin boy have problems explaining this one to me. he tried the “activist judges” line. For real!

Yes, the states righters also remove the ability of the states to exercize any effective oversight of the banking industry yesterday.

Federal government telling the states what to do! States rights are really only important when it comes to depriving the rights of minorities to vote.

-GSD

naschkatze says
April 18th, 2007 at 9:11 am

You have got to be kidding. With all the malfeasance that has gone on in the country, including a war that has killed and maimed thousands for no reason what-so-ever. You think some late term abortion ban is going to retrieve this bastages from the graveyard. You have got to be kidding….right??

RevDeb @ 108

naschkatze @ 80

I have had fears about a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court for a long while, especially a fear that Justice Kennedy would “get religion” in his old age, and today Kennedy’s siding with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has born out my fears. Bush and the media will portray this as a great victory for Bush, and it will “motivate the base” for the next election so it is a victory for Rove as well. It is very sad because the Catholic church and most Catholics in the US will see Bush as a hero and support him on all issues not just the single one. Pope Ratzinger will be praising Bush too when they meet, thereby influencing the Catholic vote.

I do hope the Democrats will be savvy enough not to let abortion be turned into the major issue of the 2008 election when there is so much that is wrong with this country and this administration.

Most Catholics in the US are the same as the rest of us. They and fundies use abortion and family planning services at the same rate as the general population.

As for Kennedy, UGH. We will never know how he will rule on something and as the so-called swing vote on the court he wields more power than almost anyone in govt. today. Except for the administration that breaks the laws every day, of course.

There are also plenty of Catholics like me, who oppose abortion personally but believe that choice should be available to all. Remember that the “Fearsome Foursome” on SCOTUS: Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts aren’t just Catholics-they are certifiable wingnuts. There’s a huge difference believe me. Catholics as a group trend a bit more conservative politically but we’re not the same as the “born-again” fundie crowd. That’s the main reason the fundies can’t stand us Catholics.

ooooh. I’ve never been moderated before. I must be moving up in the world ;) dang. and lunch is almost over!

TiredFed @ 124

kdh22 @ 70

Oklahoma kiddo @ 67

“I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

I wanna kick Boner in the nuts. He’s already reproduced though, hasn’t he? Still…

It will still hurt. Trust me.

I trust you implicitly TiredFed. Did it hurt you by me just mentioning it? Sorry. IMO a little pain might do him some good, considering all the pain he and his have so recklessly inflicted upon others. Just sayin’

I agree w/sentiments about NARAL. I have a question: if the mother dies during delivery because she couldn’t have this procedure done, is anyone guilty of a crime? Or do we leave that question up to Pope Benedict & Father Roberts?

noshrub @ 147

I agree w/sentiments about NARAL. I have a question: if the mother dies during delivery because she couldn’t have this procedure done, is anyone guilty of a crime? Or do we leave that question up to Pope Benedict & Father Roberts?

thank you. I agree completely.

Tom Hartman is saying that in his reading, all abortions may be effectively banned.
Husbands can sue their wives.

The perception here is there seems to be some piling on to egregious. If so, that’s uncool. Speaking for myself only, I don’t like it.

The rich will go overseas or Canada. The poor will die.
I just believe that a woman and the doctor makes the choice, no one else

Mission fucking accomplished.

The Decider is now the ultimate divider.

This is just the emboldening the religious poltical extremists have been waiting for.

-GSD

I am so angry I cannot see straight, and I had better watch my mouth before I say something I’ll regret or that gets my phone tapped.

[Mod Note; No references to violence towards public officials please. Thank you.]

And you know I’ve been calling the people who voted for Alito and Roberts and every single one says “You can’t blame my boss for the SCOTUS decision. It’s not his/her fault…”

Well, with all due respect (ie, none), it IS your boss’s fault. Just as it is NARAL’s fault.

it is a black day for women’s rights today, and a black day for the nation.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 150

The perception here is there seems to be some piling on to egregious. If so, that’s uncool. Speaking for myself only, I don’t like it.

on the contrary. there is a great deal of respect. don’t you respect alternate opinions?

Welcoming back the era of the Saline-instillation abortion

Tom Hartman noted that the Court only upheld the bans legislation and if the legislation was overturned the Courts ruling would be too.

egregious @ 131

mc @ 118

“I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability.”

Oh Lord, egregious, what heartbreaking work you must have.

Your opinions carry great weight with me.

I work to save newborns because my own brother died at age 3 hours. He was born at age 6 months. To me this was a living human being with a birthday that we will always remember.

We are taking care of smaller and smaller babies in our surgery. Last time we operated one that was 700 grams, about 1.5 pounds, with success.

I totally understand the need for it to be legal for parents to end a pregnancy with a potentially hideous outcome, yet it breaks my heart to see people give zero value to the life that is being taken.

It’s like killing in war, sometimes you have to kill, but can we at least honor the life?

My wish for the wingnuts is that they stop seeing the world in black and white, good and evil. Our world is painted in shades of grey, so that the choices we are forced to make are seldom easy. And, of course, we can’t know that the choices we do make are ultimately the correct ones.

egregious,

If you take a normal pregnancy to be 40 weeks, the end of the second trimester would be at about 26-27 weeks. It used to be that 28 weeks was considered the limit to viability. This may have changed a little but not much. The reason is that lung tissue develops late and below a certain point there is no way to keep a preemie alive long enough for the lung tissue to develop.

So what we are talking about is a distribution. Most abortions will be early and elective. Late term terminations will tend to be few and driven by purely medical reasons. This is the way it should be. For the Supreme Court to intrude on this is a testament not to the law but to their arrogance.

This is horrible news. But with the way “Shrub” stacked the court, it’s not surprising. This case was spearheaded by the religious right, and we all know they won’t stop here. They will keep on until they overturn Roe V. Wade (because they want individual states to decide). Then they will go after each individual state to ban abortions altogether. These people must be stopped.

Wow:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..24316/7447

TiredFed @
62

sonate @ 35

“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.

respectfully disagree. there is plenty of wingnuttery left if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Also disagree. Griswold is their goal.

egregious can handle the flak.

We need to be especially careful not to use a broad brush when referencing this. This is not ban on ALL partial birth abortions outright, just a technique — DNE. Although the onus in now on doctors to judge which trimester the woman may be in since (as Ginsberg stated) this is the first time an abortion ban has been upheld, with no exceptions for woman health.

Mae @ 105

I agree with Redshift at 88 comments and would also be interested in egregious’s response. I would also like to add that along those in the “Pro-Life” movement are also agains sexuality education, birth control, etc. which would all prevent abortions. Words matter. and the term “Pro-Life” has too much baggage, in my opinion

I’ve felt, for some time, that the hard line NARAL and other pro-choice organizations have been taking has been counter-productive as viability has moved into the second trimester, and as ultrasound scans have become universally practiced.

If, ten years ago, the pro-choice organizations had adopted a strategy of reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education in exchange for regulation over the third trimester, they could have taken this issue down. Only the most extreme elements of the American political spectrum would have objected to such a deal, and it would have had little impact on actual pregnancies. By hewing to a no compromise line, the pro-choice groups have damaged their cause.

And then, when there was a real threat to choice in Alito’s nomination, they chose to stay on the sidelines, and, worse, support people who refused to filibuster.

Mae @ 154

Oklahoma kiddo @ 150

The perception here is there seems to be some piling on to egregious. If so, that’s uncool. Speaking for myself only, I don’t like it.

on the contrary. there is a great deal of respect. don’t you respect alternate opinions?

Gee… I hope I do. ;0)

Meanwhile in Iraq, the equivalent of 6 Virginia Tech. massacres have taken place today.

Over 170 killed in Iraq bombings.

-GSD

jayackroyd @ 138

RevDeb @
12

Deb–

This not a law wrt late term abortions. This is a ruling on a procedure that sometimes takes place within the first two trimesters. Roe v Wade permits government intervention on behalf of the fetus in the third trimester, using a viability test. (IANAL, but I’ve followed this issue for some time.) While the anti-choice people who have advocated this often refer to late-term abortions, the law applies regardless of the length of the pregnancy.

This is a direct reversal of Roe v Wade, one I’m very surprised to see even this court affirm. IMO, these laws were meant to be overturned in court, because they fire up movement conservatives but are broadly unpopular.

Jay,

This is about a particular procedure that is usually done in the second or third trimester. During the first the fetus is not developed enough to cause the problems that this procedure tries to alleviate.

The direct challenge to Roe here that pertains has to do with protecting the life AND HEALTH of the mother. That is why the lower courts over and over again rejected this law. The theocrats on the court couldn’t give a damn about womens’ health, unless it happens to their own wives or daughters in which case they will get on an airplane and go to where they can get the help they need. Under cover, of course.

Back in the days before Roe the Clergy Consultation Service began in NY and was set up to help women needing abortions find safe providers. They operated in the open. Had a listing in the phone book. They had their phone tapped because what they were doing was illegal. The phone tap only lasted 2 weeks and stopped when it was discovered that the wives of police captains, judges, and politicians were calling.

egregious @ 111

Redshift—there have been advances in neonatalogy since the original Supreme Court neatly decided to break everything down by trimesters. There are a lot of kids who are born in the second trimester, and now medicine has advanced to save some of them.

Consider what we are asking of medical personnel. Save the baby in bed A and dispose of the “tissue” from bed B. I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability. I couldn’t do it.

I don’t have the answer. Please see previous comment that no woman should be forced to carry a child. There are going to be circumstances, including near total brain destruction, where parents will seek to have an abortion near the end of the second trimester. My heart goes out to them and legally I think no one should try to stop this.

I am only asking that we not be so ideological in our support for a position that we overlook new information about the viability of a child. Probably all of us would be horrified at the abortion of a 36 week old child. Where to draw the line, I am only asking us to keep an open mind.

“That’s the main reason the fundies can’t stand us Catholics.”
Kevster, about 20 years ago I was at a party with some born-agains. It’s the only time this mild-mannered lady almost clocked someone. We were talking about something entirely unrelated to religion – baseball – and they mentioned they thought Tommy Lasorda was Catholic and therefore not a good man, because, of course, Catholics aren’t Christian and only Christians are good people.

In what universe, I asked, are Catholics not Christian? Peter, the rock upon which the church was built? Not Christian?

In our universe, they anwered, Catholics are not Christians.
So.

This is definitely disturbing, but don’t give up hope. As I understand Kennedy’s opinion implies that a decision is premature as noone can claim actual harm. In a future “as applied” case (i.e., when a doctor is prosecuted under the law) the ruling may be different. IANAL, so maybe Christy or some of you other leagl types can expound.

Bill Rudman

Time to rename SCOTUS to SCROTUS:

Supreme Court Republicans of the U.S.

The judicial coup d’etat launched in 2000 lubmers on, destroying the United States as we knew it.

Thanks, SCROTUS.

Jo-Ann @ 138

This horrible back door vote to reverse Roe v. Wade sooner rather than later has such hypocrisy behind it. Women have the right to choose . Men who have only sperm to offer in the discussion, should respect this and butt out.. What happens to women faced with death if this late-term procedure is forbidden? Oh, I get it.
Men already allow illegal wars that kill and mutilate innocents.
Men already allow famine and ethnic cleansing around the world.
Men already justify rape, even inc*st rape.
Men already make their bones by deflowering young girls, as a right.
So SOME men want ALL the power and will abide ALL the hate for women that they faintly deny.
A woman’s right to choose is inviolate. This latest betrayal by the neocons on the Supreme Court will not stand. MOST men cannot agree with this vote.

Don your burka & do back to the kitchen.

jayackroyd @ 163

If, ten years ago, the pro-choice organizations had adopted a strategy of reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education in exchange for regulation over the third trimester, they could have taken this issue down. Only the most extreme elements of the American political spectrum would have objected to such a deal, and it would have had little impact on actual pregnancies. By hewing to a no compromise line, the pro-choice groups have damaged their cause.

What are we up to now; closing in on 3/4 of million dead in Iraq? As a result of the sanctity of the unborn prez.

Women were once considered chattel or property. I always found it interesting that chattel is the Anglo-Norman pronunciation for the word “cattle”. This is relevant since the Supreme Court is re-introducing the concept.

Re: egregious:

Yep. IMHO: FDLers have enormous respect for her. That’s why they take what she says (and her opinions) seriously. No one is dismissing her opinions. They are engaging her. Abortion issues are extremly complex, IMO. And her opinions are complex. That’s to be admired.

Who really requests a termination at 36 weeks for gawds sakes. The baby is term practically. You are setting up an extreme example. I don’t think that is even fair.

Hey, there are OBGYNs that don’t do abortions at all, including 6 weeks gestation. So…you are not obligated to the tissue in bed “B”.

I am no fan of the procedure. I have been personally advised of it and declined. However, if it is going to save the life of the mother, or spare an innocent baby extrodinary pain, who are you to play god??

egregious @
111

Redshift—there have been advances in neonatalogy since the original Supreme Court neatly decided to break everything down by trimesters. There are a lot of kids who are born in the second trimester, and now medicine has advanced to save some of them.

Consider what we are asking of medical personnel. Save the baby in bed A and dispose of the “tissue” from bed B. I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability. I couldn’t do it.

I don’t have the answer. Please see previous comment that no woman should be forced to carry a child. There are going to be circumstances, including near total brain destruction, where parents will seek to have an abortion near the end of the second trimester. My heart goes out to them and legally I think no one should try to stop this.

I am only asking that we not be so ideological in our support for a position that we overlook new information about the viability of a child. Probably all of us would be horrified at the abortion of a 36 week old child. Where to draw the line, I am only asking us to keep an open mind.

Egregious… I doubt that anyone’s being ideological in this instance. Elective abortion of a viable 36 week old child has never been legal under Roe. Besides, must a woman die so a child can be born?

I know a lot of babies can be saved now. But can all of them? Until they can, until we can save women from every complication of childbirth, it’s foolish to remove from doctor’s hands a means to save the lives of people who are already here. That’s what this ruling has done.

Snowbird at 150 I heard Tom say that too. He also said the time frame mentioned in the ruling is 3 months 1 minute for procedure to be illegal. I am so upset, it was such an effort to get the ability to legally get an abortion finally passed. Then we women sort of relaxed and it has slowly been wittled away by a clever devious bunch of zealots.

I will want to read the ruling closely– but I am not happy — we are returning to dark ages when women were chattel and medicine and science were still primitive. What has happened to common sense and intelligence in our country?

Freaky but 176 was meant for egregious at 111.

Maybe I flipped my lid

Greg @ 170

… The judicial coup d’etat launched in 2000 …

Hey no fair, I called that in #114 above… do try to keep up… :) Hah, as if I could…

Good on whoever changed their name to SCROTUS.

POTUS = POTKETTLEBLACKUS? No, too long. Help, Punaise!!

Elliott @ 171

jayackroyd @ 163

If, ten years ago, the pro-choice organizations had adopted a strategy of reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education in exchange for regulation over the third trimester, they could have taken this issue down. Only the most extreme elements of the American political spectrum would have objected to such a deal, and it would have had little impact on actual pregnancies. By hewing to a no compromise line, the pro-choice groups have damaged their cause.

forgot to add my comment.

I’m not sure I understand you correctly.
I mean, abstinence only and attacks on birth-control are also key to the activists on the “pro-life” side.

egregious @
111

I don’t have the answer. Please see previous comment that no woman should be forced to carry a child. There are going to be circumstances, including near total brain destruction, where parents will seek to have an abortion near the end of the second trimester. My heart goes out to them and legally I think no one should try to stop this.

I am only asking that we not be so ideological in our support for a position that we overlook new information about the viability of a child. Probably all of us would be horrified at the abortion of a 36 week old child. Where to draw the line, I am only asking us to keep an open mind.

I appreciate your comments on this thread very much, egregious. I can’t imagine what you must experience at work every day — both good and bad. My biggest concern with this is that these procedures affect a pregnancy not *just* a fetus. Its not just the ‘life of the mother’ but the needs of the family at play with these rulings — its as if the rulings are referring to two fetuses and not an adult pregnant with child who can openly discuss options with their health provider.

I guess its a simple matter for these folks to forget that the pregnant woman continues to make health decisions for the fetus from the time of conception. If the government asserts itself into medical procedures on this end, it is immoral not to also take responsibility that its citizens get prenatal care as well.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 174

What are we up to now; closing in on 3/4 of million dead in Iraq? As a result of the sanctity of the unborn prez.

Yep. Especially when there’s not very many partial birth abortions in the first place.

I find all this emphasis on the unborn to be morally reprehensible, as long as one alive person is killed or unjustly treated.

As for younger & younger survivable preemies, science usually outpaces societal norms, which is all the more reason for leaving the decision to the adults who are directly involved, rather than to the state.

Also, consider the amount of money spent on getting preemies to survive, in the context that for every $ spent on them, someone else is probably not getting the resources needed to survive. Just because the preemie is visible and the identity of the person who died is unknown, does not justify the practice.

egregious @ 23
I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life.

Actually I wonder how uncommon this view really is? ‘Pro-abortion’ is just a conservative construction to malign those of us who believe the choice should be our own.

I think Babs raised the after-birth.

I consider my self very pro-choice. Is there a point (in time) where an abortion should not be an option?

Biodun @ 174

Re: egregious:

Yep. IMHO: FDLers have enormous respect for her. That’s why they take what she says (and her opinions) seriously. No one is dismissing her opinions. They are engaging her. Abortion issues are extremly complex, IMO. And her opinions are complex. That’s to be admired.

I *heart* gregie

Well, at least Scalia will only have to whip himself on the back 50 times today instead of the usual 100 or so lashes.

RevDeb @ 47

There is no contradiction in being pro-choice and pro-life.

Most people who are pro-choice are for life and mean life beyond birth as well. Most people who claim to be “pro-life” are really anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti- woman’s rights, and have little interest or energy to invest in what happens to the unwanted babies or those who are born into tragic circumstances.

Amen.

LJ/Aquaria @ 162

TiredFed @
62

sonate @ 35
“If Roe was overturned the Republican party would be out of power for a decade.”

For a decade at least. Repubs don’t really want Roe v Wade overturned because they need it as a wedge issue to help rally the wingnut base. When that issue goes away, so do they.
————
respectfully disagree. there is plenty of wingnuttery left if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Also disagree. Griswold is their goal.

what’s griswold again? not enough ginko lately. oh, crap. lunch is over. please leave reply and I will read later. muchas gracias.

spurious @ 186

egregious @ 23
I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life.

Actually I wonder how uncommon this view really is? ‘Pro-abortion’ is just a conservative construction to malign those of us who believe the choice should be our own.

Amen

Anybody catch this in the middle of the night on C-SPAN:

House Hearing on Transatlantic Relations
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) & Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) chair a Joint House Foreign Affairs hearing on “Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: The Impact on Transatlantic Relations.”
4/17/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 4 hr. 8 min.

They will probably air it again. Fascinating.

I am outraged by this profoundly stupid and damaging decision.

It is really saying that a woman is less of a person than the fetus she is carrying — even if that fetus has no chance of viability.

Outrageous!

This is one of the sanest conversations Ive seen on this subject. We are to be commended.
I was a Planned Parenthood counselor in the 70’s .
We didnt do abortions but did refer. I saw it all but tried to get the young women to make the choice for themselves and partners.

jayackroyd @ 163

I’ve felt, for some time, that the hard line NARAL and other pro-choice organizations have been taking has been counter-productive as viability has moved into the second trimester, and as ultrasound scans have become universally practiced.

If, ten years ago, the pro-choice organizations had adopted a strategy of reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education in exchange for regulation over the third trimester, they could have taken this issue down. Only the most extreme elements of the American political spectrum would have objected to such a deal, and it would have had little impact on actual pregnancies. By hewing to a no compromise line, the pro-choice groups have damaged their cause.

And then, when there was a real threat to choice in Alito’s nomination, they chose to stay on the sidelines, and, worse, support people who refused to filibuster.

Jay,
Please don’t paint all pro-choice organizations with the same NARAL brush. Some of us were screaming about Roberts and Alito and doing everything we could to fight them. NARAL deserves all the scorn they are getting, but PP has been providing birth control services, education and everything possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That was their first mission well before Roe was even on the landscape.RCRC (with which I am affiliated) has also been doing the same thing since Roe (that’s when the org. was founded) as have many organizations. Some of the orgs. are in business to stay in business. Some would love to be able to close the doors being no longer needed. If we had universal sex education and federally funded and available contraceptives the abortion rate would plummet. But there will always be tragic circumstances where things go wrong in a pregnancy. A woman and her doctor need to be able to do what is necessary to both save her life and her health. period.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 164

Mae @ 154

Oklahoma kiddo @ 150
The perception here is there seems to be some piling on to egregious. If so, that’s uncool. Speaking for myself only, I don’t like it.
————
on the contrary. there is a great deal of respect. don’t you respect alternate opinions?

Gee… I hope I do. ;0)

To paraphrase (again) my beloved Jane Austen, it is only a fool who does not “deserve the compliment of rational opposition.”

Prairie Sunshine @ 206

oddmommy at 198

To paraphrase (again) my beloved Jane Austen, it is only a fool who does not “deserve the compliment of rational opposition.”

Jane Austen knew George Bush?

She certainly did. I was reading the Amercian Revolution section of Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly for the first time since 2000 recently, and I was stunned by how much all the aristocratic bunglers in the British government resembled Chimpy. Ignorant, complacent, arrogant, and full of strutting vicarious toughness — I can’t do justice to how uncanny the likeness really is. They even spent the same incredible amount of time vacationing on their estates.

Oklahoma kiddo @
121

No to choice.
No to gun control.
No to gay rights
No to pulling out of Iraq.
No to diplomacy.
No to environmental safeguards.
No to privacy.
Not to health care for all.
No to peace.
No, no no… on and on and… The Grand Old Party.

Your comment speaks volumes and is an excellent snapshot of the last six years.

Ed*ard Teller @ 187

Well, at least Scalia will only have to whip himself on the back 50 times today instead of the usual 100 or so lashes.

I don’t really see Scalia as a self flagellator, I can see him helping someone else get flagellated, tho

OT again…..

EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

By Tobias Buck in Brussels

Published: April 17 2007 19:56 | Last updated: April 17 2007 19:56

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.

S.O.S. from MA @
116

… and another “emeritus thank-you” to ex-SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for being the swing vote on the date that will live in infamy that selected our ClusterPOTUS and by extension his entire criminal enterprise. Good goin’, gal.

“An enemy of my enemy is a friend” – thus Nader became a “friend” to Bush & Rove.
Then there was Gore’s campaign, that made him seem more wooden than Pinocchio.
Then, Gore’s inability to win Tennessee and Arkansas.
Not forgetting Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky, which left a bad taste in the voters’ mouths (I’ve been waiting a while to use that pun *g*)
It was a close vote in the SCOTUS because the Florida Supreme Court could not provide a precedent for an appropriate means to recount, or at least that’s what CNN told us up here, and why should we question their fact checking? *g*.
Finally, I think like most people, I am in disbelief that Bush & Co. would have broken as many laws as they have. As always, ‘evil geniuses’ discount the laws of karma and pay the price.

OK 121: What you said!!!

Elliott @
201

Ed*ard Teller @ 187

Well, at least Scalia will only have to whip himself on the back 50 times today instead of the usual 100 or so lashes.

I don’t really see Scalia as a self flagellator, I can see him helping someone else get flagellated, tho

ET, correct me if I’m wrong, but are you referring to Scalia’s Opus Dei connection?

The dems need to counter with some serious sex education in the public schools. No more abstinance only.

Sorry if this has been discussed, no time to read comments.

oddmommy at 198

To paraphrase (again) my beloved Jane Austen, it is only a fool who does not “deserve the compliment of rational opposition.”

Jane Austen knew George Bush?

Wish I could stick around to discuss further, but gotta hit the road. 2 plus hour drive home.

See y’all later.

Prairie Sunshine @ 204

oddmommy at 198

To paraphrase (again) my beloved Jane Austen, it is only a fool who does not “deserve the compliment of rational opposition.”

Jane Austen knew George Bush?

it’s probably safe to say George W. doesn’t know Jane Austen from Adam.

At least 171 killed in Baghdad today.

Bad, bad, bad week.

Makes the 2008 elections, especially for pres. even bigger.

Abortion by Shock and Awe. Now that’s constitutional.

Someone up there asked about Griswold v. Connecticut…..that was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade and it dealt with the right to birth control. It’s been a long time since law school, but I believe it was Griswold where the SCt first articulated the concept of penumbral rights, ie, those not specifically set forth in the Constitution but implied from its provisions.

That’s what these strict-construction-loving, judicial-activist-hating wingnuts want to undo.

Except, of course, in cases like Terru Shiavo’s.

Oh, and whenever else “judicial activism” suits their purposes.

egregious @
131

mc @ 118

“I watch children die in front of me all the time but this would be way beyond my capability.”

Oh Lord, egregious, what heartbreaking work you must have.

Your opinions carry great weight with me.

I work to save newborns because my own brother died at age 3 hours. He was born at age 6 months. To me this was a living human being with a birthday that we will always remember.

We are taking care of smaller and smaller babies in our surgery. Last time we operated one that was 700 grams, about 1.5 pounds, with success.

I totally understand the need for it to be legal for parents to end a pregnancy with a potentially hideous outcome, yet it breaks my heart to see people give zero value to the life that is being taken.

It’s like killing in war, sometimes you have to kill, but can we at least honor the life?

I have many friends who are as devoted to the higher values of humanity as you are. May we all aspire to live up to those higher values, as you do. A Doctor up here in Toronto operated on a Fetus to fix a heart defect. The baby was born naturally. People like him and you should be allowed valued input into this controversial topic. People who are pro- life and those who see any abortion limits as an invasion to their bodies would do well to look at Canada and countries in Western Europe to see their laws, which are in moderation, as I think you are suggesting, Egregious.

oddmommy @ 212

Someone up there asked about Griswold v. Connecticut…..that was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade and it dealt with the right to birth control. It’s been a long time since law school, but I believe it was Griswold where the SCt first articulated the concept of penumbral rights, ie, those not specifically set forth in the Constitution but implied from its provisions.

That’s what these strict-construction-loving, judicial-activist-hating wingnuts want to undo.

Except, of course, in cases like Terru Shiavo’s.

Oh, and whenever else “judicial activism” suits their purposes.

Here’s my fundamental question: If we don’t have a right to privacy, what good are all the other alleged rights?

RevDeb @
197

jayackroyd @ 163

I’ve felt, for some time, that the hard line NARAL and other pro-choice organizations have been taking has been counter-productive as viability has moved into the second trimester, and as ultrasound scans have become universally practiced.

If, ten years ago, the pro-choice organizations had adopted a strategy of reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education in exchange for regulation over the third trimester, they could have taken this issue down. Only the most extreme elements of the American political spectrum would have objected to such a deal, and it would have had little impact on actual pregnancies. By hewing to a no compromise line, the pro-choice groups have damaged their cause.

And then, when there was a real threat to choice in Alito’s nomination, they chose to stay on the sidelines, and, worse, support people who refused to filibuster.

Jay,
Please don’t paint all pro-choice organizations with the same NARAL brush. Some of us were screaming about Roberts and Alito and doing everything we could to fight them. NARAL deserves all the scorn they are getting, but PP has been providing birth control services, education and everything possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

This is true. It’s NARAL that deserves blame, and even then it’s mostly the national organization. My g/f’s best friend from college works for CT NARAL, and they were on record against Lieberman. In fact, CT NARAL asked the larger organization to reconsider the endorsement of Rape Gurney Joe, which was ignored.

And I will state again that the response to my polite call to NARAL in DC was arrogant, rude, and dismissive. If the woman on the phone was any indication of the national organization’s attitude toward its members, it’s no wonder NARAL gave everyone the finger: they simply don’t care.

It’s my suspicion that NARAL prefers that reproductive rights remain in crisis, same way the GOP prefers that Roe V Wade not be overturned: it’s a great issue for rousing the troops.

nancy keenan is a disgrace.

eCAHNomics @ 173

Jo-Ann @ 138

This horrible back door vote to reverse Roe v. Wade sooner rather than later has such hypocrisy behind it. Women have the right to choose . Men who have only sperm to offer in the discussion, should respect this and butt out.. What happens to women faced with death if this late-term procedure is forbidden? Oh, I get it.
Men already allow illegal wars that kill and mutilate innocents.
Men already allow famine and ethnic cleansing around the world.
Men already justify rape, even inc*st rape.
Men already make their bones by deflowering young girls, as a right.
So SOME men want ALL the power and will abide ALL the hate for women that they faintly deny.
A woman’s right to choose is inviolate. This latest betrayal by the neocons on the Supreme Court will not stand. MOST men cannot agree with this vote.

Don your burka & do back to the kitchen.

Do you want that comment to stand, and make my case, or do you have a particular point?

Here’s my fundamental question: If we don’t have a right to privacy, what good are all the other alleged rights?

Bush and his ilk don’t think we need those either. Except, of course, for the sacred right to bear arms.

our supreme court has seen several people confirmed that are worthy of impeachment. they have said and done things that make them out of touch with the people. they must be removed

eCAHNomics @ 215

oddmommy @ 212

Someone up there asked about Griswold v. Connecticut…..that was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade and it dealt with the right to birth control. It’s been a long time since law school, but I believe it was Griswold where the SCt first articulated the concept of penumbral rights, ie, those not specifically set forth in the Constitution but implied from its provisions.

That’s what these strict-construction-loving, judicial-activist-hating wingnuts want to undo.

Except, of course, in cases like Terru Shiavo’s.

Oh, and whenever else “judicial activism” suits their purposes.

Here’s my fundamental question: If we don’t have a right to privacy, what good are all the other alleged rights?

Our “rights” are pretty fragile these days.

Some right wing net-dumpster diving produced this little gem of contemporary right wing logic.

In regards to the V-Tech shootings:

“I confess to having realized that on some level I not only suspected but hoped this was a jihad attack, because it fits my view of what’s going on and because it would raise popular sentiment against Islam in America.”

They dream for the day that America is attacked again so they can use that incident to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance.

-GSD

LJ/Aquaria -

Yep. Roberts intent is said to be aimed at narrow decisions. But the target IS Griswold.

This makes abortion rights advocacy in a presidential candidate even more important.

Jo-Ann @ 216

Do you want that comment to stand, and make my case, or do you have a particular point?

Thought the sarcasm was obvious enough not to need an alert. I meant it to make your point by reducing the alternative to the absurd.

What I don’t understand is how this became a legal issue.

IMVHO, this a medical matter, and should be between patient and doctor. The law should keep its long nose out.

If the Republics really want to see an end to abortions, good sex education and access to contraceptives would go a long way to ending the need for them.

GSD @ 221

Some right wing net-dumpster diving produced this little gem of contemporary right wing logic.

In regards to the V-Tech shootings:

“I confess to having realized that on some level I not only suspected but hoped this was a jihad attack, because it fits my view of what’s going on and because it would raise popular sentiment against Islam in America.”

They dream for the day that America is attacked again so they can use that incident to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance.

-GSD

I wonder what the outcome of that realization was. Was it some whacked out quasi-patriotic pride or shameful realization of racist blood-lust?

PSA – Chemical found in second pet-food ingredient

The chemical, melamine, is believed to have contaminated rice protein concentrate used to make a variety of Natural Balance Pet Foods products for both dogs and cats, the Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday.

Recalled Cat Product Information
Last Updated: April 17, 2007
Recalled Dog Product Information
Last Updated: April 17, 2007

Consider Leahy’s floor comments today against today’s nasty Bush/Cheney court decision

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200704/041807.html

twolf1 @ 227

PSA – Chemical found in second pet-food ingredient

The chemical, melamine, is believed to have contaminated rice protein concentrate used to make a variety of Natural Balance Pet Foods products for both dogs and cats, the Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday.

Recalled Cat Product Information
Last Updated: April 17, 2007
Recalled Dog Product Information
Last Updated: April 17, 2007

Hear we go again…..

TiredFed @
43

RevDeb @ 12

Sad to say. I saw the news and said a loud, Oh Sh*t at the office. Then I realized that i was not surprised. The theocrats have been planning this for a long time. Be aware that there are very few places in the country that even did late term abortions and those that did it saw the most horridly tragic circumstances imaginable. These abortions are done only as a last resort and because to not do them would do grave harm to the woman.

Imagine having cancer, going through chemo and then finding out that no one asked if you were pregnant before starting the chemo. Imagine the effect on a fetus. This happens.

For the women who face this kind of procedure it is a tragedy to begin with. These are wanted babies where something has gone very very wrong. Now, the woman will suffer twice. First the loss of the fetus—it will have to happen anyway—and then the effects on her health because appropriate medical care can no longer be administered.

to any Nader voter you see: I TOLD YOU SO!

i would agree with you except that that horse is dead and we need the Nader voters of 2000. the ones that don’t already get this, and many do, won’t get it now. the ones that do get it, we don’t want to alienate.

eCAHNomics @ 224

Jo-Ann @ 216

Do you want that comment to stand, and make my case, or do you have a particular point?

Thought the sarcasm was obvious enough not to need an alert. I meant it to make your point by reducing the alternative to the absurd.

O.k. I get your sarcasm.

Oh but our compassionate conservative friends have an answer for those who fear being jailed for not wanting to carry to term a baby whose brain grows outside the skull. Simply dismember the fetus!

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

See? It’s all good.

Shoot me now.

Here we go again

spurious @ 184

egregious @ 23

I’m one of the only people you will ever encounter who is both pro-choice and pro-life.

Actually I wonder how uncommon this view really is? ‘Pro-abortion’ is just a conservative construction to malign those of us who believe the choice should be our own.

Glad (and proud) to be on the same page as egregious & spurious here. Who was it that said “Abortion should be rare, safe and legal”? That’s a way better “frame” imho.

I cannot imagine the psychological pain of a woman carrying a child she does not want. And there are so very many reasons why that could be true… each one its own kind of heartbreaking. But to make that kind of relief for simple human suffering flat impossible because of the diktats of some theocrat? No, a thousand times no.

Fresh thread for everyone.

WooHoo, I was in the neigborhood and saw the pointer to the fresh thread!! :) Interesting discussion here. Tnx as ever.

spurious and revdeb….
amen again !!

oldtree @ 219

our supreme court has seen several people confirmed that are worthy of impeachment. they have said and done things that make them out of touch with the people. they must be removed

This has worried me for years. But how do we get rid of supreme court justices?

spurious @
238

oldtree @ 219

our supreme court has seen several people confirmed that are worthy of impeachment. they have said and done things that make them out of touch with the people. they must be removed

This has worried me for years. But how do we get rid of supreme court justices?

The Supreme Court can be overruled by Congress. Ask one your attorneys for specifics though, this is from what I remember a while back.

oddmommy @ 218

Here’s my fundamental question: If we don’t have a right to privacy, what good are all the other alleged rights?

Bush and his ilk don’t think we need those either. Except, of course, for the sacred right to bear arms.

I think you need to take a closer look. They only care about the “sacred right to bear arms” because it gets them votes. If they are able to establish their permanent majority, that too will fall.

First, in January 2009, the White House will once again have a Democrat in it, because this SCOTUS decision will serve as the death knell of any Republican’s presidential chances.

Second, in Januray 2009, progressive Democrats will expand their leads in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, including making the Senate filibuster proof. Plus, DINO-DLC’er Blue Dog Democrats will have a choice: side with progressive Democrats or support the theocratic terrorists in our midst who endanger the lives of our nation’s women. Any DINO-DLC Blue Dog Democrats who choose the latter should be challenged and removed from office.

Thus, in January 2009, Democrats can pass a filibuster-proof law overturning this hardcore, theocratic terrorist Republican law that tells doctors and women that they no longer have a say in a woman’s health decisions.

Of course, a legal challenge will ensue which will go before the Supreme Court, and which will make the five men on the court who support religious terrorism squirm as they try to assert that the Democratic-passed law is unconstitutional while claiming they aren’t judicial activists doing the bidding of our own homegrown religious terrorists.

BTW, between now and 2009, I just wonder how many fundamentalist women suffering from a medical emergency late in a pregnancy will either die or experience extensive medical problems because their doctor cannot treat them to save their life or mitigate their suffering? Because from what I can tell, these late-term emergencies don’t discriminate. In other words, these five male SCOTUS assholes just signed the death warrant for any number of American women.

pai @ 115

Hey Nolo, if I sounded shrill it wasn’t intentional; no problem with you on my end- we’re just talking here, right? I don’t know what other options are available for 2nd trimester abortions but I know D&E is the most common, which makes me think it is the safest and simplest way. Peace indeed; we’ll save any anger for the “other side”.

sorry for the slow response,
i was off-the-grid most of the
day. . . like i said before, i am
in agreement that it is wrongly-
decided. . . yet, i believe we will
keep the right to choose. . . even
under this very conservative court.

thanks for writing back — be well.

This procedure is not used as a “casual abortion”. It is not called “partial birth abortion” except by anti-abortion partisans.

An actual doctor will tell you that this procedure is used to save the life of a woman who will die unless the malformed fetus within is surgically removed, or to remove an already dead fetus where the womb is dying, or in other grotesque and horrible and RARE circumstances. It is an emergency procedure, period, end of story.

In other words, this is a fake issue, and the judges had no more business having opinions on this than Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo by videotape. Less, in fact, he’s actually a doctor.

Those who argue this on the ick factor (egregious, that’s you) are missing the point, and falling into the anti-abortion trap and letting fanatics frame the issue.
Cutting someone’s skull open while they are awake sounds horrific, right? But brain surgery to remove a tumor, saving the life of the patient–not so horrific.

Leave this sort of procedure where it belongs–between a desperate woman, trying to save her own life, and the doctors who know what they are doing and can save her.

The courts and anyone else should butt out.

elliot — i think many doctors would
violate the law to save a woman’s life – but
that is just my gut-feeling. . .

now — while the case was wrongly decided,
consider ed kilgore’s take on what it means
in the longer view [cross-posted to jane’s
thread on NARAL donations boycotting]:

. . .the highly convoluted majority opinion, as reflected in the remarkably clear concurring and dissenting opinions, may make a broader attack on abortion rights harder in the long run, making the next appointment or two to the Court even more critical.

To make a long story short, the majority opinion (as brilliantly exposed in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent) went to inordinate and irrational lengths to reconcile the decision with the Court’s precedents, most obviously Stenberg (which struck down state “partial-birth” bans), Casey (which solidified a “health exception” to any permittable abortion restrictions), and Roe itself. Clearly the replacement of O’Conner by Alito made this result possible. But the failure of Alito and Roberts to join the concurring opinion by Thomas and Scalia calling for a reversal of all these precedents means that a further change in the Court will probably be necessary to produce a more fundamental shift in the constitutional law of abortion rights. And that’s one of many reasons why Democrats need to win the presidency in 2008. . .

specter’s tearing him a new one. yes specter

shit, wrong thread