The Misplaced Jubilance of the Anti-Abortion Right »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 4 months ago301 Comments Report this Story
Traditional small government conservatives suddenly become big government legislators of morality when the abortion issue crops up. Despite the absence of any Constitutional evidence of Congressional authority, the typical cries of Judicial Activism are curiously absent when the Court hands down a decision that flies in the face of Roe v Wade.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 301
-
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
personally i think this issue is one for "the states or the people" and not one where the federal government should be involved. Surprising how the "conservatives" are so happy about it.
Reply-
0%
PsychoHosebeast1 year, 4 months ago
Too often the "right to choose" is equated with "baby killer."
Keword: choose. What seems to be ignored is that there are a large number of women (and this IS a womens' issue more than anything--they should get two votes to every one by a man)who support the right to choose, who actually choose to have their baby. We never hear about them. Meanwhile these laws are enacted by men, who in two years, won't be paying their child support, claiming "birth control is the woman's responsibility."
Reply-
100%
Arbuckle1 year, 4 months ago
This is not a womans issue. She made her choice when she volunteered to have unsafe sex. She forfeits this right when she becomes pregnant. We CAN easily tell a woman what to do with her body...Prostitution is illegal. Choice? Women need to be more responsible with having sex and should not be allowed to click the "undo button" each time they get pregnant. Roe v Wade is an old hippy law that protected stupid women from getting back alley abortions from anyone. These same stupid women are trying to muddy the issue by sayng they have a natural right as a woman to cease an end to life.
Reply
-
0%
ChefEOD1 year, 4 months ago
Those I know who are right-to-life (myself included) would agree with that simple statement that it is for the states & people to decide. BUT since the federal government involved itself back with Roe vs Wade, and since this is a particularly gruesome and brutal type of abortion, yes they are happy with the decision.
Reply-
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
Conservatives used to say that Roe v Wade unconstitutionally seized power from the states to regulate abortion. Now they seem happy to have the feds regulate it.
where's that going to lead?
when some politicians in a few years change the laws around again - we'll hear the old argument - states rights.
be consistent and realize that every day spent relying on, or begging the federal government to do something is a day wasted.
and that goes for all sides of this and virtually every issue.
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun1 year, 4 months ago
populist, by now, I am STUNNED that you don't get it: this issue was usurped from "the states of the people" by Blackmun's Constitutionally vacuous Roe v. Wade decision. All that Gonzales v. Carhart does is take a SMALL PART of that decision out of the hands of unelected federal judges, and put it with a popularly elected Congress.
The author of the article you posted seems to miss the point that FEDERAL courts were striking down STATE partial-birth abortion bans, such as Nebraska's. As long as we maintain the anti-Constitutional fiction that abortion is some sort of 'unenumerated' Constitutional right included in the Bill of Rights, we will have this grotesque federal mess.
Recall the Ninth Amendment:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since when are 'the people' defined as the federal judiciary?
Reply
-
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
Can it be called an activist court when the ruling protects the right to live? Religion aside, lets look at the issue as an ethical issue. How ethical is it to allow a partial birth, only minutes away from complete separation from the mother, to be terminated?
Does the state have a vested interest in protecting the weakest among us? Are we to be allowed to pick and chose among the innocents who is to live and who is to die? Is not the government involved in Roe vs. Wade?
No matter how one feels about abortion, it was an activist court that decided there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Although a personal decision for a woman to chose, should the state offer programs so that an informed decision can be made? We do it all the time, regulating advertisement, health warnings, public announcements, etc. Given that it's impossible for the state not to be involved.
Read the specious arguments, we want the horribly deformed to be born, no, we don't want the healthy killed.
Reply-
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
not taking sides on the morality here, but even IF this is murder, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to deal with murder?
that's a state or local issue only.
Reply-
0%
bobbyriggs1 year, 4 months ago
i think the debate about state versus federal is academic. Abortion is murder. The states should see it as such. Will we start to kill severely mentally handicapped people next? It is amazing to me that the moral highground has flipped and the temporary right to a women's body has superceded the right to an entire life. For full disclosure, I am not a religous person. I see it as murder. murder is wrong.
Reply
-
0%
kedirian1 year, 4 months ago
That's right MajJohn! We want the healthy to be able to step into the meatgrinders of neocon Presidents an their cohorts...
We also don't want babies "killed", for to do so would irreparably HARM our God-given Capitalist system, which has no equal in this world and which is why America is "The Greatest nation on Earth".......
Born-again "Christians" are the most superficially-thinking beings on earth, and the sooner "Born-again" Christianity is exposed for what it is, a means to intimidate the sheep into remaining DUMB and keep them from QUESTIONING their comfortable, well-fed SHEPHERDS, the BETTER!
Reply
-
-
0%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
I wish the writer had kept his mouth shut. Zealots wouldn't have noticed, and articles like this could give them more impetus to use more 'fear' in the 08 election. The decision wasn't about Constitutional law. It was about five Catholics on the Supreme court wanting all abortion abolished.
But it can't stop with this law;
Example: If there's going to be a law that that a child without a skull will be born to suffer until it dies, then society is now obliged to pay for the extraordinary medical care given that child, as well as pay for the funeral and the psychological after affects to the parents having to watch it happen. Too bad society (including those judges) couldn't be forced to go through the experience as well. But at the very least, children born with horrific birth defects should be guaranteed a maximum level of sustenance, & these 'pro life' fools should not be allowed to demand they live, and then turn away from their needs once they're born.
Reply-
0%
truthiness1 year, 4 months ago
Jordan:
something like the birth defect you described, which actually happened to a couple close to me, would be picked up in the amnio in the 1st trimester, allowing for an abortion decision then, not when the child is almost born which is what this court decision is based on.
Reply-
0%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
birth defect you described, which actually happened to a couple close to me, would be picked up in the amnio in the 1st trimester,>>>>>
Not all women have amnio, as it has risks. It is not advised unless the mother is over 35, or had another birth with problems. One in 200 women who have amnio lose their pregnancy.
After three months, Anencephaly can be picked up by ultra sound; however, in a perfect world all women have health insurance and can approach their pregnancies proactively. However, in 'our' world, all women don't have the resources to follow their pregnancies so carefully. Science believes that more folate in the diet would reverse the cases of Anencephaly. Now, to get that information to expectant mothers is another story.
Reply
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
Children with anencephaly usually die within a few hours of birth. No one except you even suggests that the mother of a child without a complete skull has to make a decision that the pregnancy must continue. Usually it is known by the 12th week if a child has that birth defect. Your argument that Catholics on the court want all abortion abolished is cruel and bigoted.
I would embrace with all my love and support a mother who decided to go to full term under such circumstances. Call me a a pro life fool, I demand nothing and forgive all.
Reply
-
0%
truthiness1 year, 4 months ago
I dont think people are thinking this through clearly. This should not be a partisan issue, nor should it be seen as a black and white issue.
the argument that this is rarely done is moot.
I dont think you are really aware of what this procedure entails. I dont want to get too specific here because it is horrific. suffice it to say the baby's head is outside the mother as it is killed. often they scream as they die. there is no justification for this. there are other ways to remove the now viable baby from the mother, while protecting the mother, without murdering the child.
I am all about free choice. I am all about small govt. but some things are just wrong, and we do have a moral imperative not to allow them to continue. in the first tri-mester the child's neurological system is so underdeveloped that it can not be considered a person. at the time that these partial birth abortions are performed, the baby can survive outside the womb.
Reply-
0%
truthiness1 year, 4 months ago
the domino effect argument is ridiculous. surely we are intelligent enough to recognize the nuances of different situations. it is not an all or nothing environment.
Reply -
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
"I am all about small govt. but some things are just wrong, and we do have a moral imperative not to allow them to continue."
i think the author is understanding of that - but making the important point that if you allow the federal government the power to ban something nationwide, you also give it the power to UN-ban it when different politicians are in power.
in short - it's probably going to be a different political reality around here in a couple years - those who are cheering for this decision JUST gave the left the power to do the opposite.
hopefully that makes sense.
Reply-
0%
svensun1 year, 4 months ago
Populist,
You sound like Claude Rains, in the movie Casablanca:
"I am shocked, SHOCKED to hear that democracy is going on here!"
Of course, if the People, through their legislators, have the right to to pass a certain law, then most certainly, the People retain the right to elect legislators who will repeal it. That is called DEMOCRACY.
The article's author seems to think that Right To Life advocates are opposed to democracy; it is exactly the opposite. The Right To Life movement has not promoted the idea that the Constitution bans abortion, because it is, as you point out, quite silent on the issue.
Instead they have promoted RIGHT TO LIFE amendments to the Constitution. The amendment procedure is the DEMOCRATIC method that our Constitution spells out for adding such things. If only the left-wing judges believed the same way!
Reply
-
0%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
dont think you are really aware of what this procedure entails. >>>>>
Now that's interesting. Most I could find on the subject is the word of ONE nurse. The AMA doesn't recognize 'partial birth abortion' as a legitamate medical procedure. Can't find a thing on this subject from qualified places, but only 'religious' sites. So did one MD do a horrible thing, one nurse witness it, and all of a sudden that escallates to it's being done everywhere? This whole issue looks like a propaganda tool, and nothing more. If a nurse saw a physician do this, she should have called the damn police. Can someone PLEASE show me evidence that this was even a real issue in the first place? (Other than the word of one nurse?)
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
No one agrees with abortion done after birth. For crying out loud, this is merely an attempt to place a pall on ALL abortion, by coming up with this slimy, suspect procedure. And the damned 'bill' wouldn't have been challenged by democrats had CONS put the mothers life first. The ONLY reason they didn't do that was because the knew democrats would challenge it. Then they could say democrats didn't care about those poor, suffering, 'partially born' children! It's the most disgusting BS propaganda I've ever seen, and you fell for it! IF that procedure IS being done, (and that's a very big IF) then of course it should be outlawed! Get real!
Reply -
0%
Beau78901 year, 4 months ago
truthiness, this procedure drarely entails the head to be outside the mother's body when the brain is evacuated. And you'd probably consider the alternative, which has NOT been banned, worse if you read about it.
Aside from that, are there ANY major surgical procedures that you wouldn't consider horrific? Descriptions of them are extermely graphic.
Reply-
0%
truthiness1 year, 4 months ago
sure, a quadruple bypass may look gross, but your saving a life. its not the imagery that I'm concerned with it is the actions and affects.
not really sure how I got this one spun around in my mind, unimportant, the result is the same...baby is almost completly born ...and instead of finishing the birth the opt for death, makes no sense, obviously the mothers life is in no additional danger by completing the birth at this point.
you argue about the politicians playing doctor, but the politicians arent experts at anything they are making judgements on, they take (theoretically) advise from the experts and then make laws based on that.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 4 months ago
This should be a private matter and not be in the courts at all. It should not be in the political arena at all. Medical procedures should be under the purview of the AMA or some equivalent organization. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. It's none of your business how your neighbor handles an unwanted pregnancy. And if you are a teetotaler who never ever drinks, won't you be surprised when your neighbor insists that you have a daily glass of red wine for your health?
Abortion is an issue that is so personal and potentially damaging, no matter the ultimate decision, it should not be a subject of policy for the entire population. It is never a happy choice. And I am sure, that on both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, everyone one can at least agree that it would be a good thing if the number of abortions were reduced.
Reply -
0%
natashas1 year, 4 months ago
It is a woman's choice. Woman are fully capable of making this decision. In fact some men encourage woman to have abortions. I think these politions need to have their head examined. It so easy to argue over something like womans rights then it is to change heath care cost and create employment and cut taxes. I know that their are woman out there that have abortions when they wish they could just be able to take care of their baby. My heart goes out to them. The sad part is that if they decide to have their baby no one is their to help them with their needs. If they put their child up for adoption, God knows what happens to that child, and they may never find a home.
Reply-
0%
truthiness1 year, 4 months ago
if I father a child, I have no say? she can abort my child without my input? once the child is born I damn well better live up to my responsibilities (a point which I agree with). and if she chooses to keep the child, as a responsible man I better help with all of the pre natal care.
so why do I have no say in ending the child?
Reply-
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
another reason why this issue should only be a local one. otherwise you give a couple hundred politicians the power to say one way or the other.
and...even if you find that they "rule" the way you want...in a few years other politicians have the power to do the opposite.
Reply -
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 4 months ago
truthiness about being father and having a say--I've always wondered the same, even tho I am a woman. But think of the reverse too- what if the guy wants the woman to have an abortion and she won't??? does that excuse him then from any responsibility? all abortion is very personal I think, and with that one word-it should be choice, but with counsel and education for the 2 people involved in making that decision.
Reply -
0%
RedstateLib1 year, 4 months ago
Truthiness,
Perhaps that is a conversation men should have with women before they perform the act that creates a pregnancy. Do you want children. Would you ever consider abortion. If not would want to raise the baby or give it up for adoption. Maybe discussing the issue on say the 4th or 5th date could avoid the problems you describe. It would work better than jumping into bed with someone you really don't know and crossing those other bridges when you get to them. I think they call it "personal responsibilty".
Reply
-
-
