if that rant is the woman from yesterday (sorry, if it is, I don't want to view it again), that woman most likely wasn't going to vote as democrat this fall anyway.

   More like a splash of blood on the coat of a fur-wearer...

     ...and about as effective.

Keep telling yourself that.

hitting the wrong side of the bar!

posted by Tony Smith  
05.23.2008 - 7:34 pm  

A word on Roe -- the ultimate red alert. An abundance of literature criticizes the feminist movement for centralizing Roe as a social movement objective. Mainstream feminists fail to recognize the ways in which economic barriers, not Court rulings, burden women's reproductive autonomy. The Supreme Court has watered down Roe almost to the point of nonexistence. The Court does not even apply the rigorous Roe doctrine anymore; instead, it only looks to see whether a law places an "undue burden" in the path of a woman seeking to abort a nonviable fetus. Since the Court developed this malleable standard in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), it has upheld several laws that had previously failed Roe's "strict scrutiny" test. Now states can require women to read literature designed to deter them from seeking abortions. They can require "24-hour waiting periods," which means that patients have to schedule two doctor's appointments, thus exacerbating the cost of the procedure. Even under Roe, the Court had long held that the federal government and states could exclude abortion-related services from coverage under government-sponsored health plans. As a result, abortion is cost-prohibitive for many poor women -- unless they receive assistance from organizations like Planned Parenthood. Most recently, the Court, for the first time, upheld an antiabortion law that lacks a health exception. This federal statute bans partial-birth abortion, which usually takes place in the third trimester. Although heavily maligned by Obama's so-called "progressive" supporters, Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth legislation two times. As Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, poor women, who often lack money to seek an abortion earlier, disproportionately utilize this procedure. Because the public strongly favors this legislation, do not expect the Supreme Court to reverse course, even under an Obama administration. The Supreme Court follows, rather than dictates, public opinion.

Obama has not stated that he would try to secure federal subsidies for abortion services or to do anything specific to enhance the reproductive choices of poor women. Had he articulated such policies, this would mark a significant change in the abortion debate. Absent such progressive measures, abortion will remain freely open to wealthier women and fairly available to middle-class and poor women - the exact same situation as today. Only policies that recognize the economic constraints on reproduction can disrupt the status quo. Because Obama has not proposed such measures, the Roe argument is merely a scare tactic

CRICKETS...

They could have shown fundamental fairness in their comments during the primary.

They could have not favored the Obama candidacy.

They = Dean, Pelosi, Clyburn, Brazile, Dodd, Kennedy, etc.

There are already forced pregnancies.  Under Roe, here are the consequences that have been wrought since that decision of 1973: 1. Low income and military women can't have abortions paid by federal funding (which means, they can't afford them).  2. Doctors are increasingly foregoing abortion practices because of the anti-abortion intimidation, death threats and murders (translation: not many left to perform abortions and less and less every year; many areas and even states, do not have any doctors, clinics, hospitals that will perform abortions.  That means, women can't afford to pay for nor travel to other areas).  3. Health insurance companies refuse to pay for abortions - that means middle income women may not be able to afford abortions. 4. Women are subjected to "fetal representation" (my term for anti-abortion propaganda) by law before they can elect to have an abortion. Of course, a guilt trip laid on women who have already made a wrenching decision.  5. Parental notification required for those under age.  In the worst cases, even when the parent is responsible for the pregnancy.  6. Intimidation and harassment of women from abortion foes at clinics, hospitals and doctors' offices including pictures and actual fetuses.  7. Bombings, destruction and damage of abortion clinics.  Some clinics decide to close or not re-open.  And, the "coat hangar" that you posted as a metaphor for illegal abortions is already a reality.  I have spoken to those who have gone that route and to survivors of those that died going that route.  Therefore, tell me how Obama will make this better when he panders to the anti-abortion zealots and muses about voting for John Roberts only to be talked out of that because of his future political considerations.

I posit that it might even be better if Roe were overturned.  Then may be young women would actually fight for this right and not allow the slow but sure death by the actions I outlined above.  I posit that the surest and quickest way to regain the lost ground for abortion rights might be to wake Americans up to the fact that this right has been undermined to where it is indeed just a sham for many if not most women.

Finally, it would be easy for the Democrats to deny the President any appointments to the US Supreme Court.  There is precedent in our history, of Congress doing just that and the POTUS not having the full complement of justices.  It is well within Congresses' power and is definitely their duty, to uphold their Constitutional right to Advise and Consent and not just rubber stamp Presidential appointees.  Our duty as voters and citizens, is to ensure that our elected officials honor their office and the people's will.

generation, who overwhelmingly supported him, fight their own battles for what you deemed is worth preserving of our accomplishments, that are sneered upon by your candidate. You cannot belittle us as being the generation who f%&@ed everything up and then now that you need us to get him elected, ask us to turn the other cheek and file back into step in the name of unity after being also told repeatedly that we don't have a place in his new party!

I've been pissed at the party ever since I saw Kennedy legalize Bush by literally embracing him at his first state of the union address. What a slap across the face to every disenfranchised voter in Florida and elsewhere! And the party did it again on Saturday! That was the last straw for me, I've had it!

I fear you miss the point entirely.  I have argued this exact situation many times on this site.  Hence I expressed agreement with your content.  If you argue it the way you do in this comment, and add a little detail, you will help reinforce a compelling argument.  The method of your delivery is not trivial.  The question is whether you want to persuade with any degree of effectiveness or not.  The particular audience you are addressing is unlikely to be receptive to your presentation.  They will find it coercive, manipulative, sensationalist, and condescending.  You shock them with a violent and frightening image, in ways that suggest an unfair accusatory attack by implication, as opposed to appealing to their reason and creating common ground where they can join you.  This does not mean that you cannot argue forcefully and strongly.  But it's important to consider how your audience is likely to receive your message in crafting it.  And if I may ask a question, if it's just a picture surrounded by trivia, why are you willing to let it get in the way of your message?

I guess I'm an exception to the one issue rule that states if you disagree with a candidate on one issue you're not allowed to support the candidate.

I could be wrong but Hillary Clinton has also stated she supports education geared toward reducing the number of abortions. I am all for that.

The democratic party used to be the inclusive party. I understand it has gone through a change in recent months, but until now I did not realize how much.

There have always been Democrats who are against abortion.