Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Are you fed up with the conservatives’ Big Con?
According to Rick Perlstein (formerly of The New Republic,) conservativism hasn’t just failed to live up to its promise, it cannot live up to its promise, and perhaps nothing illustrates The Big Con better than the massive (and constantly expanding) pet food recall threatening to call into question the safety of our entire food supply. Rick joins us for the hour to take your calls.
8PM: Have conservatives won the war on choice?
The U.S. Supreme Court this week overturned decades of precedent, for the first time upholding a ban on a particular abortion procedure. Blythe Chandler, Deputy Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington joins me in the studio to talk about how this threatens a woman’s right to choose, and how this might play out politically in Washington state and throughout the nation.
9PM: TBA
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
Why don’t you ask Ms. Chandler when she personally believes that a woman should no longer have the “right to choose”? Pro-abortion folks really hate to give a straight answer to this question, since their ideology and logic dictates that “choice” should extend all the way up until the moment before birth. That kind of question is always much easier for pro-life folks to answer, since they will unequivocally say that life begins at conception. Most Americans want a solution somewhere in between, although most folks will no doubt find sticking scissors in the brain of a baby after the mother’s water has broken to be considerably more repulsive than prohibiting even the use of a “morning after” pill.
I’ll be really interested to know how many people call in to say that they think jamming a pair of scissors into a baby’s skull to murder it is a good idea.
Listen to goldy… hear pure fucking evil..
Moonbat news flash:
Conservatism ALWAYS works. Socialism/librulism ALWAY fails.
Make no mistake, GWB and the current crop of republicans are no conservatives. That’s why McCain and Guiliani and can’t get any traction. If Newt decides to run, the election is over and the country is saved.
Richard @1,
Why don’t you call in and ask Blythe your ridiculous and hateful question for yourself? 877-710-KIRO
WINGNUTS NEWS FLASH: NOV 7 2006 SHOWED YOU LOSERS WHAT THE PEOPLE NOW THINK ABOUT YOUR BANKRUPT IDEOLOGY.
MEMO TO REDNECK: PAY YOUR FUCKING GAMBLING DEBT.
Too bad Dickless Pope’s mother didn’t abort him – that way he would have been saved the shame of being soundly rejected 14 or more times by the people of Seattle.
Mr Stupid: Once again you prove the name given to you is correct and appropriate!
I am pro choice. It always bugs me when I see all the unwanted children today. My heart goes out to Alec Baldwin.
Voice of Chalk Scratching:
9:00 PM. Are the mental health laws enacted in the 70 outdated for today? Enter the VT killer Cho. Apparently on Meet the Depressed, the laws written to protect Cho’s privacy would not have alerted authorities to deny him his weapons. Looks like the Congressional Moonbat!s have to decide. This will be a toughie! Too many special interests here.
Or for 9:00 PM: Talk about Gun Free Zones
1) Elementary Schools
2) Middle Schools
3) High Schools
4) NASA
5) US Post Offices
6) Virginia Tech
#5: Snore
HEY PUDDY! YOU PACKIN’ HEAT?
Richard @ 1: Justice Ginsberg wrote a sweeping, powerful and logical dissent to this abominable decision, and what do we get from you in reply? Reasoned argument? No. We get wingnuttery at it lowest and worst. That fact that you call yourself a lawyer is an insult to your profession. You are a jacknape guttersnipe, utterly lacking any conception of the most basic foundations of justice, equality, or freedom. Tell me fuckwad, how many preventable pregnant female deaths will it take before your highly refined moral sense is troubled in the slightest? I’d wager there is no number high enough, because you are a political sociopath, and you obviously believe that women are inferior beings.
You sir, are a rank cur. Do us all a favor. Shoot yourself. Please do not miss.
I’ll be really interested to know how many people call in to say that they think jamming a pair of scissors into a baby’s skull to murder it is a good idea.
If the woman’s life is at stake, it’s a pretty straightforward decision dipshit. But then you are the kind of psychopath who thinks murder is OK if it supports “your side”. If Karl Rove gunned down Michael Moore in cold blood, you’d probably cheer.
You are one sick motherfucker.
@13 W-e-e-l-l-l-l, Richard appears to have gone completely over to the necon point of view. They aren’t terribly good in the competency department, so he may well miss, or worse, botch the job so badly that he becommes a helpless ward of the state. . . . . . . .
You’re doin’ a heckuva job Dickie. . .
13
Yes I read the dissent, it went sort of like this:
zzzzzzz….snore…zzzzzzz…snore…zzzzzz…snore….zzzzz
Yes it was one of her finer dissents. Courage Proud ass, courage.
One thing to remember, at all times when dealing with Mark The Retarded Redneck: Given a choice between Mark and a CrackWhore in a divorce action, the court gave child custody to the CrackWhore. . .
#13 and #14 – does it make sense to induce labor and have a baby within 30 seconds of being born and then you murder the poor baby. How is a woman’s life at stake by killing the baby 30 seconds before it is born. The woman is still going to have to pass the head out of the uterus. Perhaps you need to study anatomy and common sense rather than blindly calling people nonsensical names because that is the only way you can discuss anything.
Dan @ 17: I’ll be OK. Please try not to sleep while pretending to read something. It makes a mockery of your assertion.
When Richard puts the gun in his mouth, do us a favor. Stand behind him.
DOOFUS: PROUD ASS LEFT THIS COMMENT BOARD MONTHS AGO WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT EVERYTHING SHE BELIEVED WAS TURNING TO CRAP.
SHE BELIEVED THAT THE WINGNUTS WOULD KEEP THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND EVEN GAIN SEATS.
SHE WAS WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG.
YOU BOTH WERE DEFEATED.
CONTINUE TO TELL YOUR LIES, DOOFUS. YOUR FAILURES ARE TOO FUNNY.
I’ll be really interested to know how many people call in to say that they think jamming a pair of scissors into a baby’s skull to murder it is a good idea.
If the woman’s life is at stake, it’s a pretty straightforward decision dipshit.
So if the women was having the baby in a “gun free” zone would that count?
“Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran!”
Time magazine reports that McCain’s negatives are now higher than even Hillary’s:
“Hillary Clinton: Definitely would, 27%; Would consider, 26%; Definitely would not, 45%
“John McCain: Definitely would, 12%; Would consider, 39%; Definitely would not, 47%”
http://time-blog.com/swampland/
As I’ve said previously in these threads, not only do I believe McCain is finished as a major candidate, but I also believe he will be the first of the big-name candidates to drop out because of money and support drying up. McCain blew his cred in various ways. Now, he’s the clown in the center ring, an audience diversion. Exit, stage right.
Two GOP congressmen who ran scuzzy campaign ads against their opponents linking them to NAMBLA because of their ACLU connections — Rick Renzi and John Doolitte — are both under FBI investigation. Not for that, but because they’re crooks.
24
Probably based on false charges as usual. Dems are good at making up false charges.
@19: Tell me again why real like, doctors, find this ban to be an unethical intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Maybe you should read what real medical professionals have to say about this procecdure, and the rare circumstances when it is called for. Otherwise, you simply display a disgraceful ignorance. This can be corrected.
Common sense will follow.
And if you agree with dipshits like MTR and Dickie Pope, maybe you can tell me what you have against women. Are they independent moral agents (like men) or are they not?
This is very basic. It is about equality. I guess you don’t believe in it.
@1 It’s easy to figure out when wingnutz stop respecting human life: The moment it’s born. (See, e.g., “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran …”)
@2 I’d be interested to know how many people think jamming a bar of soap into your mouth until you pay your fucking gambling debt is a good thing ….
Danno @ 22: So if the women was having the baby in a “gun free” zone would that count?
Still trying to find out what a joke is, danno? Sign up in advance for “Humour For Dummies”. Might help.
I still believe you’d be better off standing behind Dickie.
@3 Redneck and I finally agree on something:
“If Newt decides to run, the election is over and the country is saved.”
Yes! Yes! Please, please, yes! Oh please God YES YES YES make them run Newt ….
Proud Ass @ 13, 14 & 26
I have read the Supreme Court opinion and dissent. The ban on partial-birth abortions is perfectly consistent with Roe v. Wade. The dissent is simply opposed to any regulation or restriction on abortion whatsoever. I saw nothing in Justice Kennedy’s opinion which said that Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood should be overruled.
As for the “doctor-patient” relationship, we are talking about “doctors” who make their living performing abortions. Real doctors don’t approve of this practice, nor do they perform it (except where the women’s life is really in danger and no other safe alternative exists). You are right that a partial-birth abortion is called for only under rare circumstances. Abortion “doctors”, on the other hand, routinely perform these and find such procedures to be the most profitable and lucrative for them. There is a lot more money to be made by inducing labor & sticking scissors into a baby’s head, than by simply sucking a fetus out with a vacuum cleaner.
And for the “doctor-patient” thing, NARAL is strongly opposed to requiring “abortion providers” to have a medical license even.
Great News from Iraq:
McDonalds will now be open until 7PM!
@6 The big question is: Will Dickie try to make it 15 in a row?
Great News from Iraq:
Global warming has not raised temperatures in Fallujah.
Great News from Iraq:
The carrot crop this year will be twice as big as last year.
Roger Rabbit @ 30
I agree with your reasoning, but not with your result. I say that if Newt is nominated, the election is over, and the country is ruined.
@9 Be careful, puddinghead — if they tinker with the mental health laws, no telling where YOU may end up.
Great News from Iraq:
Iraqi National Museum to offer free thursdays.
@12 Are you kidding? He isn’t even packing a dick.
Great News from Iraq:
The Jewish community center in Baghdad invites guests to shabat services. All are welcome.
@13 “You are a jacknape guttersnipe, utterly lacking any conception of the most basic foundations of justice, equality, or freedom.”
So? That’s only average for Republicans in my profession. At least Pope doesn’t (so far as I know) write memos arguing torture is legal or misuse his public office to advance voter suppression schemes — if only because he doesn’t have one to misuse.
Besides, Pope is fun to pick on.
Great News from Iraq:
The Baghdad Schools Committee announced today that it will build the Cheney Gymnasium for Boys. CGB will require all students to join the Junior ROTC. Graduates of CGB will be eligible for attendance at select American Colleges including Messiah University, Oral Roberts University and Seattle Pacific.
Dickie @ 31: The ban on partial-birth abortions is perfectly consistent with Roe v. Wade.
This is simply not true, Richard. The fact that you would make such a claim is simply breathtaking. Furthermore, you provide no evidence that “abortion doctors” routinely perform this operation–I guess if that were true, why it would no longer be “rare” would it?
You are something else. you actually have clients? I find it hard to believe. Shoot yourself, please.
@42
not not Roger Rabbit seems to think picking on the Pope is fun. This disgusts not Roger Rabbit and is not fun.
All rabbits and not rabbits should realize that if the Popes go, the rabbits are next.
Let’s be honest here about 5 things concerning so-called “partial birth” abortion.
1. It’s extremely rare (about 0.17% of all abortions).
2. Most of the fetuses it’s used on are normal, not deformed.
3. Why? Because it’s safer for the mother than dismembering the fetus inside the womb.
4. This week’s SCOTUS decision does not signal the end of Roe v. Wade. Only 2 justices signed the concurring opinion saying Roe v. Wade should be reversed.
5. The only thing the right-to-lifers “won” this week was to make late-term abortions more dangerous.
@17 “Yes I read the dissent …”
I see Dufus is lying again …
Great News from Iraq:
Goldie’s show to be simulcast by Armed Forces radio between 1AM and 4 AM. Rush Limbaugh to follow at 7.
Dufus can’t read Dick and Jane, much less SCOTUS advance sheets.
@19 How is it safer for the woman to dismember the fetus inside the womb, instead of outside the womb? Perhaps you should study anatomy and common sense before blindly spewing nonsense.
Great News from Iraq:
Supreme Court of Iraq has ruled that beheading is punishable by public dismemberment.
Imagine what the cabbage patch would be like if girl rabbits could choose late term abortions!
@25 So now Bush’s FBI is ponying up false charges against Republican congresscrooks? What we have here, folks, is another FRIENDLY FIRE casualty!
BWA-HA-HAAA-HAAAAAA HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Great News from Iraq:
Hussein Ibn Riyadh has proposed marriage to four Sunni women believed to all be beautiful.
McCain blew his cred in various ways.
ESPECIALLY BY EXPRESSING HIS MAN LOVE FOR THE CHIMP.
THAT CHIMPANZEE IS DESTROYING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE BRAINWASHED FOOLS LIKE DOOFUS ARE TOO BLIND TO SEE IT.
Great News from Iraq:
The Baghdad Morgue has three empty tables. The Surge must be working.
@31 “The ban on partial-birth abortions is perfectly consistent with Roe v. Wade. … I saw nothing in Justice Kennedy’s opinion which said that Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood should be overruled.”
My point exactly, Richard! Everyone is missing the point that the real story here is what DIDN’T happen in this decision. Namely, 7 of the justices DIDN’T agree that Roe should go.
#26 – Why do Doctors and Nurses disagree with your opinion:
“The only poll of physicians on the subject we have seen was conducted by Medical Economics and published in October, 2002, asking the question, “Should the procedure that’s often called ‘partial-birth abortion’ remain legal?” Among all physicians, only 27% were for keeping the method legal, while 44% said it should not be legal (a plurality), and 28% weren’t sure. Among the obstretrician-gynecologists, however, there was a clear majority of 57% for the ban, and only 33% for keeping the method legal. Medical Economics Senior Editor Dorothy L. Pennachio wrote that among various medical specialties, “Ob/gyns are least likely to be on the fence — only 10 percent say they’re not sure; they’re also most likely (57 percent) to believe the procedure should be outlawed.” See:
http://www.memag.com/be_core/s.....y=abortion
A 1999 random sample of 2,000 hospital-based registered nurses by RN magazine found that 63% favored a ban on partial-birth abortion.
http://www.conservativenews.or.....0315c.html”
So you stand corrected
Including the 2 Shrub appointed. Funny how people never do what preznits think they will after they get on the Court.
Great News from Iraq:
Baghdad Tech offers counseling service to its sister school Virginia Tech.
@32 But — 4 years, $300 billion, and 3500 American lives later — you still can’t drink the water.
@34 Not so great news from Iraq: You still can’t walk the streets of Fallujah without getting shot.
#50 – Roger – you are the one sprouting and spewing nonsense so we will have to agree that we disagree.
@35 Not so great news from Iraq: Insurgents will continue to blow up Iraq’s oil facilities, and gas will still cost over $3 this summer.
@57
Roger Rabbit misses the point. Next Congress will pass an act prohibiting abortions that prevent full term pregnancy.
The logical decsion here was that the Congressional act was unconstitutional because ot interfered with a patients’ right to choose the most appropriate therapy.
@36 One man’s turd is another man’s cupcake, Richard. I say — BRING HIM ON, RIGHTYS!!!
God, please, I’ve never asked for anything before, but dear God, I’m asking now, please please please let them nominate Newt!!!
@40 Not so great news from Iraq: The Jewish community center in Baghdad will be blown up immediately after the guests have arrived for shabat services.
Hey, Dickie dipshit. Read this. Then reply.
Father Knows Best
Dr. Kennedy’s magic prescription for indecisive women.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 7:21 PM ET
(Continued from page 1)
And then Kennedy quickly returns to the business of grossing us out. With a stirring haiku about how “respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child,” the justice interpolates himself between every one of those mothers and every child she might ever bear. Without regard for the women who feel they made the right decision in terminating a pregnancy, he frets for those who changed their minds. (“It seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”) (The “infant,” not the “fetus.”) As both the dissenters and my colleague Emily Bazelon have pointed out, this portrayal of a rampant epidemic of regretful women may or may not be scientifically accurate. (The American Psychological Association doesn’t think so.) But even if the numbers of women who would truly choose differently if they could choose again are larger than most of the medical literature indicates, one might question whether such women should be the pole star of national abortion policy.
Nobody disputes that whether or not they decide to go through with an abortion, women face a heart-wrenching choice. But for Kennedy only those women who regret the decision to abort illuminate some deeper truth. And Kennedy’s solution for these flip-flopping women is elegant. Protect them from the truth. “Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details,” he concedes. “It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the state.” In Kennedy’s view, if pregnant women only knew how abhorrent the procedure was, they’d always opt to avoid it. But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in dissent, Kennedy doesn’t propose giving women more information about partial-birth abortion procedures. He says it’s up to the Congress and the courts to substitute their judgment and ban the procedures altogether. (“I’m sorry Bianca, there is a procedure out there that may be safer for you, but some day, you will thank me for sparing you from it.”)
Then Kennedy sorrowfully returns to the Indecisive Women. “It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound, when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.”
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
One core proposition that’s held true from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg was that abortion regulations, in order to be constitutional, required an exception if the mother’s health was in danger. For the first time today, Kennedy determines that a court’s factual determination about whether some procedure may be necessary to protect the mother’s health can just evaporate in the face of “medical uncertainty.” That turns both Casey and Stenberg on their heads. After today, “medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power.” And even where some of the building blocks of that “uncertainty” are patently untrue. Henceforth if there is uncertainty about the health consequences of the ban, the tie will go to the banners.
Kennedy devotes the remainder of his opinion to taking cover under standing doctrine. “Standing” to bring suit is the Roberts court’s trapdoor to keep pesky litigants away from the courthouse. On this front, too, Kennedy turns Casey and Stenberg on their heads with nary a backward glance. His opinion pretty much unfurls a roadmap for states seeking to enact broader bans on abortion. As Ginsburg points out in her dissent, the court’s rationale for upholding the ban on intact D&Es would support a ban on the (far more common) nonintact D&E as well.
It’s hard to fathom why Kennedy has so much more sympathy for the women who changed their minds about abortions than for those who did not. His concern for Inconstant Females might be patronizing in any other jurist. Coming from him, it’s brilliantly ironic. Kennedy is, after all, America’s Hamlet. The man who famously worried that “sometimes you don’t know if you’re Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line,” will long be remembered as the living incarnation of agony and indecision, And today he seamlessly rewrites his Stenberg dissent as a majority opinion that blasts his earlier Casey vote to its core.
I’m no psychologist but in light of today’s Gonzales opinion one has to wonder: Is all of Kennedy’s tender concern over those flip-flopping women really just some kind of weird misplaced justification for his flip-flopping self?
Roger Rabbit @ 46
I actually agree with you on all five points.
I don’t obsess myself with these matters, but I try to at least follow the news and court decisions. My recollection is that “partial birth abortions” are much more common in states that don’t have any restrictions on abortion whatsoever and permit them to be performed all the way up until birth.
Washington, on the other hand, makes it a crime to perform an abortion after viability. By the way, this is perfectly consistent with Roe v. Wade. Back in 1998, there was an initiative to outlaw “partial birth abortions” in this state. However, it developed that no “partial birth abortions” had been performed in this state, since abortion is against the law after viability anyway.
Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban definitely does make post-viability abortions more dangerous. Too bad Congress didn’t simply outlaw all post-viability abortions, instead of merely outlawing the safest method of performing them.
And I think Alito, Roberts and Kennedy aren’t going to say Roe v. Wade should be reversed, until they actually reverse Roe v. Wade.
@43 Not so great news from Iraq: All students enrolled in Junior ROTC at the Cheney Gymnasium for Boys will automatically be enlisted in the Iraqi Armed Forces upon graduation.
@45 “the rabbits are next”
Trust me, my progeny will be going strong long after you humans are dust.
Oops. Here’s page 1. Apologies.
Father Knows Best
Dr. Kennedy’s magic prescription for indecisive women.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 7:21 PM ET
Anti-abortion activists pray at the Supreme Court
The key to comprehending the Supreme Court’s ruling today in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban is a mastery not of constitutional law but of a literary type. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is less about the scope of abortion regulation than an announcement of an astonishing new test: Hereinafter, on the morally and legally thorny question of abortion, the proposed rule should be weighed against the gauzy sensitivities of that iconic literary creature: the Inconstant Female.
Kennedy invokes The Woman Who Changed Her Mind not once, but twice today. His opinion is a love song to all women who regret their abortions after the fact, and it is in the service of these women that he justifies upholding the ban. Today’s holding is a strange reworking of Taming of the Shrew, with Kennedy playing an all-knowing Baptista to a nation of fickle Biancas.
As a matter of law, the majority opinion today should have focused exclusively on what has changed since the high court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Stenberg struck down a Nebraska ban that was almost identical to the federal ban upheld today. That’s why every court to review the ban found the federal law, passed in 2003, unconstitutional. What really changed in the intervening years was the composition of the court: Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted to strike down the ban in 2000, is gone. Samuel Alito, who votes today to uphold it, is here.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
What hasn’t changed is that Anthony Kennedy finds partial-birth abortion really disgusting. We saw that in his dissent in Stenberg. That’s what animates and drives his decision. His opinion blossoms from the premise that if all women were as sensitive as he is about the fundamental awfulness of this procedure, they’d all refuse to undergo it. Since they aren’t, he’ll decide for them.
Kennedy halfheartedly attempts to distinguish Stenberg from Gonzales. Sparing us his usual lofty opening sonnet to freedom and liberty and truth and good lighting, he opens with the terse insistence that this case is not Stenberg: The act is both “more specific” and “more precise” than its Nebraskan precursor. The court can uphold it without revisiting Stenberg. That’s nice for Kennedy, since he is one of the authors of the famous paean to precedent in Casey that was the basis, in that 1992 case, for upholding Roe v. Wade.
Rather than admitting that his opinion today is at odds with Stenberg, Kennedy walks his reader through the horrors of the intact dilation and extraction procedure Congress has banned. This discussion goes on for five pages, and includes, for balance, an “abortion doctor’s clinical description” of the abortion at issue, and that of a nurse who witnessed the procedure being “performed on a 26 1/2 week fetus.” (The nurse’s version: “the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he think’s he’s going to fall.”)
Kennedy contends Congress fixed the problems with the Nebraska ban in two vital ways: by making factual findings, and by narrowing the definition of the procedure such that doctors of “ordinary intelligence” know which operations will be illegal and which will not.
@64
Great News from Iraq:
The Baghdad Chamber of Commerce has announced its “free dollars” campaign inviting Americans to come to a land where gas prices are less than .25 cents a gallon and the flafel is heavenly.
Behrooz Ahmed, Minister for Tourism says, “With the rising price of fule in the US and the drop in the value of the US dollar in Europe and Japan, our American friends should consider the advantages of a vacation in the cradle of civilizations, Iraq.” Special summer rates apply but we expect the coming Xmas season to be especially festive.
@48 Not so great news from Iraq: Unfortunately, some of the listening audience will be dead by the time Lush Flimbaugh comes on.
53
Anyone can make a false charge. Hell just ask my former employer See BS.
@51 Not so great news from Iraq: Where punishment applies, balls to be cut off first.
@71
How do you know that NRR is any more human than you are? Actually, I saw you at DL the other night. You didn’t even look like a rabbit, much less the great RR of cartoon fame.
Not Roger Rabbit can not imagine Jessica Rabboit making love ot such a gritty old human!
@52 Choice not a problem. What girl rabbit would want an abortion, silly? Rabbits WANT their babies! Lots and lots of baby rabbits!!! The more the merrier!!! There’s always room in a mother rabbit’s heart to love 10 more!
And we don’t have any trouble feeding them. Just look around in the park at all this grass.
@54 Not so great news from Iraq: They’re all his sisters.
Roger Rabbit says:
@40 Not so great news from Iraq: The Jewish community center in Baghdad will be blown up immediately after the guests have arrived for shabat services.
Why is that news. That can happen in any big liberal city with an extreme moonbat running loose.
@56 Not so great news from Iraq: The morgue truck was used as a vehicle bomb and the morgue employees have to go out and pick up the body parts.
@76
Once again you misrepresent the ROI civil code. Our laws were cowritten by experts from the US. We only remove testacles during torture, NEVER as a part of punishment. As we were taught by Paul Bremmer, THAT would be cruel and unusual.
@60 Not so great news from Iraq: The counseling will consist of bombmaking and weapons training classes.
81
Or pizzaria for that matter.
@63 Explain how dismembering a fetus inside the womb makes more sense than removing it first.
not Roger Rabbit is going to bed, next to a warm and fuzzy not Jessica Rabbit. I say this only to make not not Roger Rabbit jealous.
So the carrot spins.
N.B.: SCOTUS outlawed dismembering fetuses outside the womb, not inside the womb.
84
How did the palestinians get involved in this?
@65 No, the logical decision here was that the conservative majority on the court reads the same public opinion polls as the rest of us and chickened out of dumping Roe v. Wade.
@69 “I actually agree with you on all five points.”
We must’ve gone to the same law school, Richard. What I don’t understand is why, with your superlative legal education, you didn’t turn out better.
Picking on Richard is not only fun, it’s easy too.
@73 Not so great news from Iraq: Although gas is cheap and there are plenty of job openings in the army and police forces, having sex is punished by public dismemberment.
@75 Anyone who’s a Republican, that is.
When a Democrat makes a false charge, we remove him from office and disbar him. We Democrats don’t tolerate this sort of thing.
@58: Below is the conclusion of the trial judge whose decision was overturned by the Bushcriminal Supreme Court. It exhaustively reviewed the political debate and medical opinion. It was 474 fucking pages long:
“The trial evidence establishes that a large and eminent body of medical opinion believes that partial-birth abortions provide women with significant health benefits in certain circumstances.”
Read it, then get back to me.
And you quote polls run by ‘conservative news’? Get a grip.
But that Nifong guy wasn’t even a real Democrat. He was a Low Tax Looper “Democrat” — a Democrat for convenience, a closet wingnut calling himself a Democrat because he’s running in a county that votes 90% Democrat. But the minute he moves to a GOP county, he runs as a GOPer.
@90
Roger,
I gather you are an attny.
While I fully support the rights of women, I have never understood how the Court found this right in the Constitution.
Maybe we need an Amendment?
@83 How could I have missed that detail? You’re right, the testicles are already gone by the time the prisoner signs the confession.
Dickie opines: “Washington, on the other hand, makes it a crime to perform an abortion after viability.”
Not exactly true. There is the health exception. Without it, it would be unconstitutional. This is exactly the door that has been opened by the recent decision.
As a lawyer, you are an embarassment.
Wow! This thread is already up to 100 posts! That’s more than the pathetic little competing blog gets in a year.
Current Burke Museum exhibit of photographs by indigenous peoples has bizar work by a Palestinian equating his people with the Hottentots. Amerinds, Maori, etc.
To bad the Tibetans, Yemeni Jews, Kurds, Basque, Irish Catholics, Picks, Ainu were not able to find a representative.
Peace will never co
me as long as this sort of racist agitprop is accepted as reality.
More on my blog SeattleJew
Roger @ 101
or could it be due t your numerous posts and my parody of same?
I feel guilty of blog abuse. G/nite.
Proud to be an Ass @ 100
I understand your reasoning. And you do have a point that you believe strongly in. I just see matters a little differently.
The one thing I remember pretty well from the partial-birth abortion ban initiative that was defeated back in 1998 was that opponents said the law was unnecessary, because no partial-birth abortions had ever been performed in this state.
Oh, and one other thing — they said the initiative was vague on what it would prohibit. So I read the initiative and had to agree with that point. On the other hand, I don’t think that the federal law in question is that vague at all.
SeattleJ @ 98
I never fully understood it either. Especially why Roe v. Wade was so extreme. I can see why a total ban on elective abortion could be overturned, but not how abortion was given a pre-eminent right over the interest of unborn children. Very few European countries have constitutional provisions relating to abortion (either pro- or con-, including both the constitutional text and case law interpretations). In countries where there is freedom to legislate on the issue, the balance struck has never been as extreme as Roe v. Wade. And we are talking about countries where religious feelings are much weaker than those in the United States, and where the social welfare system is much stronger. And almost all of them have abortion rates much lower than those in the United States as well.
@98 The Roe v. Wade right found an implied right of privacy in the Constitution, and an implied right to abortion within the implied right of privacy.
I’m not being facetious here (although it may sound like it). Implied powers and rights play an extremely important role in constitutional jurisdiction. For example, the Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review, but Chief Justice Marshall found an implied power of judicial review because checks and balances wouldn’t work without it. Many regulatory and police powers are not expressly stated, but are necessary to the administration of the acts of Congress, and therefore are implied from the legislation.
The Roe v. Wade opinion’s reasoning on the implied right of privacy hangs together very well. Most people think of Roe as “the abortion decision” but it is really “the privacy right decision.”
The Roe court’s reasoning behind its finding a constitutional right to abortion is less compelling. After examining medical, ethical, religious, and legal literature, it concluded that society hasn’t agreed on a definition of when life begins, therefore a fetus is not a life. A rather shaky foundation for constitutional principle, if you ask me; and, in my honest legal opinion, this facet of the Roe decision is vulnerable to being overruled.
It doesn’t take much imagination to visualize a group of Supreme Court justices saying, “Since nobody else has defined when human life begins, we will. That’s what courts are for.”
erratum
Roe v. Wade court, not Roe v. Wade right
erratum
constitutional jurisprudence, not constitutional jurisdiction
@103 Posting on HA is a voluntary activity. Reading HA posts is a voluntary activity, too. Therefore, there is no abuse on this blog; only self-abuse.
@105 “I never fully understood it either.” Whatever issues one may have with Roe v. Wade, this isn’t how I’d describe anyone’s differences with it. It’s not a complicated decision and any lawyer should understand it. The decision is in two parts. First, the court finds an implied constitutional right of privacy. Second, it defines the right to an abortion is a privacy right. The second part of the opinion revolves around the difficulty of defining the point at which a fetus becomes a human life, a question the court in effect said is unanswerable. So the court arbitrarily drew the distinction between “fetus” and “life,” leaving — in the inimitable style of appellate courts everywhere — fuzzy areas to be addressed in subsequent rulings. It’s easy to disagree with the concept of a constitutional right to abortion on both grounds the court relied on to find such a right: first, whether such a right exists by implication, and second, if it does, where the line between “tissue” and “life” is. Re-reading the decision sends fear down your spine that some future court might decide to overturn it by saying, “privacy right? what privacy right?”
A remote possibility, but a scary one.
Especially if the court should fall into the hands of a majority who thinks it’s okay to do things the Bush administration has done.
Roger
I understand the court has a lot of flexibility, arising from Marshall. That said, finding an implicit right to privacy makes sense to me too, but defining it is another matter.
Our rights of privacy do not include the right do as we will with our kids, for example. Also, while there may be a privacy right in gestation, there would seem to also be an equal right implicit in the male contribution.
Given the huge importance of other privacy rights, I worry that Roe may have been based on the wrong “right.”
106 Hasn’t at least one of the current Justices (Scalia, perhaps) stated publicly since being seated on the court that he doesn’t believe there is an implied right to privacy?
105 Richard, you make an interesting point, but I might question the assumption that “religious feelings” and “social welfare” work against each other in other countries in the same way they are often perceived to here. In particular, in much of Europe the support of social welfare might be viewed as largely inspired by a prevailing awareness of Catholic social teaching, in wich “public morality” carries as much importance as the “private” kind. Furthermore, absent our own home-grown right-wing propaganda, the very prevalence of social, or if you prefer, “societal welfare” might well be connected with lower rates of unplanned pregancies and abortion, rather than the other way around.
France is viewed by liberals as a paradise for the United States to aspire towards. What about French abortion laws?
“France legalized abortion in 1975, available on demand until the tenth week of pregnancy on condition that women seeking abortions undergo counselling on alternatives thereto and that a one-week waiting period be observed. After the tenth week, two physicians must certify that the woman’s health is endangered or the fetus is handicapped; otherwise, abortion is illegal. Since 1994, French law has required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centers decide which birth defects are severe enough to make abortion after the 10 week limit permissible.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France
Or how about Israel? Most Jewish people in the United States are highly supportive of abortion rights, much more so than the population at large. In Israel, with the world’s highest percentage of Jewish people and Jewish lawmakers, things are different:
“Abortion in Israel is legal under certain circumstances, pending approval by an authorized committee for pregnancy termination.
The 1977 penal code, clauses 312-321, regulate legalized abortions, set the cases in which abortion is permissible and the procedure for acquiring a licensed abortion. Abortions can only be performed in Israel by licenced gynecologists in recognized medical facilities; in the context of this section, a “recognized medical facility” is one that is specifically and publicly recognized as the provider of abortions.[1]
The circumstances under which the termination committee authorizes abortions, under subsection 316a,[1] are:
1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal age of marriage in Israel) or older than forty
2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage (illegitimacy)
3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect
4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel
Germany is another pretty liberal European country, where President Bush is deeply reviled. German abortion laws:
“A new law was passed by the Bundestag in 1992, permitting first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counselling and a three-day waiting period. The law was quickly challenged in court by a number of individuals – including Chancellor Helmut Kohl – and the State of Bavaria. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and “protect unborn life”. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. [1] Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
Sweden is a very liberal country, but even there, abortion rights are quite a bit less expansive than Roe v. Wade:
“The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974. This states that up until the end of the twelfth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever, as long as the abortion procedure does not constitute a serious threat to the woman’s health. From the thirteenth through 18th week, a “special investigation” has to be conducted to make sure that no serious threat to the woman’s health is at hand. After the 18th week, abortions can only be conducted if there are “extraordinary circumstances”, and never if the fetus is deemed “life-capable”, i.e. can survive with the help of an incubator. In practice this means that abortions are never allowed after the 22nd week.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden
Even the very liberal abortion law in The Netherlands would not pass constitutional muster under Roe v. Wade:
“A far-reaching, controversial abortion law was passed in 1981 that left abortion a crime, unless performed at a clinic or hospital that is issued an official abortion certificate by the Dutch government, and the woman who is asking for the abortion declares she considers it an emergency situation. Currently, there are a little over one hundred Dutch general hospitals certified to perform abortions, and twenty-three specialized abortion clinics.
In the Netherlands, abortion performed by a certified clinic or hospital is effectually allowed at any point between conception and viability, subject to counseling and a five-day waiting period. In practice, abortions are performed until approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy, although this limit is the topic of ongoing discussion among physicians in the Netherlands, since nowadays a fetus is sometimes considered viable prior to 24 weeks. As a result of this debate, hardly any abortions are performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions after the first trimester must be performed in a hospital.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....etherlands
118 The way a great many Jews, especially those descended from the diaspora who lived in southern Europe, think about abortion may be biased by the high incidence of Tay-Sachs disease in children born to that population.
Nicaragua was truly the socialist paradise to Seattle liberals, back when Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas were in charge from 1979 to 1990. Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas are back in charge of Nicaragua. And what was the first thing the new leftist government of Nicaragua did? Outlawed all abortions whatsoever, even when the woman’s life is in danger:
“[T]he National Assembly passed a bill further restricting abortion 52-0 (9 abstaining, 29 absent). … The new law outlawed abortion in all circumstances, making Nicaragua the fifth country in the world to do so, after Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Vatican City.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Nicaragua
In fact, there isn’t a single country in the European Union whose abortion laws would be constitutional under Roe v. Wade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
And for pointing things like this out, Goldy call ME “hateful”!
Here’s all you need to know about the right wing asswipes and the GOP position on abortion.
They’re pro-life – except when it means killing someone on death row or in a war for oil. They’re willing to spend time and effort fighting abortion so that babies can be born into a world where the righties WON’T spend time and money making certain these same babies have food and medical care.
The righties don’t want you to have sex and if you do, they want to make sure your baby is born but then they don’t mind letting it starve to death or die from lack of medical care or war or from the death penalty when they want to kill it while on death row.
Only Publican inbred asswipes could make this sound one tiny bit logical.
Mr Stupid: Sheryl Crow says one square of toilet paper can wipe you up. I disagree, you are a full rolls worth.
With recent surveys finding that more than 60 percent of the American public favor banning the procedure outlawed in Wednesday’s ruling, the remaining 40% must live here in FUWA and blog on ‘Wipes!
Another instance of the NorthWest Division of Voice of Chalk Scratchin Lunatic Moonbat!s being out of step with America!
Thank goodness for the TMS:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b.....crow1.html
I wonder if she uses one square?
Puffybutt – 68% of Americans favor some sort of legalized abortion and 65% think the war in Iraq is a bad idea and 70% think your boy Baby Bush is a failure. Talk about being out of step with America. You’re so far out of step with America that you’ve stepped on to the Moon with your fellow baby-raping moonbats.
And by the way, your wife STILL gives good head.
Pope
Your arguments would be better if they were consistent. You conveniently leave out the different impact of pregnancy in the US vs socialized countries.
Stricter abortion laws would be easier to believe in IF we had :
1. universal health care. For many American women, pregnanacy is a disabling condition.
2. better child care. Whether liberals like it or not, WOMEN care for babies. As a result in the US a newborm=n ends many women’s carears.
3. better laws to enforce parental responsibility. nuff said.
4. More support for contraception, including legalized distribution of the day after pill.
Conservatives are in favor of killing and dismembering foetuses while they are still in the womb.
That’s the approved procedure because of the Supreme Court decision.
Tell me, Conservatives, why you are in favor of killing foetuses in the womb, dismembering them while inside their mothers, and throwing their remains in the garbage?
129 Ah…now the trolls must have marching orders to dump on Sheryl Crow to justify her ex-fiancee dumping her when she got cancer. Or did he just decide he likes sucking up to the prez better?
Just a few interesting bits from today’s news.
It seems that the “No child left behind act” is another example of the Bush administration’s determination to “Leave no millionaire behind”.
Source: Washington Post
http://tinyurl.com/3xfuk8
Bush wanted to be the “Education President”. Well, I’ve certainly learned a lot from this administration.
135 So it isn’t all going to brother Neil’s company that hawks phony-baloney testing software?
129/133 It seems Ms Crow may have committed the inexcusable crime of embarrassing Turd Blossom:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....46501.html
124, 125 America isn’t the E.U. – they don’t tolerate free speech, either.
Try booing the Queen and see what happens to you.
http://tinyurl.com/2o3fbl
John, I will reserve judgment on who has been skimming from the No Child Left Behind program. Since most of these school book programs are tied into the NEA, I’ll wait.
140 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
I guess Art the Fart never heard of Books Across America.
I realize Art the Fart is deficient in many areas.