If I read the story correctly the girl, after not having the abortion, is desparate to see the child she gave up for adoption. I think this shows that a lot of young girls are pressured by the secrecy of it all, and the time, or lack of it, into abortions that they later might regret.
I am against abortion anyway, unless it really is a matter of risking the mother's life unless the child is aborted, which must be rare, or very few cases per million abortions done these days.
There should be a compulsory class that explains to the person having an abortion that there are many cases when the abortion goes ahead and is regretted later, for the rest of their life. If a child has an abortion at 16 the rest of their life is a long time, and they could suffer all kinds of mental problems that, again, are never talked about before the abortion.
Full Version: Can we all agree on abortion & defeat Republican
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Women's Issues
The hypocrisy of Bush, is that he added to the pressure a young woman might have, by making her financially less independent. If she did not marry the man involved, or some man at any rate, then she would have previous allowances (from Clinton's era) taken away. That's what I recall of Bush's helpfulness in this area. In other words he was pushing girls who did not want to marry, towards abortion, because of lack of financial backing.
S.D. Governor OKs Anti-Abortion Bills
Updated 1:15 PM ET March 17, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88ssib00&src=ap
By JOE KAFKA
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Gov. Mike Rounds signed a series of anti-abortion bills, including one that requires doctors to tell women the procedure ends the lives of humans, his office announced Thursday.
The bill-signings further tighten state abortion restrictions that some characterize as among the toughest in the nation.
One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses.
Women also must be told that some women die during abortions and the procedure can lead to later depression and other problems.
Supporters said the law will ensure that women seeking abortions fully understand what they are doing. Opponents said medical privacy would be undermined, and they are considering possible lawsuits before the law takes effect July 1.
Rounds, a Republican elected in 2002, also signed a bill that will automatically ban most abortions in South Dakota if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe decision and gives states authority to prohibit abortion. The only exceptions would be cases where a woman's life is in danger. Doctors who perform illegal abortions could receive up to two years in prison.
South Dakota currently allows abortions until the 24th week of pregnancy. Later abortions are allowed only if the health or lives of women are endangered.
Another bill signed by Rounds tightens the state's parental notification law to require parents to be told within 24 hours if their minor daughter receives an emergency abortion to protect her life or health. The minor could seek an exception through a court order.
A fourth new law establishes a state task force to study the history of abortion since 1973 and to see if other laws need changing. Abortion opponents said science, medicine and technology have changed considerably since the Roe v. Wade decision.
About 800 abortions are done each year in South Dakota.
Updated 1:15 PM ET March 17, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88ssib00&src=ap
By JOE KAFKA
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Gov. Mike Rounds signed a series of anti-abortion bills, including one that requires doctors to tell women the procedure ends the lives of humans, his office announced Thursday.
The bill-signings further tighten state abortion restrictions that some characterize as among the toughest in the nation.
One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses.
Women also must be told that some women die during abortions and the procedure can lead to later depression and other problems.
Supporters said the law will ensure that women seeking abortions fully understand what they are doing. Opponents said medical privacy would be undermined, and they are considering possible lawsuits before the law takes effect July 1.
Rounds, a Republican elected in 2002, also signed a bill that will automatically ban most abortions in South Dakota if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe decision and gives states authority to prohibit abortion. The only exceptions would be cases where a woman's life is in danger. Doctors who perform illegal abortions could receive up to two years in prison.
South Dakota currently allows abortions until the 24th week of pregnancy. Later abortions are allowed only if the health or lives of women are endangered.
Another bill signed by Rounds tightens the state's parental notification law to require parents to be told within 24 hours if their minor daughter receives an emergency abortion to protect her life or health. The minor could seek an exception through a court order.
A fourth new law establishes a state task force to study the history of abortion since 1973 and to see if other laws need changing. Abortion opponents said science, medicine and technology have changed considerably since the Roe v. Wade decision.
About 800 abortions are done each year in South Dakota.
QUOTE(lazyboy @ Mar 8 2005, 02:21 AM)
If I read the story correctly the girl, after not having the abortion, is desparate to see the child she gave up for adoption. I think this shows that a lot of young girls are pressured by the secrecy of it all, and the time, or lack of it, into abortions that they later might regret.
I am against abortion anyway, unless it really is a matter of risking the mother's life unless the child is aborted, which must be rare, or very few cases per million abortions done these days.
There should be a compulsory class that explains to the person having an abortion that there are many cases when the abortion goes ahead and is regretted later, for the rest of their life. If a child has an abortion at 16 the rest of their life is a long time, and they could suffer all kinds of mental problems that, again, are never talked about before the abortion.
I am against abortion anyway, unless it really is a matter of risking the mother's life unless the child is aborted, which must be rare, or very few cases per million abortions done these days.
There should be a compulsory class that explains to the person having an abortion that there are many cases when the abortion goes ahead and is regretted later, for the rest of their life. If a child has an abortion at 16 the rest of their life is a long time, and they could suffer all kinds of mental problems that, again, are never talked about before the abortion.
In a decision of this nature, WHATEVER the child decides will affect her (and possibly the father) for the rest of their lives! How about before she gives the baby away to strangers she is told that she will be haunted forever by the image of her child growing up without her! Or before she gives birth that she is told she may have a C-section and have a scar across her belly. Or say, before she decides to keep the child and raise it herself, that she is told that she faces a lifetime of poverty and a lack of career opportunities because she can't finish high school? The best decision would have been to provide the girl with birth control information BEFORE the problem occured. Unfortunately, abstinence only sex education seems to be inseparably linked with the anti-abortion stance, so the end result has been MORE abortions performed under the Bush administration than during the Clinton administration. I say, let's go with what works and provide the best darn information we can about ALL the options waaayyy before the teenage hormones have a chance to obscure her better judgement .
Marggi in SoCal
QUOTE(heritage @ Mar 17 2005, 05:22 PM)
<snip>
S.D. Governor OKs Anti-Abortion Bills
Rounds, a Republican elected in 2002, also signed a bill that will automatically ban most abortions in South Dakota if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe decision and gives states authority to prohibit abortion. The only exceptions would be cases where a woman's life is in danger. Doctors who perform illegal abortions could receive up to two years in prison.
S.D. Governor OKs Anti-Abortion Bills
Rounds, a Republican elected in 2002, also signed a bill that will automatically ban most abortions in South Dakota if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe decision and gives states authority to prohibit abortion. The only exceptions would be cases where a woman's life is in danger. Doctors who perform illegal abortions could receive up to two years in prison.
If Roe v Wade is overturned then South Dakota can join the ranks of these other "enlightened" nations:
Afghanistan
Kenya
Lebanon
Libya
Sudan
Syria
Yemen
http://www.republicanspeak.com/abortion1.html
Welcome to the dark ages, South Dakota.
I've come to the conclusion the only way abortion will stand is if there is a scientific break through. Men are forced to have a chip (or whatever the miracle is) implanted and cannot be removed. This chip would allow men to be impregnated if birth control is not used. That probably wouldn't work though because it would end civilization. As a male, I wouldn't go through the reproduction process, I'd use birth control every time.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Feb 11 2005, 04:35 PM)
Well said.
A government which forces a woman to bear a child against her will has no greater claim of morality than the mother who decides that, in her interest, she should not bear a child.
When our government makes all of our choices and dictates all of our morals our freedom has ended.
That is why it is a slippery slope that we dare not go down. Our freedoms are under constant attack on various fronts and we must be vigilant is guarding those freedoms.
A government which forces a woman to bear a child against her will has no greater claim of morality than the mother who decides that, in her interest, she should not bear a child.
When our government makes all of our choices and dictates all of our morals our freedom has ended.
That is why it is a slippery slope that we dare not go down. Our freedoms are under constant attack on various fronts and we must be vigilant is guarding those freedoms.
This is why I suggest this - so we do not have to go down any slope...
If we embrace a strategy that empowers people with more choices and opportunities to conceive or put a child up for adoption - then we eliminate the need to destroy the right to choose...
But if we do nothing - if we continue to ignore this issue and not demonstrate that the democratic party is more in common with a culture of life than the Republican party we won;t have to worry about a slippery slope - we will be going right off a cliff as the Republican party gets stronger such that they may be able to pass a constitutional amendment...
This could happen if we do not gain strength...
The amendment is the true threat because states would never vote to oppose unanimously the right to choose...
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Feb 11 2005, 05:08 PM)
trouble with sending it to states-
You will have 10 states where it is legal
You will have 30 states right away illegal
Soem will take a while to decide
Red/Blue situation (red-no abortions, blue-legal)
And, doesn't that mean people in red states would again be disenfranchised based on how much money they have, because they cannot travel to a blue state
because they have no money to get a legal one?
And therefore, it is back to start, with illegal , back alley butcherings
It all comes down to money and it is wrong.
You will have 10 states where it is legal
You will have 30 states right away illegal
Soem will take a while to decide
Red/Blue situation (red-no abortions, blue-legal)
And, doesn't that mean people in red states would again be disenfranchised based on how much money they have, because they cannot travel to a blue state
because they have no money to get a legal one?
And therefore, it is back to start, with illegal , back alley butcherings
It all comes down to money and it is wrong.
And this is the risk if we do not demonstrate our commitment to life and choice...we can have it both ways - the Rs have demostrated that they really do not want to do anything to reduce the incidence of abortion except pray for a change in the make up of the court and then for a case to change things and then for state governments...on and on and on...
when they could embrace policies that significantly reduced the incidence of abortion...
if they put their money where their mouth is instead of supporting the Rs - who ignore them...and invested it in education...health care - etc...
QUOTE(so angry I could spit @ Feb 11 2005, 04:23 PM)
Considering the battle I've been subjected to by the only person who reads my blog (and only to argue how crass I am and how I made a drastic mistake having abortion because women are forced into them), I have come to the conclusion that the goal of the anti-choice movement is to ensure abortion is illegal except for the case of ectopic pregnancy and when a woman's life is definitely imminently in danger (not she poses great risk of seizure,she must have at least had one bad enough to think the next one would kill her and the baby). They don't care about quality fo life, they don't care about reason behind the decision because it doesn't matter to them. As far as they're concerned abortions happen because women are confused and act on convenience, most of them are forced/coerced into the decision to abort (apparently everyone else has the responsibility to make sure the confused woman doesn't make the wrong decision as she is not strong enough to stand up to their pressure to abort) and they are grave emotional ramifications when these poor women realize what they were coerced into doing. They do not want to hear that those of us who are Pro Choice think a woman must be aware of her situation, her expectations, her beliefs and think about any long term consequences of any decision she makes with regard to pregnancy. They do not want to hear that we'd like to attack the demand side by decreasing unintended pregnancies. They will cite feminists who claim they know what is right for all women; they will cite physicians who will say that they are taught in medical school how life begins at conception and that it is scientifically proven that the creation of a diploid cell makes a conceptus a human being; they will tell you it's all about morality, not religion, and that goodmorals dictate preventing a conceptus from further development is murder. Did I mention that women who feel they made the right decision when terminating are partially to blame for other women having abortions and the guilt/shame they feel when they realize they made a mistake? Oh yeah, did you know poor med students and residents are forced to do abortions against their will and morals, but then there are no OB/GYNs that won't perform abortions?
Nothing anyone on the Pro-Choice side will be enough until we band together to ensure women are always told not to abort for any reason (other than ectopic pregnancy) and abortion is illegal.
We need to focus on common ground within our party to ensure the Safe, Legal and Rare is achievable. Decrease demand by improving education and contraception. Discourage those who are still too young, vulnerable and emotionally immature from engaging in sexually intimate activities that put them at risk for too many things (both physical and emotional). Encourage partnerships between Women's Health Clinics, adoption agencies and Family Health Clinics/Social Workers in order to support women and children at risk. Let's do this because we think it's right, not for political expedience. Those with open minds will support us, those without will stick to their games and finger waving.
Nothing anyone on the Pro-Choice side will be enough until we band together to ensure women are always told not to abort for any reason (other than ectopic pregnancy) and abortion is illegal.
We need to focus on common ground within our party to ensure the Safe, Legal and Rare is achievable. Decrease demand by improving education and contraception. Discourage those who are still too young, vulnerable and emotionally immature from engaging in sexually intimate activities that put them at risk for too many things (both physical and emotional). Encourage partnerships between Women's Health Clinics, adoption agencies and Family Health Clinics/Social Workers in order to support women and children at risk. Let's do this because we think it's right, not for political expedience. Those with open minds will support us, those without will stick to their games and finger waving.
You are right...but - you are right because an effort has not been made to educate - to enlighten...
If we truly explained that the Republican strategy will never work - never...
And some people will respond to this message - and then we get beyond eliminating abortion 10 - 20 - 50 -200 years from now and we get to reducing the incidence of abortion today by empowering individuals...
I think we will make progress.
QUOTE(jgoutwest @ Feb 11 2005, 01:46 PM)
WHat is being talked about here is a plan in which Democrats can take votes away from the Repubs by trying to show 'the people' how they hold some higher-moral ground, or have the better opinion of what is right & wrong concerning the issue of abortion....plans of getting more votes by trying to prove that being pro-abortion is somehow more Christian then Pro-Life...plans to have the rest of the tax payers cover the cost of ALL stages of an unplanned pregnancy...and plans of giving the gov't even greater control over & more interference in PERSONAL responsibilities.
We are talking about federal involvement in abortion, not the moral discussion of whether it is right or wrong.
Is it really so generous to feel it is Ok to do whatever 'you' want - in this case get pregnant - and yet be selfish enough to think it should be someone else's responsibility, in this case your fellow tax payers, to bail you out if you are not in a good financial position to give birth?
Graham hit it right with the need for education, allowing birth control etc. - which is where the radical right loses credibility. THAT stance however, just like them thinking abortion is murder - is more moral in nature, and not so political.
We are talking about federal involvement in abortion, not the moral discussion of whether it is right or wrong.
Is it really so generous to feel it is Ok to do whatever 'you' want - in this case get pregnant - and yet be selfish enough to think it should be someone else's responsibility, in this case your fellow tax payers, to bail you out if you are not in a good financial position to give birth?
Graham hit it right with the need for education, allowing birth control etc. - which is where the radical right loses credibility. THAT stance however, just like them thinking abortion is murder - is more moral in nature, and not so political.
No - this is not just a plan to take votes away from the repubs...this is a way to make our nation a better place...
This is a way to get education and health care out
This is a way for us to become a more honest nation...
This is not about making Democrats seem on a morally higher plane than Republicans - this is about our being able to find common ground - to see an opportunity - to show that our programs are not just about providing health care to people - but showing what the value of the health care is - how if you provide families with health care that not only benefits a liberal constituency in those who can not afford health care - but a conservative constituency who see that now with health care a person is empowered to bring a child to term to care for and raise or put up for adoption...
A Democratic program to provide education is not just about helping inner city kids - but helping fathers provide for their families - and being to afford another child rather than perhaps choosing an abortion to eliminate that child which again supports the conservative culture of life position...
Its about parties coming together to say - we can find common ground - we believe in life - and you believe in education - and while our religious beliefs tell us that we can not condone the use of condoms - we believe that the greater priority is life - the greater good is preventing unwanted pregnancies...and so we can come together and support an abstinence plus sex ed program...
I've mentioned on another post, we need to observe how both Bush's fared with the Christian Reich on Schiavo case. The pro-life forces aren't reasonable or rational, and they will STOP AT NOTHING short of making all abortions illegal no matter what the reason,(rape incest, life of the mother.)
Jeb worked for several years and had Schiavo's feeding tube inserted TWICE, still at the end, he was called a traitor and Pontius Pilate by these nut cases, because he wouldn't over-ride court orders, and send troops in to forcibly insert a feeding tube against both federal and state court rulings.
LOOK at the death threats against Schiavo's brother's family, judges, and even police these are scarey deranged people, and they need to be rigidly opposed, not appeased.
Our adversaries on the abortion issue are religious zealots, and if you begin negotiating with them you look weak, and unprincipled. A Democrat that doesn't proudly declare he or she will protect Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land, and a woman's medical records are undeniably protected as private between her doctor and her...........won't get my financial support or my vote, EVER!
Jeb worked for several years and had Schiavo's feeding tube inserted TWICE, still at the end, he was called a traitor and Pontius Pilate by these nut cases, because he wouldn't over-ride court orders, and send troops in to forcibly insert a feeding tube against both federal and state court rulings.
LOOK at the death threats against Schiavo's brother's family, judges, and even police these are scarey deranged people, and they need to be rigidly opposed, not appeased.
Our adversaries on the abortion issue are religious zealots, and if you begin negotiating with them you look weak, and unprincipled. A Democrat that doesn't proudly declare he or she will protect Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land, and a woman's medical records are undeniably protected as private between her doctor and her...........won't get my financial support or my vote, EVER!
QUOTE(Mass @ Feb 11 2005, 02:17 PM)
Giving a tax incentive for women not to have an abortion but give the child for adoption in a implicit moral judgement that says our society should see abortion as bad. I dont want society to make that judgement for me. I want to make the judgement for myself and allow you or anybodyelse to make the judgement for themselves.
No it is not...
It is saying that we value life - and we understand that under the present circumstances you might not be able to afford a child - but if we help to provide you and your child with health care - if we provide you with education - if we can help your employer afford day care - if we can help you to get a better education so you can afford to take care of this child...
If we can give you some compensation for the inconvenience of bringing a child to term and putting it up for adoption...when you might have aborted it...
If we can eliminate the psychology which stigamtizes persons who become pregnany out of wedlock whether as teens or olders adults...
If we can eliminate the perception of an unwanted pregnancy...
Wouldn;t that be a good thing...
This is to be coupled as I mention with an abstinence plus program to encourage kids not to get pregnant until they want to...and with an education program that educates kids on the responsibilities involved...
QUOTE(underbear1 @ Apr 1 2005, 09:16 AM)
I've mentioned on another post, we need to observe how both Bush's fared with the Christian Reich on Schiavo case. The pro-life forces aren't reasonable or rational, and they will STOP AT NOTHING short of making all abortions illegal no matter what the reason,(rape incest, life of the mother.)
Jeb worked for several years and had Schiavo's feeding tube inserted TWICE, still at the end, he was called a traitor and Pontius Pilate by these nut cases, because he wouldn't over-ride court orders, and send troops in to forcibly insert a feeding tube against both federal and state court rulings.
LOOK at the death threats against Schiavo's brother's family, judges, and even police these are scarey deranged people, and they need to be rigidly opposed, not appeased.
Our adversaries on the abortion issue are religious zealots, and if you begin negotiating with them you look weak, and unprincipled. A Democrat that doesn't proudly declare he or she will protect Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land, and a woman's medical records are undeniably protected as private between her doctor and her...........won't get my financial support or my vote, EVER!
Jeb worked for several years and had Schiavo's feeding tube inserted TWICE, still at the end, he was called a traitor and Pontius Pilate by these nut cases, because he wouldn't over-ride court orders, and send troops in to forcibly insert a feeding tube against both federal and state court rulings.
LOOK at the death threats against Schiavo's brother's family, judges, and even police these are scarey deranged people, and they need to be rigidly opposed, not appeased.
Our adversaries on the abortion issue are religious zealots, and if you begin negotiating with them you look weak, and unprincipled. A Democrat that doesn't proudly declare he or she will protect Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land, and a woman's medical records are undeniably protected as private between her doctor and her...........won't get my financial support or my vote, EVER!
You are correct with many of the people who are engaged in the right to life movement...they are radicals and extremists...and they should be portrayed as such...and indeed not all will be convinced...
and different groups like planned parenthood and the ACLU and other rights groups should ask - how many abortions have you reduced or stopped today religious right? well - you could stop many more if you passed John Kerry's health care plan - and education plan - and job plan
I believe there are many more out there who once educated on the fact that abortion will never be eliminated - educated on the fact that even if Row v. Wade were reversed - that this would not happen in all states - so the only way to truly reduce the incidence of abortion is the way I am suggesting here.
"This is to be coupled as I mention with an abstinence plus program to encourage kids not to get pregnant until they want to...and with an education program that educates kids on the responsibilities involved..."
The proponents of abstinence-only are also zealots, THEY WANT NO MENTION of contraception techniques, plan B, and certainly not safer sex practices, by straights, and they deny gay/lesbian kids even exist. I hope kids do stay abstinent, but I won't bet their futures or their lives that hormone-raging 15 year olds will magicly somehow be different than my generation, or my parents, or grandparents generations, and remain virgins long into their 20's.
With a super-strain of AIDS on both coasts and soon in every major city,KILLING IN MONTHS, this is insane to be risking kids lives on some myth of how parents would like to imagine teen years.This generation is even being sexual with their teachers for God's sake, ya think they aren't practicing on their peers?
The proponents of abstinence-only are also zealots, THEY WANT NO MENTION of contraception techniques, plan B, and certainly not safer sex practices, by straights, and they deny gay/lesbian kids even exist. I hope kids do stay abstinent, but I won't bet their futures or their lives that hormone-raging 15 year olds will magicly somehow be different than my generation, or my parents, or grandparents generations, and remain virgins long into their 20's.
With a super-strain of AIDS on both coasts and soon in every major city,KILLING IN MONTHS, this is insane to be risking kids lives on some myth of how parents would like to imagine teen years.This generation is even being sexual with their teachers for God's sake, ya think they aren't practicing on their peers?
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Apr 1 2005, 10:28 AM)
Let me add my own take, which does not mean that I reject the theories put forth by others. The truth could be a combination of factors.
Part of it may be that many Christians just aren't interested in politics because they see it as a futile activity. To put it in very (and to some extent overly) simple terms they would say it is better to pray than to vote. (I wouldn't disagree with that, I would just say that voting can help too, if it isn't the key mission of a Christian.) They counsel noninvolvement and urge people to rely on God, not politicians.
The other thing is that the Christians who are more likely to be liberal may also be more likely to buy the argument that there should be no "religious interference" in politics, so they take pains, when politically involved, to "keep their religion private" and are reluctant to speak out as Christians. They may make statements like, "I go to church and I don't believe that the church should interfere in politics. These Christian Right people should stop doing that. It isn't fair!" This is much less compelling argument than something like, "As a Christian I think that the Christian Right distorts the message of Jesus Christ, who spoke of aiding the poor, making peace, acceptance of people different from ourselves, the humility that comes from recognition of our own sins, etc." So the irony may be that among professed Christians it is the people who are our opponents who are the least likely to listen to the call to "keep religion out of politics."
I think that among Christians (and possibly other religious groups) the people that we need to appeal to are the middle. We already have the liberals (although they need to be motivated) and we can't get the hard-core Right but IMO there is hope in reaching that middle. And I think that the second message I wrote above is more likely to appeal to them than the first message, which is likely to come off as too cold and abstract and suggesting that as Christians they somehow have less political rights than others (whether or not that impression is the intention of those who carry the message).
Part of it may be that many Christians just aren't interested in politics because they see it as a futile activity. To put it in very (and to some extent overly) simple terms they would say it is better to pray than to vote. (I wouldn't disagree with that, I would just say that voting can help too, if it isn't the key mission of a Christian.) They counsel noninvolvement and urge people to rely on God, not politicians.
The other thing is that the Christians who are more likely to be liberal may also be more likely to buy the argument that there should be no "religious interference" in politics, so they take pains, when politically involved, to "keep their religion private" and are reluctant to speak out as Christians. They may make statements like, "I go to church and I don't believe that the church should interfere in politics. These Christian Right people should stop doing that. It isn't fair!" This is much less compelling argument than something like, "As a Christian I think that the Christian Right distorts the message of Jesus Christ, who spoke of aiding the poor, making peace, acceptance of people different from ourselves, the humility that comes from recognition of our own sins, etc." So the irony may be that among professed Christians it is the people who are our opponents who are the least likely to listen to the call to "keep religion out of politics."
I think that among Christians (and possibly other religious groups) the people that we need to appeal to are the middle. We already have the liberals (although they need to be motivated) and we can't get the hard-core Right but IMO there is hope in reaching that middle. And I think that the second message I wrote above is more likely to appeal to them than the first message, which is likely to come off as too cold and abstract and suggesting that as Christians they somehow have less political rights than others (whether or not that impression is the intention of those who carry the message).
Absolutely - we aren't going to get the hard righters because they don't just disagree with us on one issue - but on many - but there are a lot of moderates who are religious - and vote for Bush because they belive he is a Christian man and is engaging in a christian administration and it is up to us to demonstrate that first of all - he's not the only christian and the R party is not the only party for christians and that the democratic party not only has christians in its membership - but that our values are more closely attuned to those of christians than the republican party...
Bush and the Rs are all about lip service - but no action...
Granted the Schiavo episode was action - but America showed them that they rejected the Bush and R POV.
We need to capitalize on this fact - that most of America is discerning on religious issues and that you can be anti-abortion and vote Democratic...
Our values are consistent with those...becuase we are anti-aboriton too - but we just believe its the individuals choice - not the governments and - and - the best strategy is indivdiual empowerment - this is what God would favor - becuase God is pro free will - and free will is the individual making the choices - and free will helps the person to have more choices to make...
QUOTE(underbear1 @ Apr 1 2005, 09:31 AM)
"This is to be coupled as I mention with an abstinence plus program to encourage kids not to get pregnant until they want to...and with an education program that educates kids on the responsibilities involved..."
The proponents of abstinence-only are also zealots, THEY WANT NO MENTION of contraception techniques, plan B, and certainly not safer sex practices, by straights, and they deny gay/lesbian kids even exist. I hope kids do stay abstinent, but I won't bet their futures or their lives that hormone-raging 15 year olds will magicly somehow be different than my generation, or my parents, or grandparents generations, and remain virgins long into their 20's.
With a super-strain of AIDS on both coasts and soon in every major city,KILLING IN MONTHS, this is insane to be risking kids lives on some myth of how parents would like to imagine teen years.This generation is even being sexual with their teachers for God's sake, ya think they aren't practicing on their peers?
The proponents of abstinence-only are also zealots, THEY WANT NO MENTION of contraception techniques, plan B, and certainly not safer sex practices, by straights, and they deny gay/lesbian kids even exist. I hope kids do stay abstinent, but I won't bet their futures or their lives that hormone-raging 15 year olds will magicly somehow be different than my generation, or my parents, or grandparents generations, and remain virgins long into their 20's.
With a super-strain of AIDS on both coasts and soon in every major city,KILLING IN MONTHS, this is insane to be risking kids lives on some myth of how parents would like to imagine teen years.This generation is even being sexual with their teachers for God's sake, ya think they aren't practicing on their peers?
Yes - but as arneoker discloses above - we are not interested in the zealots....
we want the middle of the roaders - the moderates - who have democratic values - but also happen to be quite religious...
GOP Poised to Toughen Abortion Consent
Updated 1:34 PM ET April 28, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...428_500&src=abc
After an easy House victory, the latest push to curb abortions moves to the Senate where Republican gains increase the likelihood of making it harder for minors to cross state lines to end pregnancies without telling a parent.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., intends to bring such a bill to a vote this summer as one of his top 10 legislative priorities, according to spokeswoman Amy Call.
If enacted, it would be the fifth law passed to reduce abortions since President Bush took office in 2001.
No one knows how many minors cross state lines for abortions to circumvent laws in their home states requiring parental consent. But like many who oppose abortion rights, Frist told reporters this week that that there's more at stake than the number of abortions prevented.
"No matter how few people it affects, it's an important bill on the principles," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican and doctor who is considering seeking his party's presidential nomination in 2008.
Abortion rights advocates say the bill would cut off an escape route for pregnant girls and make criminals of the relatives, friends and doctors who try to help them.
"It certainly reflects a lack of compassion toward teens and in particular to their health," said Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It reflects a willingness of Congress to override or trump states' policy decisions."
The Senate is to consider a bill very similar to the measure approved by the House 270-157 Wednesday. The Senate bill would make it a federal crime punishable by a fine, jail time or both for an adult to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion in contravention of state parental notification requirements.
The Senate never has taken up the bill. This year, the measure got a friendlier reception there when Frist named it one of his top legislative priorities, reflecting the four seats Republicans gained in the November elections.
They now hold a 55-44 majority over Democrats in that chamber. Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont is the chamber's only Independent and usually votes with the Democrats.
Reflecting rising public support for requiring parents be involved in the decisions of their pregnant daughters, the House bill would impose fines, jail time or both on adult confidants who accompany minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification or consent laws. More than 30 states have enacted such laws.
It also would penalize doctors who perform the procedure under such conditions. And in states without parental notification laws, the House bill would require abortion providers to notify a parent.
The House rejected two Democratic amendments that would have added immunity from prosecution and civil suits for confidants of the minor who help transport her such as grandparents and clergy and for others involved in the violation, such as taxicab and bus drivers.
The House and Senate versions provide certain exceptions, such as when the abortion would save the life of the mother.
Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:
Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.
Another law last year denied federal funds to state and local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide or pay for abortions.
In 2003, it outlawed a procedure generally carried out in the second or third trimester in which a fetus is partially delivered before being aborted.
In 2002, lawmakers amended the legal definitions for person, human being, child and individual to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.
Separately, Senate abortion opponents last month defeated Democratic amendments to a bankruptcy bill that would have restricted the ability of abortion clinic protesters to file for bankruptcy when confronted with large court fines or damages.
The bills are H.R. 748 and S. 8
Updated 1:34 PM ET April 28, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...428_500&src=abc
After an easy House victory, the latest push to curb abortions moves to the Senate where Republican gains increase the likelihood of making it harder for minors to cross state lines to end pregnancies without telling a parent.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., intends to bring such a bill to a vote this summer as one of his top 10 legislative priorities, according to spokeswoman Amy Call.
If enacted, it would be the fifth law passed to reduce abortions since President Bush took office in 2001.
No one knows how many minors cross state lines for abortions to circumvent laws in their home states requiring parental consent. But like many who oppose abortion rights, Frist told reporters this week that that there's more at stake than the number of abortions prevented.
"No matter how few people it affects, it's an important bill on the principles," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican and doctor who is considering seeking his party's presidential nomination in 2008.
Abortion rights advocates say the bill would cut off an escape route for pregnant girls and make criminals of the relatives, friends and doctors who try to help them.
"It certainly reflects a lack of compassion toward teens and in particular to their health," said Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It reflects a willingness of Congress to override or trump states' policy decisions."
The Senate is to consider a bill very similar to the measure approved by the House 270-157 Wednesday. The Senate bill would make it a federal crime punishable by a fine, jail time or both for an adult to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion in contravention of state parental notification requirements.
The Senate never has taken up the bill. This year, the measure got a friendlier reception there when Frist named it one of his top legislative priorities, reflecting the four seats Republicans gained in the November elections.
They now hold a 55-44 majority over Democrats in that chamber. Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont is the chamber's only Independent and usually votes with the Democrats.
Reflecting rising public support for requiring parents be involved in the decisions of their pregnant daughters, the House bill would impose fines, jail time or both on adult confidants who accompany minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification or consent laws. More than 30 states have enacted such laws.
It also would penalize doctors who perform the procedure under such conditions. And in states without parental notification laws, the House bill would require abortion providers to notify a parent.
The House rejected two Democratic amendments that would have added immunity from prosecution and civil suits for confidants of the minor who help transport her such as grandparents and clergy and for others involved in the violation, such as taxicab and bus drivers.
The House and Senate versions provide certain exceptions, such as when the abortion would save the life of the mother.
Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:
Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.
Another law last year denied federal funds to state and local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide or pay for abortions.
In 2003, it outlawed a procedure generally carried out in the second or third trimester in which a fetus is partially delivered before being aborted.
In 2002, lawmakers amended the legal definitions for person, human being, child and individual to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.
Separately, Senate abortion opponents last month defeated Democratic amendments to a bankruptcy bill that would have restricted the ability of abortion clinic protesters to file for bankruptcy when confronted with large court fines or damages.
The bills are H.R. 748 and S. 8
I'll agree that the choice belongs with the woman, just like with the Shivo case, that choice is each of ours and doesn't belong to the government to pull our plug or not.
Rape is illegal but 300,000 are reported each day in this country, and that is just what is reported.
News yesterday said one in 135 Americans are in prison. How many will be added to that ..........rape and incest victims included.
Where I think everyone should be able to agree is in prevention. If everyone worked to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancies that seems like it could be an area of common ground and achieve what everyone could find a better situation.
Unfortunately, the rightwing fringies, wont put an ounce of effort into preventative efforts.
Rape is illegal but 300,000 are reported each day in this country, and that is just what is reported.
News yesterday said one in 135 Americans are in prison. How many will be added to that ..........rape and incest victims included.
Where I think everyone should be able to agree is in prevention. If everyone worked to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancies that seems like it could be an area of common ground and achieve what everyone could find a better situation.
Unfortunately, the rightwing fringies, wont put an ounce of effort into preventative efforts.
QUOTE(Cloudy @ Apr 28 2005, 12:46 PM)
Where I think everyone should be able to agree is in prevention. If everyone worked to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancies that seems like it could be an area of common ground and achieve what everyone could find a better situation.
I think you are right about this. I have talked with fundamentalist women who were most angry over the lack of counseling for pregnant women, and the perception that the abortion clinics are in it for the money.
I think a lot of “religious” women are sympathetic to the condition of “unwanted pregnancy”, kind of like using birth-control even when the church says no…
If the Democrats take a lead in prevention and counseling, and maybe do something to insure that a clinic/doctor does not increase their income by doing an abortion. (I do not know how that would work.)
Put some of that viagra research money into birth control ?
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
QUOTE(Cloudy @ Apr 28 2005, 03:14 PM)
Put some of that viagra research money into birth control ?
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
That's the answer!
Abortion is a medical procedure. Lets start identifying what this is a medical issue which is private between parties and their doctors. This privacy is protected under confidential medical information.
No one has to come together on abortion the only thing we have to agree on is medical issues are personal,private and between patient and doctor.
If we need to talk about serious medical issues STDs in Teens is the highest it has ever been and in my blue county in my red state of Nebraska it is the highest in the nation!
With our religious battles the health and lives and ability to choose to have children is being robbed from our youth.
This site is called common ground common sense. If it is sexual, it is medical and we need to educate and provide medical services including prevention and treatment.
No one has to come together on abortion the only thing we have to agree on is medical issues are personal,private and between patient and doctor.
If we need to talk about serious medical issues STDs in Teens is the highest it has ever been and in my blue county in my red state of Nebraska it is the highest in the nation!
With our religious battles the health and lives and ability to choose to have children is being robbed from our youth.
This site is called common ground common sense. If it is sexual, it is medical and we need to educate and provide medical services including prevention and treatment.
QUOTE(cutecat @ Apr 28 2005, 04:39 PM)
Abortion is a medical procedure. Lets start identifying what this is a medical issue which is private between parties and their doctors. This privacy is protected under confidential medical information.
No one has to come together on abortion the only thing we have to agree on is medical issues are personal,private and between patient and doctor.
If we need to talk about serious medical issues STDs in Teens is the highest it has ever been and in my blue county in my red state of Nebraska it is the highest in the nation!
With our religious battles the health and lives and ability to choose to have children is being robbed from our youth.
This site is called common ground common sense. If it is sexual, it is medical and we need to educate and provide medical services including prevention and treatment.
No one has to come together on abortion the only thing we have to agree on is medical issues are personal,private and between patient and doctor.
If we need to talk about serious medical issues STDs in Teens is the highest it has ever been and in my blue county in my red state of Nebraska it is the highest in the nation!
With our religious battles the health and lives and ability to choose to have children is being robbed from our youth.
This site is called common ground common sense. If it is sexual, it is medical and we need to educate and provide medical services including prevention and treatment.
Well said
The new pope is against birth control pills. If he enforces it, then lots of Catholic women will ignore him or stop going to church.
I read yesterday that two democrats have a bill that promotes preventing pregnancies and adoption.
I read yesterday that two democrats have a bill that promotes preventing pregnancies and adoption.
QUOTE(heritage @ Apr 28 2005, 04:40 PM)
The new pope is against birth control pills. If he enforces it, then lots of Catholic women will ignore him or stop going to church.
I read yesterday that two democrats have a bill that promotes preventing pregnancies and adoption.
I read yesterday that two democrats have a bill that promotes preventing pregnancies and adoption.
Heritage: The putting prevention first act. The religious right ripped into it immediately and the senate voted 53 - 47 against it (mostly along party lines)
If a bill contains the word "abortion", even if it is a prevention bill, then the radical right attacks it.
QUOTE(Cloudy @ Apr 28 2005, 01:14 PM)
Put some of that viagra research money into birth control ?
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
Teaching both sexes responsibility in all matters at an early age might be preventative.
Promoting not repressing birth control and safe sex information.
I agree with Cloudy. Even with Bush in office for four years, there is little excuse these days for unwanted pregnancies. If the mother is over a certain age, has a normal or above IQ, and has not been violated, then how come she is pregnant. A baby, once conceived should be allowed to live IMO. I have written a lot on this subject in the polling place which only a few people have voted on - the abortion issue.
Heritage, you brought the pope into this. People often go to mass weekly and yet do not necessarily do all that the pope wants. Sometimes there are medical reasons for condoms - and in my opinion the pope realizes this and expects people to use their common sense. Rules and policies are not written in stone. Most people believe the ten commandments and the rule to love their neighbour are sufficient and largely ignore the papal dictates on subjects like this. At one point they said that natural birth control was okay but unnatural means were not. This might be a wise point. Natural birth control, like counting out days and putting the 'safe period' on a graph, does not interfere with the environment. All the women in the world who take hormones and pass it down into the common water system, through their urine cannot be doing the environment any good and might account for changes in the gender of fish. Condoms are generally speaking not liked, but they could save the life of a woman married to an HIV positive partner. The pope has little to do with the subject. In poor countries they have many babies not because they are Catholic, muslims have large families. It is to do with lack of money for the pill, condoms, and lack of education, and women's lack of independence from men. They rely on them for money in most cases.
Hello lazyboy in Japan.
In all the news coverage of the former Pope's death and the new Pope's election, I heard that the new pope has written extensively for the Catholic church about birth control and abortion. He was the church's "police cop" on the rules of the church. Women catholics are not supposed to use any contraceptives to prevent or terminate pregnancies. The "rhythm method" and abstinence are the only natural methods condoned by the church. The news didn't focus on men, so I don't know if the church has rules against condoms. Condoms are not 100% protection against conception or STDs, but they are better than no protection.
In all the news coverage of the former Pope's death and the new Pope's election, I heard that the new pope has written extensively for the Catholic church about birth control and abortion. He was the church's "police cop" on the rules of the church. Women catholics are not supposed to use any contraceptives to prevent or terminate pregnancies. The "rhythm method" and abstinence are the only natural methods condoned by the church. The news didn't focus on men, so I don't know if the church has rules against condoms. Condoms are not 100% protection against conception or STDs, but they are better than no protection.
Kansas Anti-Abortion Bill Veto Sticks
Updated 11:49 AM ET April 29, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...28_2223&src=abc
Anti-abortion lawmakers failed Thursday to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a bill imposing additional regulations on clinics that perform abortions.
The state House vote was 82-42 two votes short of the minimum needed to send the bill to the Senate, where some supporters felt they had the votes to put the legislation into law.
"It's the kind of vote that's going to come back and haunt legislators who voted against it and the governor," said Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life. "The people of Kansas understand the need for this."
The bill would have required clinics to obtain an annual license from the Department of Health and Environment, hire surgeons as their medical directors and report patient deaths to the state within the day. It also would have required state standards for equipment, medical screenings, ventilation and lighting.
Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said the bill's "only purpose is to make access to reproductive health care in Kansas difficult."
"We will make our thousands of supporters know the legislators courageous enough to stand with the governor on this," he said.
In her veto message, Sebelius, who supports abortion rights, criticized lawmakers for choosing "pure politics over good policy." She said standards for abortion providers should be set by medical professionals rather than the Legislature. It was the same argument she made when she spiked a similar bill in 2003.
In Florida, meanwhile, a conservative religious rights advocacy group filed complaints asking two state agencies to discipline an Orlando clinic that it alleges mishandled an abortion involving a live birth.
The Liberty Counsel asked that the EPOC clinic have its license revoked, be ordered to stop performing abortions and that its doctors be disciplined. The complaints were filed Wednesday with the Florida Department of Health and state Agency for Health Care Administration.
The complaints allege unsanitary conditions at the clinic, that a doctor wasn't present and a lack of postoperative care for a woman receiving an abortion.
According to the complaints, a 22-weeks-pregnant woman alleged she received medication to induce contractions, but that no doctor was present when she returned the following day and began to go into labor.
The fetus, delivered live, died shortly afterward, the complaints said.
Dr. James Pendergraft, who owns the clinic, didn't return a phone call. A spokeswoman, Marti Mackenzie, said, "It absolutely never happened."
Besides Kansas, lawmakers in Texas, Virginia and West Virginia were considering bills this year to regulate clinics that perform abortions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The group said 26 states require some abortions be performed in hospitals or other facilities, while 23 states apply certain restrictions on abortion providers.
Updated 11:49 AM ET April 29, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...28_2223&src=abc
Anti-abortion lawmakers failed Thursday to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a bill imposing additional regulations on clinics that perform abortions.
The state House vote was 82-42 two votes short of the minimum needed to send the bill to the Senate, where some supporters felt they had the votes to put the legislation into law.
"It's the kind of vote that's going to come back and haunt legislators who voted against it and the governor," said Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life. "The people of Kansas understand the need for this."
The bill would have required clinics to obtain an annual license from the Department of Health and Environment, hire surgeons as their medical directors and report patient deaths to the state within the day. It also would have required state standards for equipment, medical screenings, ventilation and lighting.
Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said the bill's "only purpose is to make access to reproductive health care in Kansas difficult."
"We will make our thousands of supporters know the legislators courageous enough to stand with the governor on this," he said.
In her veto message, Sebelius, who supports abortion rights, criticized lawmakers for choosing "pure politics over good policy." She said standards for abortion providers should be set by medical professionals rather than the Legislature. It was the same argument she made when she spiked a similar bill in 2003.
In Florida, meanwhile, a conservative religious rights advocacy group filed complaints asking two state agencies to discipline an Orlando clinic that it alleges mishandled an abortion involving a live birth.
The Liberty Counsel asked that the EPOC clinic have its license revoked, be ordered to stop performing abortions and that its doctors be disciplined. The complaints were filed Wednesday with the Florida Department of Health and state Agency for Health Care Administration.
The complaints allege unsanitary conditions at the clinic, that a doctor wasn't present and a lack of postoperative care for a woman receiving an abortion.
According to the complaints, a 22-weeks-pregnant woman alleged she received medication to induce contractions, but that no doctor was present when she returned the following day and began to go into labor.
The fetus, delivered live, died shortly afterward, the complaints said.
Dr. James Pendergraft, who owns the clinic, didn't return a phone call. A spokeswoman, Marti Mackenzie, said, "It absolutely never happened."
Besides Kansas, lawmakers in Texas, Virginia and West Virginia were considering bills this year to regulate clinics that perform abortions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The group said 26 states require some abortions be performed in hospitals or other facilities, while 23 states apply certain restrictions on abortion providers.
Bush Backs Abortion Measure
He Urges Senate to Enact House Bill on Parental Notification
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5042801943.html
President Bush is urging the Senate to take up a bill passed by the House this week that makes it a federal crime -- complete with possible fines and jail sentences -- for doctors or other adults to help patients under 18 evade parental-notification requirements by crossing state lines for an abortion.
Opponents call it "the grandmother incarceration act" for the penalties that could be imposed on non-parents who travel with minors to end a pregnancy. But conservative groups say the measure is a way to ensure that the will of state legislatures is carried out, because it is now possible for a young woman to travel from one state to another with less restrictive laws to avoid having to tell a parent she plans to have an abortion.
The bill creates two federal crimes, each of which can carry a $100,000 fine, one year in jail or both. The bill's first section covers the transportation of a minor for an abortion. The second section requires the abortion provider to notify a minor's parent or legal guardian if she lives in a state with a parental-involvement law.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said during the floor debate that the bill is "vital to parental rights."
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council and father of three daughters, said in an interview that the bill was one of his group's top priorities for the year and called it "a recognition of parental authority."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered that the bill is "a bureaucratic nightmare" and is part of a multi-track strategy by conservatives that includes packing the judiciary with judges sympathetic to their views.
The bill, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, passed the House on Wednesday night by 270 to 157, with 216 Republicans in favor and 145 Democrats against. Crossing party lines were 54 Democrats who supported the bill and 11 Republicans who opposed it. The bill makes an exception if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor. The House passed similar bills in 1998, 1999 and 2002, but none passed the Senate.
Bush, who comments on only a small fraction of bills that pass either chamber, said in a written statement that the law would "protect the health and safety of minors by ensuring that state parental involvement laws are not circumvented."
Lobbyists on both sides agreed that the measure will have a tougher time in the Senate, although Senate Republicans announced in January that it was one of their top 10 priorities for the year. A similar but not identical Senate bill has 37 co-sponsors. No committee action is required on the House bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) could put it on the floor at any time.
Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said he is cautiously optimistic about Senate passage because of support for parental notification in public polls, and what he called "the realization among some Democratic lawmakers that they need to stop taking marching orders from extreme pro-abortion pressure groups."
The House bill has a provision, not in the Senate version, that requires an out-of-state abortion provider to notify one parent with three exceptions: if the patient shows documentation that she has exercised a judicial bypass provision; if she signs a statement saying she is a victim of neglect, or physical or sexual abuse, by a parent; or if her life is in danger.
Warren M. Siegel, director of adolescent medicine and chair of pediatrics at Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview that the law could lead minors to have later-term abortions because they might be more hesitant to consult an adult. "It's an unreasonable burden to have physicians know all the legal loopholes and laws in the 49 states that they don't practice in," he said.
He Urges Senate to Enact House Bill on Parental Notification
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5042801943.html
President Bush is urging the Senate to take up a bill passed by the House this week that makes it a federal crime -- complete with possible fines and jail sentences -- for doctors or other adults to help patients under 18 evade parental-notification requirements by crossing state lines for an abortion.
Opponents call it "the grandmother incarceration act" for the penalties that could be imposed on non-parents who travel with minors to end a pregnancy. But conservative groups say the measure is a way to ensure that the will of state legislatures is carried out, because it is now possible for a young woman to travel from one state to another with less restrictive laws to avoid having to tell a parent she plans to have an abortion.
The bill creates two federal crimes, each of which can carry a $100,000 fine, one year in jail or both. The bill's first section covers the transportation of a minor for an abortion. The second section requires the abortion provider to notify a minor's parent or legal guardian if she lives in a state with a parental-involvement law.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said during the floor debate that the bill is "vital to parental rights."
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council and father of three daughters, said in an interview that the bill was one of his group's top priorities for the year and called it "a recognition of parental authority."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered that the bill is "a bureaucratic nightmare" and is part of a multi-track strategy by conservatives that includes packing the judiciary with judges sympathetic to their views.
The bill, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, passed the House on Wednesday night by 270 to 157, with 216 Republicans in favor and 145 Democrats against. Crossing party lines were 54 Democrats who supported the bill and 11 Republicans who opposed it. The bill makes an exception if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor. The House passed similar bills in 1998, 1999 and 2002, but none passed the Senate.
Bush, who comments on only a small fraction of bills that pass either chamber, said in a written statement that the law would "protect the health and safety of minors by ensuring that state parental involvement laws are not circumvented."
Lobbyists on both sides agreed that the measure will have a tougher time in the Senate, although Senate Republicans announced in January that it was one of their top 10 priorities for the year. A similar but not identical Senate bill has 37 co-sponsors. No committee action is required on the House bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) could put it on the floor at any time.
Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said he is cautiously optimistic about Senate passage because of support for parental notification in public polls, and what he called "the realization among some Democratic lawmakers that they need to stop taking marching orders from extreme pro-abortion pressure groups."
The House bill has a provision, not in the Senate version, that requires an out-of-state abortion provider to notify one parent with three exceptions: if the patient shows documentation that she has exercised a judicial bypass provision; if she signs a statement saying she is a victim of neglect, or physical or sexual abuse, by a parent; or if her life is in danger.
Warren M. Siegel, director of adolescent medicine and chair of pediatrics at Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview that the law could lead minors to have later-term abortions because they might be more hesitant to consult an adult. "It's an unreasonable burden to have physicians know all the legal loopholes and laws in the 49 states that they don't practice in," he said.
Suit Targets Abortion Law As Inaccurate
Updated 2:25 PM ET June 6, 2005
By CHET BROKAW
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ai9a880&src=ap
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Planned Parenthood asked a federal judge Monday to strike down a new South Dakota abortion law, saying it would force doctors to read inaccurate, state-scripted medical information to women seeking abortions.
The group filed a lawsuit challenging the new statute in federal court in Sioux Falls, said Kate Looby, director of the Planned Parenthood clinic there.
"Politicians can't force doctors to tell patients things that aren't true. That's bad medicine," Looby said. "Just because politicians believe something is true doesn't make it so."
Supporters of the new law, though, say it ensures that women seeking abortions will fully understand what they are doing. They say women need to hear the extra information because scientific knowledge has advanced since the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in every state.
"It's just imperative that information be brought forward," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, one of the measure's main sponsors.
Mark Johnston, spokesman for Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, said the governor's office does not comment on pending litigation. The state attorney general's office said it cannot comment until it receives the lawsuit and can study it.
The new law, scheduled to take effect July 1, would require doctors to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure ends the life of a human and terminates the constitutional relationship a woman has with her unborn child. It also requires doctors to tell women about the medical risks of abortion, including a statement that abortion could cause an increased risk of suicide.
State law already requires women to give informed consent before getting abortions. The new law would require doctors to give women the extra information before they sign consent forms.
The Planned Parenthood lawsuit challenges the statute as an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion. It also argues the law is unconstitutionally vague because doctors would not know exactly what to tell women about some subjects.
Updated 2:25 PM ET June 6, 2005
By CHET BROKAW
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ai9a880&src=ap
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Planned Parenthood asked a federal judge Monday to strike down a new South Dakota abortion law, saying it would force doctors to read inaccurate, state-scripted medical information to women seeking abortions.
The group filed a lawsuit challenging the new statute in federal court in Sioux Falls, said Kate Looby, director of the Planned Parenthood clinic there.
"Politicians can't force doctors to tell patients things that aren't true. That's bad medicine," Looby said. "Just because politicians believe something is true doesn't make it so."
Supporters of the new law, though, say it ensures that women seeking abortions will fully understand what they are doing. They say women need to hear the extra information because scientific knowledge has advanced since the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in every state.
"It's just imperative that information be brought forward," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, one of the measure's main sponsors.
Mark Johnston, spokesman for Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, said the governor's office does not comment on pending litigation. The state attorney general's office said it cannot comment until it receives the lawsuit and can study it.
The new law, scheduled to take effect July 1, would require doctors to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure ends the life of a human and terminates the constitutional relationship a woman has with her unborn child. It also requires doctors to tell women about the medical risks of abortion, including a statement that abortion could cause an increased risk of suicide.
State law already requires women to give informed consent before getting abortions. The new law would require doctors to give women the extra information before they sign consent forms.
The Planned Parenthood lawsuit challenges the statute as an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion. It also argues the law is unconstitutionally vague because doctors would not know exactly what to tell women about some subjects.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jun 6 2005, 02:46 PM)
Republicans will keep abortion as their main campaign theme in 2006. Judges will be a critical issue.
Texas Governor Signs Abortion Bill
Updated 4:59 AM ET June 6, 2005
By JAMIE STENGLE
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Using an evangelical school gymnasium as a backdrop, Gov. Rick Perry put his signature to legislation restricting abortions and added his backing to a measure barring same-sex marriage.
Perry signed a bill Sunday requiring girls under the age of 18 to get their parents' consent before having an abortion and also imposes more limits on late-term abortions........
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ai111g1&src=ap
Appeals Court Overrules Va. Late-Term Abortion Ban
By Jerry Markon and Chris L. Jenkins
The Washington Post
Saturday 04 June 2005
A federal appeals court yesterday struck down Virginia's law barring a controversial late-term abortion procedure, ruling that the measure is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to safeguard a woman's health.
he 2 to 1 ruling by a panel of the Richmond-based US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that threw out the law. The measure made it a crime for doctors to perform the procedure, which opponents have labeled "partial birth infanticide." The law, passed in 2003 over the objections of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), was similar to the national ban approved by Congress the same year.
Yesterday's decision reignited some of the passions of a debate that has been waged nationally since numerous states passed laws, starting in the mid-1990s, banning the procedure. The US Supreme Court ruled Nebraska's ban unconstitutional in 2000, and federal courts in three states have struck down the national ban. Those cases are on appeal........
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_060405E.shtml
The Judges Brown and Pryor are up for debate this week in the Senate.
Texas Governor Signs Abortion Bill
Updated 4:59 AM ET June 6, 2005
By JAMIE STENGLE
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Using an evangelical school gymnasium as a backdrop, Gov. Rick Perry put his signature to legislation restricting abortions and added his backing to a measure barring same-sex marriage.
Perry signed a bill Sunday requiring girls under the age of 18 to get their parents' consent before having an abortion and also imposes more limits on late-term abortions........
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ai111g1&src=ap
Appeals Court Overrules Va. Late-Term Abortion Ban
By Jerry Markon and Chris L. Jenkins
The Washington Post
Saturday 04 June 2005
A federal appeals court yesterday struck down Virginia's law barring a controversial late-term abortion procedure, ruling that the measure is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to safeguard a woman's health.
he 2 to 1 ruling by a panel of the Richmond-based US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that threw out the law. The measure made it a crime for doctors to perform the procedure, which opponents have labeled "partial birth infanticide." The law, passed in 2003 over the objections of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), was similar to the national ban approved by Congress the same year.
Yesterday's decision reignited some of the passions of a debate that has been waged nationally since numerous states passed laws, starting in the mid-1990s, banning the procedure. The US Supreme Court ruled Nebraska's ban unconstitutional in 2000, and federal courts in three states have struck down the national ban. Those cases are on appeal........
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_060405E.shtml
The Judges Brown and Pryor are up for debate this week in the Senate.
Neb. Court Upholds Partial Birth Decision
Updated 12:09 PM ET July 8, 2005
By KEVIN O'HANLON
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8b7aago0&src=ap
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed that the ban, while containing an exception to save the life of the mother, is unconstitutional because it makes no such exception for the health of the woman. The court upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln, who heard one of three cases brought over the issue last year.
Kopf's ruling followed decisions overturning the law by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. Those decisions also have been appealed and are expected by many legal experts to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"When `substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye of the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception."
President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of the legal challenges.
The Justice Department had argued that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits "one particular method of abortion that Congress, after nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane, never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less safe than other readily available abortion methods."
The ban refers to a procedure doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. Opponents call it partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured.
Kopf said that the ban is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation," or D&E, which is the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
Updated 12:09 PM ET July 8, 2005
By KEVIN O'HANLON
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8b7aago0&src=ap
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed that the ban, while containing an exception to save the life of the mother, is unconstitutional because it makes no such exception for the health of the woman. The court upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln, who heard one of three cases brought over the issue last year.
Kopf's ruling followed decisions overturning the law by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. Those decisions also have been appealed and are expected by many legal experts to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"When `substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye of the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception."
President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of the legal challenges.
The Justice Department had argued that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits "one particular method of abortion that Congress, after nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane, never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less safe than other readily available abortion methods."
The ban refers to a procedure doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. Opponents call it partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured.
Kopf said that the ban is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation," or D&E, which is the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
UNLESS THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER IS IN THE EQUATION, I won't support the issue, and the Court agrees with me.
I guess I will always go with my gut on this, no matter what anyone says. Until there is proof of the soul entering the undeveloped fetus, I say the living woman is the first and last word on what should be done about whats going on in HER body!
All others should make a slight bow and leave the room.
All others should make a slight bow and leave the room.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 9 2005, 02:03 AM)
I guess I will always go with my gut on this, no matter what anyone says. Until there is proof of the soul entering the undeveloped fetus, I say the living woman is the first and last word on what should be done about whats going on in HER body!
All others should make a slight bow and leave the room.
All others should make a slight bow and leave the room.
I pretty much agree with you TRoU, but there's always that small lingering doubt....
Email sent today from Congressman Murphy - PA-18th district
Court Ruling Defies Sanctity of Life
On July 8, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling striking down the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, opening the door for the gruesome procedure to continue. Congressman Murphy, strongly disagreeing with the ruling, released the following statement:
"There is simply nothing more precious than the gift of life," Congressman Tim Murphy said. "Today's court decision is a setback for all of those who value this sacred gift. Partial-birth abortion is a brutal and painful process which causes unborn children great pain and suffering before they are killed. No one should have to endure such an ordeal, let alone the innocent life of a newborn.
"As today's decision will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, it underscores the importance of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. When the issue of life is at stake, we need someone who is clear in their convictions. I trust the President will make the right choice.
"I have faith the Supreme Court will uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Congress will continue work endlessly to protect the lives of unborn children, and will not stop until this goal is accomplished."
Court Ruling Defies Sanctity of Life
On July 8, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling striking down the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, opening the door for the gruesome procedure to continue. Congressman Murphy, strongly disagreeing with the ruling, released the following statement:
"There is simply nothing more precious than the gift of life," Congressman Tim Murphy said. "Today's court decision is a setback for all of those who value this sacred gift. Partial-birth abortion is a brutal and painful process which causes unborn children great pain and suffering before they are killed. No one should have to endure such an ordeal, let alone the innocent life of a newborn.
"As today's decision will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, it underscores the importance of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. When the issue of life is at stake, we need someone who is clear in their convictions. I trust the President will make the right choice.
"I have faith the Supreme Court will uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Congress will continue work endlessly to protect the lives of unborn children, and will not stop until this goal is accomplished."
Sorry, heritage, can't go there with you.
I like Roe v. Wade the way it is.
I like Roe v. Wade the way it is.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 21 2005, 07:28 PM)
Re: Roberts nomination
McCain loses my vote forever....
McCain is on MSNBC Hardball tonight. he said that Kennedy, Schumer and another democrat who didn't vote for Roberts in 2003 are the "fringe left" and are out of touch with the majority. he said that he is on the 'right" on this nomination - he wants a "strict constructionist".
McCain also answered questions about abortion -- he said that more cases are coming this year that will change the abortion impact - not Roe v Wade yet, but other cases like parental notification and partial birth abortion. McCain said he only would allow late term abortions if "the women's life is in danger, not her health". Matthews tried to argue for the woman's health - but McCain said no.
McCain loses my vote forever....
McCain is on MSNBC Hardball tonight. he said that Kennedy, Schumer and another democrat who didn't vote for Roberts in 2003 are the "fringe left" and are out of touch with the majority. he said that he is on the 'right" on this nomination - he wants a "strict constructionist".
McCain also answered questions about abortion -- he said that more cases are coming this year that will change the abortion impact - not Roe v Wade yet, but other cases like parental notification and partial birth abortion. McCain said he only would allow late term abortions if "the women's life is in danger, not her health". Matthews tried to argue for the woman's health - but McCain said no.
BTW - I don't agree with my republican representative, Murphy. I posted his email FYI only to show how the right wingers think.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 12 2005, 05:50 PM)
Email sent today from Congressman Murphy - PA-18th district
Court Ruling Defies Sanctity of Life
On July 8, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling striking down the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, opening the door for the gruesome procedure to continue. Congressman Murphy, strongly disagreeing with the ruling, released the following statement:
"There is simply nothing more precious than the gift of life," Congressman Tim Murphy said. "Today's court decision is a setback for all of those who value this sacred gift. Partial-birth abortion is a brutal and painful process which causes unborn children great pain and suffering before they are killed. No one should have to endure such an ordeal, let alone the innocent life of a newborn.
"As today's decision will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, it underscores the importance of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. When the issue of life is at stake, we need someone who is clear in their convictions. I trust the President will make the right choice.
"I have faith the Supreme Court will uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Congress will continue work endlessly to protect the lives of unborn children, and will not stop until this goal is accomplished."
Court Ruling Defies Sanctity of Life
On July 8, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling striking down the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, opening the door for the gruesome procedure to continue. Congressman Murphy, strongly disagreeing with the ruling, released the following statement:
"There is simply nothing more precious than the gift of life," Congressman Tim Murphy said. "Today's court decision is a setback for all of those who value this sacred gift. Partial-birth abortion is a brutal and painful process which causes unborn children great pain and suffering before they are killed. No one should have to endure such an ordeal, let alone the innocent life of a newborn.
"As today's decision will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, it underscores the importance of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. When the issue of life is at stake, we need someone who is clear in their convictions. I trust the President will make the right choice.
"I have faith the Supreme Court will uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Congress will continue work endlessly to protect the lives of unborn children, and will not stop until this goal is accomplished."
I have a question for Rep Murphy, does he think that a child becoming the target of a sexual predator guised as a priest, is any less painful? I don't see anybody trying to combat this problem in Congress.
QUOTE(Pkemp22402 @ Jul 21 2005, 08:58 PM)
I have a question for Rep Murphy, does he think that a child becoming the target of a sexual predator guised as a priest, is any less painful? I don't see anybody trying to combat this problem in Congress.
My biggest problem with the pro-life movement is many patriarchal headed groups are using this as a method to control women. The real problem that this country faces with the abortion issue is, it's being used as a form of birth control, instead of a medical procedure as said needed by a doctor. That is what should be addressed here, not completely making the whole procedure illegal. The way many religous groups want to handle the abortion issue is very, very negative and too all consuming.
Why do conservatives always insist on oppressing and controlling women? It is quite obvious that many women and men view the Robert's nomination as a slap in the face. Why can't George Bush be a little nicer to his own people? Why does he insist on dragging us through the mud on every issue? I think he has successfully made every women in this country feel reduced to a baby making machine and nothing more.
I have to admit, I was ambivalent toward George Bush until now. However, after his latest stunt, it is clear this was his nomination, his choice, something he did completely on his own. This one is on him, and needless to say, I am incredibly unimpressed. A simple minded choice from an obvious simple minded man. It takes a weak man to want to control a women like this, and I think this speaks volumes about his, and other religous leaders character, or their lack of.
Pkemp, Hi there. I may disagree with you about abortion, as I am against it (except in exceptional circumstances). However I am also against the money that should be spent on education to inner city teens being sidetracked to things like the Silver Ring Thing. I believe in True Choice. In other words, the girl who is pregnant should be assured that the government will support her financially should she get pregnant out of wedlock. Mr Bush has done the opposite. She should also be told what abortion is all about, the pain involved and the possible side effects of guilt later on in life. Then adoption should be promoted as a wonderful solution, which it is. Giving birth IMO is a wonderful experience and having an abortion is only negative, painful and unproductive. Having said that - it may sound like I would denounce anyone for having an abortion and believe it should be illegal. I don't. I think that option should be there for people who in the early stages are found to be carrying a baby that will not live beyond a few days after birth because (for instance) it has no brain. PS I am female.
QUOTE(lazyboy @ Jul 23 2005, 01:53 AM)
Pkemp, Hi there. I may disagree with you about abortion, as I am against it (except in exceptional circumstances). However I am also against the money that should be spent on education to inner city teens being sidetracked to things like the Silver Ring Thing. I believe in True Choice. In other words, the girl who is pregnant should be assured that the government will support her financially should she get pregnant out of wedlock. Mr Bush has done the opposite. She should also be told what abortion is all about, the pain involved and the possible side effects of guilt later on in life. Then adoption should be promoted as a wonderful solution, which it is. Giving birth IMO is a wonderful experience and having an abortion is only negative, painful and unproductive. Having said that - it may sound like I would denounce anyone for having an abortion and believe it should be illegal. I don't. I think that option should be there for people who in the early stages are found to be carrying a baby that will not live beyond a few days after birth because (for instance) it has no brain. PS I am female.
Actually I do agree with you for the most part on how abortion should be handeled. My problem with the Pro-Life movement stems from the fact that it has been largely funded and promoted by the Catholic Church. Which by it's own theology is inherently and extremely sexist and biased against women. IMO it would be enough to make it illegal to use abortion as a method of birth control for all of the reasons and alternatives to abortion you have listed above. I think it is dangerous for an institution that's laws that haven't changed for over 1000 years and still take precedence from Roman laws to be front stage on this issue. Roman laws state, in writing, women are inherently evil, women are unclean, women should be dominated sexually (raped), among many other things. These are the principles that formed and still drive what the Catholic Church is today: sexist. Because they have never addressed changing these laws, they still promote oppression and outright violence toward women through their accepted teachings and practices to date. They do not change because it is status quo, patriarchal, and comfortable for them not to
If they are so worried about how children are treated, why did they allow Priests to sexually abuse children? They knew about it most of the time, let it go on for years, or sent the priest to a monastary away from children. They never once made them accountable to the law. However, they insist on making every female in this country accountable by federal law, for abortion even though most of us would never do it. That is a clear difference in how they are treating one sex as opposed to the other for harming children and I reject this completely. Until we get this prejudice erradicated, we cannot make abortion illegal. The changes must come from within the church first. Then maybe they will find that most women wouldn't have circumstances that would push them to decide to have one in the first place.
Yes, the higher levels of the Catholic Church hierarchy have always been something of a mixed blessing. They preach one thing, then actually do another. I am thinking of the history of South America. (The film and book 'The Mission'.) But there are some very good Bishops and Archbishops who speak out against corruption etc, and risk, sometimes lose, their lives for it. And in the poorer underdeveloped countries the Catholic Church has some saints, many of whom are also killed in the line of duty. I am glad we have some common ground on abortion. 
QUOTE(lazyboy @ Jul 24 2005, 01:19 AM)
Yes, the higher levels of the Catholic Church hierarchy have always been something of a mixed blessing. They preach one thing, then actually do another. I am thinking of the history of South America. (The film and book 'The Mission'.) But there are some very good Bishops and Archbishops who speak out against corruption etc, and risk, sometimes lose, their lives for it. And in the poorer underdeveloped countries the Catholic Church has some saints, many of whom are also killed in the line of duty. I am glad we have some common ground on abortion.
Yes we do have common ground! I also agree with you, there are some wonderful people in the Catholic Church, who have sacrificed and led courageously. I have known many, many good people who are Catholics. To me their faith seems extremely strong and very pure of heart. I admire many of them deeply.
One thing I have learned, and maybe this is because I grew up in a city that has always had strained race relations; prejudice is a strange thing, it can creep into the minds of the best of the best and make them think in a way that hurts others without even knowing it. I think this is more than likely the case with many priests and bishops in the Catholic Church. You join something you believe in, you don't want to make waves, or you don't really think that anything is wrong because it hasn't personally caused you harm. Then you see or experience the same pain that this prejudice has caused someone else. This is when a prejudice takes on a new meaning for many people. IMO, it is one thing to preach from a pulpit about your knowledge, but it is completely different to live and experience the consequences of what such a large and sometimes dominating organization imposes, on an entire culture of diverse people with diverse sets of circumstances, all at once.
With the particular criticism that I have for the church I focus almost completely on the Roman influence on the church, not St. Peter. He did what Christ asked him to do by establishing his church for him. I think the sexism part of things is a result of the cultural influence of ancient Rome that reflects the day and age the church began in. The church has not addressed this fully and needs to as the world has moved past these prejudices toward women and embraced a more accepting, more kind, and much more equal treatment - known in here in the U.S. as Civil Rights.
Pataki to Veto 'Morning-After Pill' Bill
Updated 5:31 AM ET August 1, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8bmuo4o0&src=ap
By MARC HUMBERT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gov. George Pataki will veto legislation that would allow women to buy the "morning-after" pill without a prescription, a decision described by abortion rights advocates as "sheer political expediency" to build conservative support for a 2008 presidential run.
Pataki disclosed his plans Sunday night through spokesman Kevin Quinn.
"Consistent with his record on women's reproductive issues, the governor plans to veto the legislation primarily because it provides no protection whatsoever for minors," Quinn said. "If this and other flaws in the bill are addressed, and a responsible version of the bill is advanced, the governor would support it."
Similar legislation was vetoed last week by fellow Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who also is eyeing a White House bid. Pataki announced last week he would not seek re-election to a fourth term next year, a move widely seen as a prelude to a possible run for national office.
Word of the veto plan came after Pataki's aides learned the New York chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League was preparing to air television commercials in New York as well as Iowa and New Hampshire, traditional sites of the first presidential nominating contests. The ads stress Pataki's past support for reproductive rights and urge the governor not to veto the measure.
"It's unfortunate that as he looks to run for president he would toss away his principled legacy for sheer political expediency," said Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, after being told of the governor's veto plan. "It's obviously a flip-flop on his part."
Conlin said the ad campaign would continue "because we feel public pressure is the only vehicle we have at this point."
Republican strategists have said Pataki's biggest hurdle if he seeks national office will likely be his past support, as governor, for abortion and gay rights as well as strict gun-control legislation.
Pataki has been under pressure from abortion rights supporters to approve the "morning-after pill" legislation while anti-abortion groups, including New York's Roman Catholic bishops and the Pataki-allied state Conservative Party, have been just as vocal in their opposition.
The measure would allow girls and women to obtain the medication _ intended to prevent pregnancy by ensuring that an egg does not become fertilized _ without a physician's visit or prescription and without parental consent regardless of the patient's age.
"To allow a teenager to purchase the morning-after pill in the same manner as she would purchase cough drops or bubble gum is the biggest injustice one can do to our daughters and granddaughters," state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long had written in a June 24 letter to the governor. "Governor Pataki, please protect our daughters with your veto pen."
The legislation was expected to be sent to the governor this week by the Democratic-controlled state Assembly where it originated. The governor then has 10 days to sign or veto it. The measure was approved by the Republican-led state Senate on June 22 in a move that caught many opponents by surprise.
Updated 5:31 AM ET August 1, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8bmuo4o0&src=ap
By MARC HUMBERT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gov. George Pataki will veto legislation that would allow women to buy the "morning-after" pill without a prescription, a decision described by abortion rights advocates as "sheer political expediency" to build conservative support for a 2008 presidential run.
Pataki disclosed his plans Sunday night through spokesman Kevin Quinn.
"Consistent with his record on women's reproductive issues, the governor plans to veto the legislation primarily because it provides no protection whatsoever for minors," Quinn said. "If this and other flaws in the bill are addressed, and a responsible version of the bill is advanced, the governor would support it."
Similar legislation was vetoed last week by fellow Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who also is eyeing a White House bid. Pataki announced last week he would not seek re-election to a fourth term next year, a move widely seen as a prelude to a possible run for national office.
Word of the veto plan came after Pataki's aides learned the New York chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League was preparing to air television commercials in New York as well as Iowa and New Hampshire, traditional sites of the first presidential nominating contests. The ads stress Pataki's past support for reproductive rights and urge the governor not to veto the measure.
"It's unfortunate that as he looks to run for president he would toss away his principled legacy for sheer political expediency," said Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, after being told of the governor's veto plan. "It's obviously a flip-flop on his part."
Conlin said the ad campaign would continue "because we feel public pressure is the only vehicle we have at this point."
Republican strategists have said Pataki's biggest hurdle if he seeks national office will likely be his past support, as governor, for abortion and gay rights as well as strict gun-control legislation.
Pataki has been under pressure from abortion rights supporters to approve the "morning-after pill" legislation while anti-abortion groups, including New York's Roman Catholic bishops and the Pataki-allied state Conservative Party, have been just as vocal in their opposition.
The measure would allow girls and women to obtain the medication _ intended to prevent pregnancy by ensuring that an egg does not become fertilized _ without a physician's visit or prescription and without parental consent regardless of the patient's age.
"To allow a teenager to purchase the morning-after pill in the same manner as she would purchase cough drops or bubble gum is the biggest injustice one can do to our daughters and granddaughters," state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long had written in a June 24 letter to the governor. "Governor Pataki, please protect our daughters with your veto pen."
The legislation was expected to be sent to the governor this week by the Democratic-controlled state Assembly where it originated. The governor then has 10 days to sign or veto it. The measure was approved by the Republican-led state Senate on June 22 in a move that caught many opponents by surprise.
I posted this in the John Roberts forum - Aug 8 2005, 01:13 PM
A women's rights group - NARAL?--- was on C-span today to announce that they will oppose Roberts for Justice. They will run a TV ad on cable stations - $500,000 ad buy at first.
It turns out that Roberts as assistant solicitor general under GHW Bush in the early 1990s, wrote a legal brief on behalf of the government IN SUPPORT of the violent anti abortion protestors like Eric Rudolph. A nurse who was injured during a Rudolph blast at an abortion clinic spoke about her injuries and against Roberts.
Roberts argued that the federal government should not interfere in such cases (as asked by the states at the time). Later (1994?), Senator Schumer wrote a law against violent protestors.
This is one reason why Bush won't release the records from this time period. What else is he hiding?
This weekend, C-span also showed a 1997 speech by Roberts at a Washington DC College about the Supreme Court. He said " The solicitor general represents the United States".
This statement should be used to get those records released. If he works for all of us, then Bush can't claim attorney-client privilege.
A women's rights group - NARAL?--- was on C-span today to announce that they will oppose Roberts for Justice. They will run a TV ad on cable stations - $500,000 ad buy at first.
It turns out that Roberts as assistant solicitor general under GHW Bush in the early 1990s, wrote a legal brief on behalf of the government IN SUPPORT of the violent anti abortion protestors like Eric Rudolph. A nurse who was injured during a Rudolph blast at an abortion clinic spoke about her injuries and against Roberts.
Roberts argued that the federal government should not interfere in such cases (as asked by the states at the time). Later (1994?), Senator Schumer wrote a law against violent protestors.
This is one reason why Bush won't release the records from this time period. What else is he hiding?
This weekend, C-span also showed a 1997 speech by Roberts at a Washington DC College about the Supreme Court. He said " The solicitor general represents the United States".
This statement should be used to get those records released. If he works for all of us, then Bush can't claim attorney-client privilege.
Update:
Naral pulled their first ad and issued a new one.
Senator Feinstein announced today that will ask Roberts about his views on abortion. (See Judicial forums)
See this forum on new study about pain felt by the fetus
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=36082
Naral pulled their first ad and issued a new one.
Senator Feinstein announced today that will ask Roberts about his views on abortion. (See Judicial forums)
See this forum on new study about pain felt by the fetus
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=36082
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.