Reply With Quote
That's a very good point that continually gets forgotten in this debate (by me as well). Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't make abortion illegal. It merely leaves that decision to the States.
If abortion becomes illegal (more specifically, illegal in some states, legal in others), it will simply go underground. There are already some very effective drugs for inducing abortions. DIfferent laws in different states will make it very difficult to police.
That's a very good point that continually gets forgotten in this debate (by me as well). Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't make abortion illegal. It merely leaves that decision to the States.
And it more than likely would not be policed.
It'd just be a moral victory for fundamentalist groups so they can sleep better at night knowing that women aren't killing feti who might, in the future, grow up to be someone those fundamentalist groups can despise.
I think it'd be a victory for State's rights.
I've got no problem leaving the decision up to the states, provided none of them make the decision to ban abortion.
Reason why I don't see Roe vs Wade being overturned is that even Alito would look at precedent and NOT change what has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Kind of like Jim Crow, eh Joe?
I can see my fellow liberals know you well enough to avoid the inevitable clash on your pigheaded statements, but I have not yet reached that point _essurectedone
A woman's right to control her body is nothing like segregation, a ing fetus isn't alive, and just because someone is acidentally knocked up, doesnt mean that they have the obligation to carry that fetus. There are so many situations that you never have to understand in your in order to maintain your dumb ass world views, and doubtless you wont undersatnd theirs, but there is no reason why a woman isn't en led to her own privacy, and society has no right to superimpose primitive views on her.
Fast Forward to sometime in the future. Lets say Roe v. Wade is overturned and the right to legalize or criminalize abortion is in the hands of the individual states.
A state, say Kansas or maybe Texas decides they will make abortion illegal. For those of you who want to criminalize abortion, who has committed a crime when an abortion is performed? Is the woman charged? Is only the "doctor" charged? What would be the sentences? Would abortion be a felony or misdemeanor? Some claim life begins at conception, would capital punishment be fitting?
better question, what comes next, a lot of the same fruit loops that dislike abortion dislike contraception, is that going to go too?
Just to be clear, so we don't waste each other's time, you'd be okay with terminating a pregnancy up to the moment the non-living fetus takes a breath and becomes a living baby?
Because, that's the only distinction I see between a fetus and a child...breathing.
If that's your position, let's quit now. Otherwise, tell me the exact point in the gestation of a fetus at which it is not okay to abort it and then, tell me that for every conception that occurs.
The "Christian" and social conservatives have pulled on dubya' short and curlies to curtail all kinds of pre-natal/neo-natal care programs around the world, such that many now women and babies die or seriously injured for lack of care. Nicholas Kristoff has visited and do ent many of these countries where the US' witholding of funds has resulted in horrible sickness, injuries, deaths.
Below, the same assholes would prefer vaccine-preventable cervical cancer (but not for their daughers) while fantasizing that kids will abstain from screwing with or without a vaccine or condom or whatever.
Once these self-rightous, self-congratulating assholes decide THEY are "right", they don't give a who gets hurt or who dies.
================================
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gets Injected With a Social Issue
By Rob Stein
A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.
Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.
Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.
In the hopes of heading off a confrontation, officials from the companies developing the shots -- Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline -- have been meeting with advocacy groups to try to assuage their concerns.
The jockeying reflects the growing influence that social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.
"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James A. Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."
The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.
The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.
Exactly how the vaccine is used, however, will be largely determined by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of experts assembled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The panel issues widely followed guidelines, including recommendations for childhood vaccines that become the basis for vaccination requirements set by public schools.
Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus.
"If you really want to have cervical cancer rates fall as much as possible as quickly as possible, then you want as many people to get vaccinated as possible," said Mark Feinberg, Merck's vice president of medical affairs and policy, noting that "school mandates have been one of the most effective ways to increase immunization rates."
That is a view being pushed by cervical cancer experts and women's health advocates.
"I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.
At the ACIP meeting last week, panel members heard presentations about the pros and cons of vaccinating girls at various ages. A survey of 294 pediatricians presented at the meeting found that more than half were worried that parents of female patients might refuse the vaccine, and 11 percent of the doctors said they themselves thought vaccinating against a sexually transmitted disease "may encourage risky sexual behavior in my adolescent patients."
Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.
"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003, in a telephone interview.
"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing that he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.
Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said.
"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding that he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.
"Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said.
In a statement, the conservative Family Research Council said it will "monitor the development of these vaccines, the FDA drug approval process, the development of recommendations for their use and the marketing of these vaccines."
"While we welcome medical advances such as an HPV vaccine, it remains clear that practicing abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage is the single best way of preventing the full range of sexually transmitted diseases," the group said.
The council is planning to meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue. On the same day, the Medical Ins ute for Sexual Health in Austin, which advises conservative groups on sexuality and health issues, is convening a one-day meeting to develop a position statement.
Both companies acknowledged the concerns and said they have been working to alleviate them by meeting with groups across the political spectrum.
"It is not our intention in any way, shape or form to promote our vaccine as a subs ute for any other prevention approach, be it abstinence or screening," Merck's Feinberg said.
He added there is no evidence to suggest that vaccinating children will promote sexual activity.
"We hope when people understand more about what the disease is and how it can be prevented that their concerns will have been allayed," Feinberg said.
Alan M. Kaye, executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, likened the vaccine to wearing a seat belt.
"Just because you wear a seat belt doesn't mean you're seeking out an accident," Kaye said.
And, just to be clear, my Jim Crow statement had nothing to do with comparing segregation with abortion but to point out to Joe Chalupa stare decisis isn't always followed by the Supreme Court.
Jim Crow was just one such example. Segregation had been the law of the land and, further, had appeared to have been a settled matter -- even at the Supreme Court level. I was merely pointing out that nothing is forever...not Jim Crow and not Roe v. Wade.
Otherwise, what's the point of appealing all but new arguments to the Supreme Court?
Curiously, that entire post bespeaks the need for and value of judicial activism, in the sense that judicial activism results from courts examining the cons utionality of legislative enactments in light of evolving understandings of what the Cons ution means.
Yoni for judicial activism and a living Cons ution? or just playing both sides?
No, just for correcting deviations from a strict constructionist view of the U. S. Cons ution.
Overturning segregation adhered to specific tenets in the U. S. Cons ution. Abortion has no basis in the U. S. Cons ution. It's not addressed and, therefore, is (according to the 10th amendment) left to the states and the people.
So, how 'bout telling me at what specific point you can no longer kill a baby.
According to CBF. More black babies=more crimes. When in fact it was Margaret sanger, Creator of planned parenthood, who advocated abortion to stop the "negro" race from creating chaos.
Anyway, i laugh when people say that fetuses are not human. I can only imagine a pregnant woman asking a freind of hers, "Wanna get close to my tummy? You can hear my fetus! it's so adorable."
Or when a woman is lying on the floor in dismay crying, "my FETUS!ooh...My fetus! why God."
I can see people like CBF and other token liberals running around and colliding with a pregnant woman. THe collision is so hard that the woman has realized that the impact has killed her unborn child. CBF then apologizes and says.. "i'm sorry mam.. but it's just a fetus. Just ask your man for another one and everything will be allright.
Soon we'll have "FEtus showers" replace "baby showers" in all the blue states.
... and we'll think to ourselves."Boy oh boy,. we've come so far from Jim Crow and Plessy vs Ferguson."
wow you are crazier than meAccording to CBF. More black babies=more crimes. When in fact it was Margaret sanger, Creator of planned parenthood, who advocated abortion to stop the "negro" race from creating chaos.
Anyway, i laugh when people say that fetuses are not human. I can only imagine a pregnant woman asking a freind of hers, "Wanna get close to my tummy? You can hear my fetus! it's so adorable."
Or when a woman is lying on the floor in dismay crying, "my FETUS!ooh...My fetus! why God."
I can see people like CBF and other token liberals running around and colliding with a pregnant woman. THe collision is so hard that the woman has realized that the impact has killed her unborn child. CBF then apologizes and says.. "i'm sorry mam.. but it's just a fetus. Just ask your man for another one and everything will be allright.
Soon we'll have "FEtus showers" replace "baby showers" in all the blue states.
... and we'll think to ourselves."Boy oh boy,. we've come so far from Jim Crow and Plessy vs Ferguson."
^^^You just admitted to your loopiness. I never said i'm anything.
OWNED!!!
The family of Judge Samuel Alito, daughter Laura (L), son Philip (C) and wife Martha (R), stand underneath a portrait of former president Bill Clinton as they watch President Bush nominate Alito to the Supreme Court in the White House, October 31, 2005.
Is Racism rearing it's ugly head regarding Bush's nomination of Alito to the SCOTUS? Some think so. Dubbing him "Scalito", why? (ignorance)
Hatch Follows Drudge Lead, Implies Alito Critics May Be Racist
Earlier today on Fox News, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Judiciary Committee, followed Matt Drudge’s lead and implied that opponents of Samuel Alito’s nomination may be motivated by Alito’s ethnicity. He warned senators “to be very careful here,” because a vote against Alito would be “held against them” by Italian-Americans:
[They] think they own the Italian-American vote all up and down the East Coast. They don’t, but they think they do. If they become offensive against somebody with the qualifications of Sam Alito, Judge Alito, then I think it’s going to be held against them. They’re going to have to be very careful how they handle this, and frankly what bothers me if 22 — in other words, half of the Democrats in the Senate — could vote against John Roberts, can you imagine what this nomination is going to be like? There’s no reason they should have voted against Roberts. And I think Alito’s going to be just fine but we’re all going to have to work really hard to make sure that’s so.
Whatsa matter for you libs, Why for you don't like Alito?
Good point but two totally seperate issues. And, I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any cases challenging Roe vs Wade going to the Supreme Court any time soon.
I just don't see it being over turned but that is just my "un-legal" opinion.
FromToSufficiently muted.
No, not all. I still say it will NOT be over turned and that is still my opinion.
Your Jim Crow argument, while making a point, is muted.
Totally different. Totally.
Jim Crow was never overtunred by the courts, it was overturned by the civil rights act. Brown V. Board was only pretaining to individual school districts, unfortunatly outside of the classroom, brown v. board had no effect whatsoever. (and seeing as it took 20 years to be realized, for quite some time it had no real effect in the classroom either.)
As for the fetus, yes i think a fetus doesnt become alive until it survives the entirety of a pregnacnt but, if you need me to be completly specific, i will adhere tot he standards roe sets up and say by the thrid trimester it is no longer simply a fetus.
Interest Groups Weigh in on Alito Nomination
Reactions to President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court drew mixed and wide-spread reactions across the nation yesterday, including many political action groups.
Conservative groups have heaped an overwhelming amount of praise upon the nomination. Concerned Women For America released a statement saying, "Judge Alito is an outstanding choice. His qualifications are immesurable."
Other Conservative groups echoed this sentiment. A spokesperson for Americans for the Overturn of Roe v. Wade (AORW) said, "Alito will maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court in the spirit of O'Connor and Rehnquist."
The website for the Abortion is Murder Group praised Alito's record as a Circuit Court judge. "His decisions are Consitutionally sound." is Full of Abortionists (HIFOA) also noted Alito's "outstanding" work as a Circuit judge. "We feel confident that Justice Alito will uphold the cons ution without activism or personal bias."
Meanwhile, Liberal action groups were just as vocal in their opposition to the Alito nomination.
NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a statement saying "Alito's record indicates a clear willingness to continue dismantling our cons utional freedoms. The American public deserves a nominee who can be counted on to uphold our rights - not take them away."
Other liberal groups expressed similar concerns over Alito's record. Keep Government Out of My Uteris (KGOOMU) questioned Alito's experience. "We do not feel he is qualified to be a Justice on the highest court in the land. With the hundreds of well-qualified judges waiting to fill in for O'Connor, it is perplexing that the President would once nominate someone with so little real Cons utional Law experience."
A representative of The Abortion is Life Group said, "We are unsure where Judge Alito stands on the important issues of the day... Labor Unions, Imminent Domain, Gun Control, Religious Freedom... These are important issues which the [Supreme Court] will have a very important role in shaping."
Darlynn Kubiack of My Body: My Rights - Off (MBMRFO) agreed, saying, "I question Mr. Alito's ability to keep his personal biases out of his decisions and allow the Cons ution to speak for itself."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
