One thing I have noticed during the whole Miers debate is that the evangelical right is bent on assuring us that Miers is pro-life anti-Roe, but they can’t answer why the President refuses to ever come forth and say “I am pro-life and will appoint pro-life judges” (he prefers code like “culture of life”). One might attribute this to a verbal flourish preferred by Bush, but let’s get serious here – George Bush would probably consider a “verbal flourish” something you could catch.
I think Bush’s codetalking to the religious cons is an admission that on this issue, he and his movement are in the minority. Democrats get no negative points from Democrats, independents, or moderate Republicans when they say they are pro-choice — but I think there’s a very real penalty to pay for being anti choice. Contrast Bush’s phone-in “appearances” to anti-choice marches with Democrats appearing in person at NARAL events, it’s like Bush is … embarassed.
It’s symptomatic of the frustration the religious right will always have because while Republicans trade on their fears to get into office, they actually won’t do a damn thing on this issues once they are elected (for more, check out What’s The Matter With Kansas?). The federal marriage amendment was forgotten by Bush the minute he was declared the winner of the ‘04 election (although they’ll bring it back to life in ‘08, I’m sure). The chief justice chosen by Bush, at least in his testimony, said that Roe was settled law. These people want Roy Moore clones in the supreme court, instead they get John Roberts.
Why? Because while they may be more motivated to vote than other groups in the middle, their beliefs are ridiculously unpopular. America is more conservative than the rest of the world, and more Christian, but our national brand of Christianity is a more giving, tolerant, and accepting one than the firebrand demagoguery practiced by Richard Land, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.
It’s almost Jesuslike.
I don’t know if Republicans in power ignore these issues once elected because they are so unpopular with the electorate. I think instead its that they have higher priorities. Republicans at their core [in theory] are free market and small government. [Obvious exception President Bush, at least with the government thing.] I think Bush has a higher obligation to his party to nominate justices that will protect big business interests and those who own those businesses. After all his real base isn’t the Christian Coalition, but the elite 1% of America that wants tax cuts for the rich.
So when it comes time to nominate he chooses by priority and if that means his fake base loses out then I think Republican leadership is okay with that. After all, what are the pro-lifers going to do; vote Democrat?
Because while they may be more motivated to vote than other groups in the middle, their beliefs are ridiculously unpopular.
What beliefs are those? From a political standpoint, I’d be interested in knowing. In the realm of politics, it mostly comes down to two issues, abortion and gays.
1. Most Americans are opposed to gay marriage
2. The abortion debate is not set in stone. Democrats, for the most part, support abortion at any time for any reason and under any circumstances and as such, are actually in the minority on the issue. The question simply doesn’t come down to “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?” anymore. It’s a more complicated issue.
3. School choice and vouchers are another issue supported by the majority of Americans.
So I am interested in what beliefs that are, in your words “ridiculously unpopular.”
Most Americans are against gay marriage, which is why the RNC is pretty unambigous about their opposition. Where the RNC goes too far is in being anti-gay. While most Americans do not favor gay marriage, they believe in live and let live with gay Americans – again, that’s why Falwell-Robertson, etc. are simply tuned out.
Democrats are in favor of reproductive choice, largely with some limits (and not the straw man you’ve constructed – check out the limitations voted for by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, HR Clinton, etc.) and that’s an opinion supported by a majority of Americans – and why George Bush doesn’t say pro-life. The right wing Christian position, which is even more extreme – stem cell research for instance – or running around talking about “murdered babies” is so far out of the mainstream that the modern GOP puts those crazies in the back of the bus, useful only at election time.
Taking money out of poor schools and shuttling it off to private or religious schools is popular as a concept, but not one that works in actual implementation in most of the trials run so far. This is supposed to be the Republican issue that slices off black voters from the Dems, but they’d rather Dems talk about funding and improving their existing schools than blowing them up with a nuclear bomb.
Democrats are in favor of reproductive choice, largely with some limits (and not the straw man you ve constructed – check out the limitations voted for by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, HR Clinton, etc.) and that s an opinion supported by a majority of Americans – and why George Bush doesn t say pro-life. The right wing Christian position, which is even more extreme – stem cell research for instance – or running around talking about murdered babies is so far out of the mainstream that the modern GOP puts those crazies in the back of the bus, useful only at election time.
Now hold on a second. First off, I’d be interested in knowing exactly what limitations Clinton, Gore etc. have supported. In addition, Bush’s “culture of life” point is no different than the “safe, legal and rare” language used by all of the above. Or they talk about “health of the mother” when such term can cover things like a runny nose.
Second of all, I didn’t raise a straw man. The organizations that Democrats court, such as NARAL and other pro-choice groups are opposed to any limitations. They’re opposed to parental notification. They’re opposed to any kind of restrictions. And they have clout. But that view is way out of the mainstream. It’s the reason why Democrats NEVER use the word ‘abortion’ when discussing the issue. They don’t say, “I support a woman’s right to have an abortion.” They say, “I support a woman’s right to choose” or they talk in the language you used – “reproductive choice.” They court the extremists like NARAL, but don’t want to be associated with them.
As for vouchers, you’re debating whether or not it works, but that doesn’t make the idea “ridiculously unpopular” as you claim.
I’d agree with you on the stem cell research, but that’s an issue that I believe most of the public is ignorant about.
I think most people have a ‘live and let live’ attitude generally. I think Apathy is the biggest winner at the polls because many people don’t feel voting changes anything.
I don’t think that it’s they think voting doesn’t change anything, I think the apathy is that people don’t really care about things that don’t affect them. Abortion doesn’t really affect 98% of us. Last estimate I saw of homosexuality was 1-5%. That means it doesn’t affect at least 95% of us. So who cares?
Because pro-abortion is rightwing newspeak. Democrats are in favor of a woman’s right to choose abortion or not, Republicans are simply against it – but your leader refuses to say so. When Clinton talked about “safe legal and rare” he didn’t say [code word here] should be safe legal and rare, as Hillary Clinton says here she said: "to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare". Sort of invalidates your assertion that Dems fear saying the word abortion. Now get Bush to say it.
Again, you say Dems court groups like NARAL - which is true, but as I pointed out in the original post, if they're going to "extremes" to not be associated with them, it's kind of odd that they go to them to give speeches in full view of cameras, no? Compare that to Bush's disembodied support for anti-choice groups. Methinks NARAL is a lot more acceptable to the American mainstream than Operation Rescue and Company.
But why is most of the public ignorant, Jay? Because there’s a lot of people who’d much prefer it that way.
These are the same people who protest honest sex education because they think it will “cause” premarital sex, when the fact is that premarital sex happens with or without honest sex ed. What happens more frequently when there’s poor sex education and an outcry against condom distribution is more teen pregnancy, which leads to more abortions.
These are the same people who think a vaccine for cervical cancer will encourage promiscuity.
And these are the same people who have an unfettered channel to the administration’s ear when domestic policy is being discussed.
Jay C,
Vouchers are popular not because they work, but because they’ve been misrepresented. Proponents of it are saying to parents, “Your kids can go to a private school!” without mentioning that a small percentage will and the rest are “left behind”.
You can’t inject capitalism into the education system. Children aren’t customers.
And also, Jay C, you aren’t telling us why Republicans disassociate themselves from their grassroots. Why don’t they show up at anti-abortion rallies (or do they? I must admit abortion isn’t a major issue to me, so I don’t pay much attention to it.) Why don’t they just come out and say, “Being gay is so queer, you don’t deserve any rights.”
America is mostly anti-gay marriage, but they’re not anti-gay. When people here in Indy wanted to add sexual orientation to reasons people can’t be discriminated against in getting jobs with city contractors, Republicans were in an uproar. They called it “special rights” and said gays shouldn’t get rights others don’t, then dragged out the “next, will be giving poligamists rights” routine. The ordinance passed with flying colors.
When a Republican state senator here in Indiana introduced a bill that would prohibit anyone who wasn’t married to use reproductive aids (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc.), she used the tired old line that she wanted to “protect families”. Those of us with half a brain know that that phrase means “prevent those queers from spreading their queerness”.
Politicians use such bullshit code words. On both sides. But most Dems I know (even Evan Bayh, an “Indiana Democrat”, which would be a moderate Republican in most other places) actually have said at one time or another, in a public forum, “I support a woman’s right to abortion” in their own way, but most of them actually used the word. I don’t know of one prominent Republican who ever said “Abortion is murder”, even though that’s what they believe.
Because pro-abortion is rightwing newspeak. Democrats are in favor of a woman s right to choose abortion or not, Republicans are simply against it – but your leader refuses to say so.
I didn’t say anything about ‘pro-abortion.’ I said Democrats never mention the word abortion. They only say, “I support a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what?
When Clinton talked about safe legal and rare he didn t say [code word here] should be safe legal and rare, as Hillary Clinton says here she said: to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare . Sort of invalidates your assertion that Dems fear saying the word abortion. Now get Bush to say it.
Cmon Oliver. I know you were only like 15 years old during the 1992 Presidential debates, but President Clinton said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." And the fact that he and others have said the word 'abortion' a few times, doesn't invalidate what I've said.
As for Bush, you should have paid more attention to his debates with Al Gore:
That's just one example. Does it invalidate your claim automatically?
Again, you say Dems court groups like NARAL - which is true, but as I pointed out in the original post, if they re going to extremes to not be associated with them, it s kind of odd that they go to them to give speeches in full view of cameras, no?
Sure, as candidates. In addition, there's a big difference between speaking to an organization and attending demonstrations and rallies. You're complaining that Bush didn't personally show up at a pro-life rally. I can't remember the last time I saw Hillary marching with NOW in front of the Supreme Court.
Compare that to Bush s disembodied support for anti-choice groups. Methinks NARAL is a lot more acceptable to the American mainstream than Operation Rescue and Company.
Please. First of all, don't try to tie mainstream pro-life organizations to fringe groups like Operation Rescue. Debate the issue with some more intellectual honesty than that. The National Right To Life Committee
Second of all, you're again complaining Bush didn't attend a rally.
Besides, in the past, you and others have complained about Bush's views on issues like stem cell research and cloning, no doubt saying his views were tied to the whims of people like Dobson.
You mention the Federal Marriage Amendment. It came up for a vote and in both chambers of Congress didn't even come close to getting the 2/3 vote needed to move on to the states. Why should he have bothered?
I know you're attempting this whole, "We're proud of our views!" thing, but what you're writing doesn't really coincide with the facts.
Pionar, I can’t really answer those questions because I kind of break with other conservatives on those issues, especially those related to gays, despite my views as a Christian man. I just happen to believe that one can separate their religious views from their public views.
I support anti-discrimination laws protecting gays. I don’t support gay marriage, but I am not opposed to civil unions.
I’ve been critical quite some time now of organizations like Focus on The Family who spend gobs of money on gay issues, when something like divorce is far more dangerous to the American family.
I just don’t agree with Oliver that Bush is running from anything. Politicians pick their battles. I remember when President Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice. He signed it in the summer of 1996. The bill he signed was virtually identical to the others he had vetoed. What was the difference? Simple. The general campaign was about to start. It wasn’t an issue Dole could use against him.
So you play kick the can again. Bush simply doesn’t speak in front of anti-choice groups and avoids at all costs labeling himself as someone who is anti-choice and seeks anti-choice judges. Democrats, who have wimped out on a lot of things, are steadfast on saying that they’re pro-choice and speak in front of pro-choice groups on a regular basis.
And don’t say Operation Rescue is a fringe of the right, their head man was the go-to guy for the right – including DeLay, Frist, etc. when the Schiavo case popped up.
Bush ran as the guy who was going to pass the marriage amendment, and punted as soon as he won re-election. He’s pushed less popular pieces of legislation much further in the past, but the FMA is just not important to him and is useful as a way of getting Republicans elected.
And I was 14 during the ‘92 debates, and I watched ‘em all.
Yeah, Bush said a lot of things in that debate. Thanks for the link.
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
“Anti-choice” is far more accurate than “pro-life.” The people who protest outside of clinics have little interest in the life of the child after it is born. They’re not standing outside offering financial assistance for the mother, they’re too busy calling her a murdering whore.
Okay, maybe that’s too simplistic. They obviously care enough about the life of the child when they’re complaining about “welfare mothers.”
Bush simply doesn t speak in front of anti-choice groups and avoids at all costs labeling himself as someone who is anti-choice and seeks anti-choice judges.
If you’re going to complain about the use of the term ‘pro-abortion’, you should cease using the term ‘anti-choice’ as that is nothing more than liberal speak. I just showed you evidence where Bush said flat out, “I am pro-life” and here you are sayhing he “avoids at all costs” labeling himself that way. Hello.
Democrats, who have wimped out on a lot of things, are steadfast on saying that they re pro-choice and speak in front of pro-choice groups on a regular basis.
No, they don’t speak in front of pro-choice groups on a “regular basis.” They do so when they’re campaigning. When they’re running for something, they’ll do it.
And don t say Operation Rescue is a fringe of the right, their head man was the go-to guy for the right – including DeLay, Frist, etc. when the Schiavo case popped up.
Oh that’s complete nonsense. He was brought in by Terry Schiavo’s parents.
Bush ran as the guy who was going to pass the marriage amendment, and punted as soon as he won re-election.
Bush can’t “pass” a constitutional amendment. He announced his support for it.
He s pushed less popular pieces of legislation much further in the past, but the FMA is just not important to him and is useful as a way of getting Republicans elected.
Again, it was not legislation. It was a constitutional amendment. And how could something that failed to pass be a useful way of getting Republicans elected? It failed in both the House and the Senate. It didn’t even come close in the Senate.
Bush says pro-life in a debate. Ask him in a press conference tomorrow and he’ll dodge. Ask Hillary Clinton the same, she’ll say she’s pro-choice. She doesn’t run away from it.
No, he can’t pass the amendment, but he can use the bully pulpit of the White House to push it – like Iraq, social security, etc.
The Schiavo family called in Terry, the GOP rallied around them all.
Pro-abortion is nonsense, that would mean you’re in favor of abortion for any pregnancy, a position nobody favors. Anti-choice means you’re against a woman choosing whether to have an abortion or not. Sounds like the RNC platform.
Hello, everyone. At the risk of becoming the resident old-biddy of this blog-forum, I’d like to note that I was old enough to vote in ‘92–I also watched the debates–and I voted.
Moving on:
Jay C: “I remember when President Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice. He signed it in the summer of 1996. The bill he signed was virtually identical to the others he had vetoed. What was the difference? Simple. The general campaign was about to start. It wasn t an issue Dole could use against him.”
Actually, Jay C, the difference /was/ simple–and hinges on your definition (an misleading usage, in my view) of “nearly identical”.
HR 4, called “The Personal Responsibility Act”, later “The Wefare Reform Act”, was deeply flawed. Clinton made no secret what he considered these flaws to be, stated outright that the bill was unacceptable and would be vetoed.
Specifically “an acceptable welfare reform bill must include more funding for child care, health coverage for low-income families, requirements for state funding, and additional funding during times of economic downturn or population growth.”
Among other problematic issues in HR 4: underage mothers would not be eligible for welfare AT ALL. Something of a harsh penalty for a teenage girl’s mistake, I think we can all agree.
At the risk of being off the main point, here, denying a teenage mother welfare or medical benefits, paradoxically, leaves her with very few options–abortion being one. Remeber that this was a Republican congress and a Republican sponsored bill.
Other comparisons between HR 4 and HR 3734 “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996″ (signed into law by President Clintoin):
*Guaranteed medical coverage. HR 3734 preserved the national
guarantee of health care for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women, the elderly, and people on welfare. H.R. 4 would have ended the guarantee of Medicaid coverage for cash assistance recipients.
*HR 3734 increased child care funding by $3.5 billion (compared to HR 4’s $300 million increase) and stipulated mandatory child care maintenance of effort on the state level.
*HR 3734 provided incentives for states to move people into jobs. H.R. 4 did not contain a cash performance bonus.
*HR 3734 preserved nutrition programs. H.R. 4 would have given states
the option of block granting food stamp benefits. and would have capped federal food stamp program expenditures, limiting maximum benefit
increases to 2 percent per year, regardless of growth in need for assistance.
*HR 3734 maintained then-current standards of law on child protection and adoption. HR 4 would have REDUCED funds for child welfare, child abuse, foster care and adoption services.
*HR 3734 included a $2 billion contingency fund to protect states in times of population growth or economic downturn. H.R. 4 included a $1 billion contingency fund. But then, who wants to quibble over a billion dollars, more or less?
*H.R. 4 would have cut SSI by 25 percent for many children with disabilities. HR 3734 eliminated the proposed, two-tier system in HR 4.
*H.R. 4 would have required states to deny cash benefits to children born to welfare recipients unless the state legislature explicitly voted to provide benefits.
I can only assume that when you say Clinton vetoed “virtually identical” welfare reform twice, you’re speaking of HR 2491, the Budget Reconciliation Bill, which bears even less resemblance to HR 3734 than HR 4 did.
A list of all the vetos President Clinton made during his administration can be found here: http://www.rules.house.gov/pop/98-147.pdf
The bills in their entirety, all congressional session reports, records, et al can be accessed here: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Can you explain, please, your definition of “identical”? It seems to me the differences are patent, obvious, and far too important to chalk up to a simple attempt to look good for the next election.
Wysdom
Of course Bush will say he is “pro-life”, because in some sense all of us are “pro-life”.
The questioner in the debate allowed himself to be suckered into the propagandistic self-definition of the anti-abortion movement: if he’d been smart his question would have been “should a voter assume that you are against keeping abortion legal?”
Then you would have seen Bush squirm.
Here is where the whole debate breaks down. People on one side insist on portraying the other side as “anti-choice”, while the other side likes to call their opponents “pro-abortion”. Like many other topics, both side seem to be so wedded to their ideals that the time for rational debate on the issues has long since passed.
Notice how nobody actually debates the substance of these issues any longer? Now, it is just a campaign tool used by both sides trying to compare their opponents to the far fringes of the political spectrums.
JD: “People on one side insist on portraying the other side as anti-choice , while the other side likes to call their opponents pro-abortion . Like many other topics, both side seem to be so wedded to their ideals that the time for rational debate on the issues has long since passed.”
I agree, JD, that the Pro-Abortion and Anti-Choice labels are pretty much the political equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” “Your mom!” “Karl Rove has cooties!” and similar nonsense.
With respect to both viewpoints, all present, etc, however, I must submit that from a standpoint of language–purely what the words mean–those calling opponents of abortion “Anti-Choice” have the right of it.
Opponents of abortion would, ideally, have the practice of abortion abolished. “Abortion is Murder” “It’s a Child Not a Choice”… And where it’s nearly impossible to coax logic out of a debate that has its very roots in such impossible a concept as “When does Life begin?”, this much is simple and irrefutable:
1) Abortion opponents believe abortion is murder of an unborn child.
2) Murder is not an acceptable choice in our society.
3) It follows, according to this logic, that abortion should not be a legal choice.
Ergo, “Anti-Choice”.
What puzzles me is why individuals opposed to abortion don’t embrace this label. According to their beliefs, it hardly seems perjorative.
On a side note, it would be refreshing to see someone like, for instance, our President, have more courage in his convictions than he does love of his own ambition. Above all others, he should be the one out front saying “Heck YES I’m anti-choice.”
But that wouldn’t be politically expedient.
Refute at will–fair warning to all: arguements with a basis of “Oh yeah? Well, your guys suck too, remember when Joe Politico XYZ blahblah?” will be summarily ignored, at least by me…
Let’s try to address the points on the table before once more devolving into “Yo momma”s.
what’s missing in this debate is anybody asking about women’s rights–anybody remember that great picture from a few months back of all the Great White Male legislators rallying around some anti-choice piece of legislation they’d enacted?
while everybody on the Right wants to pretend that there are equal voices here, I don’t believe for a second that James Dobson or Jay C should be telling my wife or daughter what she can and cannot do with her body.
This goes straight to the heart of the argument of secular America vs. the Religious Right–you don’t like abortion? Fine. don’t practice it. The same goes for homosexuality, temperance, Heavy Metal music, or anything else that is about the individual’s right to choose their beliefs and how they live their lives.
I think the anti-choice crowd is all about fear-mongering, and equating abortion with third trimester bloodbaths, and taking any nuance out of the situation–personally, i’m not ‘for’ abortion: it’s one of the hardest choices in life that could be made–I wouldn’t want anybody in my family to have one, but I can see that there are cases when it is a viable option…
and, the bottom line is, i’m not a woman having an abortion, and i’m not so holier-than-thou that i’d presume to legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
viva tu vida, no la mia!
(live your life, not mine)
while everybody on the Right wants to pretend that there are equal voices here, I don t believe for a second that James Dobson or Jay C should be telling my wife or daughter what she can and cannot do with her body.
So your daughter, while inside of your wife was nothing? It wasn’t a babies body in there? It was just your wife’s body? A woman has an abortion at 5 months. Guess what? She still has to go through labor? To dispose of what? A piece of her body?
The “her body” argument is the weakest and most intellectually dishonest case that is made for somebody that is pro-choice. I can’t even believe somebody would be foolish enough to espouse that tripe.
When I saw my son’s first sonogram at 10 weeks, we saw his little legs kicking. That was not my wife’s body. That was the body of child.
You twit.
don’t condescend to me–like many pro-lifers, you are personalizing the issue–that’s great that you and your wife had a wonderful baby boy, but that’s *your* life, and *your* views and *your* God–but until you walk in somebody else’s shoes, don’t pretend to speak for anybody but you and your family–if a fetus can survive after leaving the woman’s body, then it’s a child–until then, it’s just potential…
Oh please.
Wysdom: What puzzles me is why individuals opposed to abortion don t embrace this label. According to their beliefs, it hardly seems perjorative.
The answer is simple: Because “anti – choice” sounds like you are opposed to choice, generically, when, in fact, you are opposed to the the choosing of an abortion — so, you are “anti – abortion.”
If you were opposed to the death penalty, would you like to be categorized as “anti – penalty”?
David W: Until, at the end of a pregnancy, there is a result other than childbirth, artificially terminating a pregnancy should be illegal. No abortions should be performed after the earliest point at which a child may be born alive: approximately 20 weeks.
I don’t get the first sentence, Frank but I agree with your conclusion–i’m not an ‘NRA’ style abortion advocate–I think this is a reasonable limitation, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk–and, shouldn’t this be discovered before the 20th week? i’ll admit that i’m not up-to-date on the nuances of abortion laws and the ramifications of childbirth…
‘Anti-choice’ as doesn’t seem to play well in a country of supposed infinite choice. IMO it is better than ‘pro-life’, because a pro-lifer should oppose the death penalty (again IMO). After all, shouldn’t ‘erring on the side of life’ include both ends of it (as with Terry Schiavo)?
How is it false? Do you think that medical records should be private from government investigators? Get a clue.
Unfortunately, we either can have no abortions, or no restrictions on abortions- it is either or.
We cannot have SOME restrictions, because that would be “killing babies” according to the right, and according to their god, there are no exceptions.
We cannot have SOME restrictions, because the concept of “privacy” means that the government shouldn’t have the right to go into the woman’s private medical records to find out if that baby was “miscarried” or whether it was aborted.
If you believe that Rush Limbaugh’s medical records should be private and protected from the lawyers prosecuting him for Dr. Shopping, then you must be pro-choice. There is no way to be otherwise, unless you don’t believe that women have the same rights as men.
Neo throw up an absolutely fabulous and ridiculous false choice there. Good work.
Some people think that Tom Delay and Bill Frist should be able to obtain women’s private medical records. I think that’s un-American.
Loopy: There really is no connection between the acquisition of medical records and abortions. If abortions are illegal, then, of course, investigations would require the disclosure of records. Why not?
If abortions are legal, then why are records being investigated?
You see, it doesn’t start with investigating records. It starts with the abortion.
You have confused the ordinary, convential “right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, with the “penumbra of privacy” recently ‘discovered’ in the Roe v Wade decision.
Here’s a hypothetical for you:
Two soldiers are in a missile silo. They receive orders to simulteneously turn their launch keys and launch missiles on, say, France (I can dream, can’t I? Besides, it’s my hypothetical).
One officer refuses. An MP points a pistol at him and says, “Insert that key, or turn it over to me, or I will shoot you!”
The officer quickly swallows the key.
What do you think of his “Right to Digestive Privacy”?
Judge Neo, we await your decison. Careful, now.
Think, Frankie. Without the woman’s medical records, how could proof of the abortion be made in court? There are any number of medical reasons a pregnancy could end. Without medical records, the patient and the doctor cannot be sanctioned.
Neo : You equated two completely separate concepts under the umbrella of privacy, ie. disclosure of medical records, and the right to an abortion. If you do not see how they are different …
Official Announcement: My name isn’t Frankie: Never was, never will be.
You’re doing it again, Loopy!
If abortions are ILlegal, then a CRIME is being investigated. It is then permissible to examine the relevant medical records — as it is the case in any criminal investigation involving medical practice (Doctor poisons patient; patient stabs Doctor; Person accused of taking prescribed drugs in an illegal manner — see Limbaugh, Rush).
Am I typing in Chinese?
This is way off topic but I have to say it.
THAT SONFABITCH!
http://macswain.blogspot.com/
It took an awful lot of digging to get to the bottom of that story {subscriptioin required}, Leo. Know why? Because it was a tiny detail in a story of other proposals to raise revenue, being discussed by a bipartisan committee. So what?
Now, to return to our regularly scheduled merry – go -round…
Frank;
Heard of satire? It’s another one of those indecipherable concepts; like metaphors.