Since abortion is a matter of life and death, politics ought to be secondary when we reflect on the issue. But political considerations aren’t trivial. Over the last 20 years, Democrats have captured the middle ground on abortion. Bill Clinton approximated the public mood by declaring that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Republicans, on the other hand, have found themselves embroiled in an awkward debate about whether rape victims should be required to carry their pregnancies to term. This asymmetry has been around as long as Roe v. Wade. But why should conservatives let Roe define them?
There´s a couple who had a healthy baby boy that´s suing the clinic because they gave the mom vitamins instead of birth control pills by accident. Instead of enjoying the blessings of a healthy baby,they want to make a quick buck off the clinic. Luckily the judge ruled against them but let open the angle of mental anguish for another suit.All this shows in the varying degree on the value of a baby.
Obama´s free birth control in Obamacare doesn´t even reach the women most likely to have an unwanted pregnancy,all it´s doing is driving premiums up.
Look, the republicans ran a pro-abortion candidate, romney, and that still was not enough. They ran a man who signed gay marriage into law. Not enough. They ran a man who signed government managed healthcare into law. Not enough. The republicans cannot out dem the dems. But, by trying to do what they ARE doing, I´ll bet they lose a lot of republican voters. They lost this one.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion law would go back to the states. And my guess is at least one-third of the states would outlaw abortion, with the ususal exceptions.
And then women could be arrested, convicted and sentenced to I would asssume at least 10 years in prison (abortion is murder after all; and the notion that you could charge the abortion provider and let the woman off is ludicrous).
There would be such a backlash to imprisoning women that every governor who criminlized abortion would be thrown out of office. So be careful for what you wish for. And a large number of those who call themselves pro-life don´t want to criminalize abortion, they want to change minds.
If Roe V Wade were declared unconstitutional tomorrow (which it is BTW) nothing will change overnight or even in the near future. Ultimately there will be exceptions applied with varying degrees of strictness in 2/3 of the states. The remaining 1/3 will become unrestricted abortion mills. For a pregnant woman who wants an abortion the major change is that it will be free and available in the usual locations (Chicago, NYC etc.) even if the fetus is eminently viable. And the matter will disappear from the national debate.
#4 & #6 -- I would argue that this is NOT a states´ right issue. This is EXACTLY the same debate our country was having in the 1850s regarding slavery. Under our Federal Constitution, it is either (a) acceptable to own another person and deem that person to be "property" OR (b) It is not acceptable because a person is not property to be "owned" by another person.
Either (a) the willing murder of an unborn (yet human) child in the womb is perfectly acceptable and upheld by the U.S. Constitution or (b) It is not acceptable because our U.S. Constitution clearly does NOT makes allowances for the right of one person to willfully terminate the live of another person. And furthermore, the Declaration of Independence declares that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So, if we allow murder clinics in Massachusetts, but not in Georgia, is it ok because Massachusetts just decides it´s okay with killing babies? If Massachusetts decides tomorrow to legalize the sex-trade should we just turn a blind eye as a nation and say, "Eh, that´s a states´ rights issue?"
No, it´s a state issue and I have never understood how pro or con abortion became the dividing line over who could or could not be considered politically conservative. Politics is about the economy, the nation´s security, our constitutional laws. Gay marriage, nationalized health benefits, abortion and way too many crimes should never ever have been morphed into federal issues and federal control.
#9 -- You need to re-read the Constitution and get a better understanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights exists for the sole purpose of protecting the INDIVIDUAL. An individual inside a womb is still an individual. WHO is an individual doesn´t get to be determined by the states. Again, that issue was resolved by the Civil War and the entire nation paid an awful price for declaring certain people, "property", instead of people. Over half a million died.
There will be a national reckoning for abortion. I don´t know the exact form it will take, but it´s coming.
The slavery issue is the perfect analogy. The pro-aborts claim it is a woman´s body, i.e., her "property". It just baffles me how GOP thinks that by moving left they will gain more voters. They will lose conservatives in droves and will never "out-left" the left, so it is pointless to try. They will gain nothing and quite possibly lose everything.
The real point is that abortion should be pushed out of a political spotlight. It´s not a political cause, or shouldn´t be. I fail to understand those voters, liberal or conservative, who would support or fail to support a political candidate solely because of that candidate´s view on abortion. It makes absolutely no sense.
Well, #5, it´s not a straw man to point out that women with resources will simply travel as far as is required to procure an abortion. It has always been that way, up to and including going to another country. I´d like to think their minds and hearts could be changed, but I´m a pessimist and I would imagine that if they are women of means, they´re quite used to having things their way.
Joshua Strange will never forget the girl he met in May 2011. Both were underclassmen at Alabama´s Auburn University when a common acquaintance introduced them. "We instantly became attached at the hip and did everything together," she recalled six months later. "I rather quickly moved into his place. . . . Everything was great until pretty much June 29." That night, an intimate encounter in Mr. Strange´s bed went wrong. She called police, who detained him for questioning. She said she had awakened to find him forcing himself on her; he said the sexual activity was consensual and initiated by
Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t on the ballot next year, but as candidates meet Monday’s filing deadline for Republican primaries, he appears ever-present. Cruz’s tea party-fueled, come-from-behind trouncing of David Dewhurst in the Senate race last year has provided him a gravitational pull that is moving GOP candidates further right and producing scores of would-be first-time officeholders. “You’ve got two things happening,” said Republican political consultant Bill Miller. One of them is the “Cruz phenomenon, and he is the phenom at this moment,” he said. “The other is that conservatives believe that if they’re going to succeed — with the Democratic administration in Washington
Six months after the Internal Revenue Service´s inspector general revealed that the tax-collection agency had been targeting conservative organizations for added scrutiny and delaying their applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS has proposed new rules for handling political activity by nonprofits. The proposed rules would plunge the agency deeper into political regulation. The rules would upset more than 50 years of settled law and practice by limiting the ability of certain tax-exempt nonprofits, organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and voter education. Such organizations would be forbidden to leave records of officeholder votes
Fact: The IRS targeted conservative and tea party groups requesting tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. That’s a fact. Congress held hearings — embarrassing hearings. Three top Internal Revenue Service officials resigned. No heads rolled, but for the Obama administration, and the lawless Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., that amounted to a major scandal. Even White House spokesman Jay “Circus” Carney called the IRS’ actions “inappropriate.” Fact. But President Obama, in an interview last week with sycophant Chris Matthews, now says the entire scandal was made up by the media. “When we do things right, they don’t get
Bob Dole once made a droll crack to the New York Times about Newt Gingrich, then the speaker of the House. “Gingrich’s staff has these five file cabinets, four big ones and this little tiny one,” Dole said. “Number one is ‘Newt’s ideas.’ Number two, ‘Newt’s ideas.’ Number three, number four, ‘Newt’s ideas.’ The little one is ‘Newt’s Good Ideas.’” Here’s one from Gingrich’s little file: he has been pushing back against some of the more thoughtless conservative reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela. The backlash has ranged from the merely tone-deaf—think of Rick Santorum drawing comparisons between Obamacare and
More than any other subject, apolitical sorts will ask me about Fox News. “Is it really crazy?” my British friends inquire, flashing the sort of smile that a botanist might exhibit while examining a newly discovered species of moss. “Is it, like, really right wing?” The question has always slightly irritated me, showing as it does that the considerable success that the Left has had in demonizing its opposition extends even across the Atlantic. Certainly, both Fox’s commentary and its ostensibly straight reporting are marked by the right-leaning proclivities of its owners. But the notion that the network is unique in
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far. The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments. Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year. Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending.
The question all week long was this: Who are you going to believe, an illegal alien or the president of the United States of America? Obviously, if it’s a president who once went by an alias, Barry Soetoro, you go with Uncle Omar, 100 percent, no questions asked. And so it was that the White House finally admitted to another, uh, misstatement — despite previous denials, Barack/Barry did sleep on his beloved Uncle Omar’s couch in Cambridge when he first moved here to attend Harvard Law School (speaking of which, we’re still waiting to see the president’s grades and his LSAT scores). But the
How do you get your arms around the catastrophe known as Obamacare? Is it even possible? At this point, I’m not sure it is. The list of individual disasters which threaten to ruin one-sixth of the U.S. economy and what has been, up until now, the best healthcare system in the world is exhaustive, and exhausting. The examples I will identify here barely scratch the surface. First but by no means foremost, we have the supposedly new and improved HealthCare.gov. Except it’s not, even the visible part. Stories still abound of people still failing to get in or to get through the enrollment
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced a new five-year strategic plan to improve safety for elderly drivers and passengers. Although they are statistically among the safest on the road, the number of older drivers is increasing dramatically — and with it, that group´s numbers of injuries and deaths. Since 2003, the population of older adults, defined as age 65 and older, has increased by 20% and the number of licensed older drivers increased by 21% to 35 million in 2012, according to NHTSA. Last year, NHTSA reported that 5,560 people older than 65 died and 214,000 were injured
A veteran Washington adviser who has worked for four Presidents on both sides of the political aisle said that the stunning Government Accountability Report report that found President Barack Obama has not had a one-on-one meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius since the passage of Obamacare over three years ago is an indictment of the entire White House operation and shows that the Obama administration has bordered on "malfeasance." "I have no doubt the White House is right, that Secretary Sebelius was in several group meetings with the president about health care," Gergen caveated, "but the whole
President Barack Obama’s Facebook page on Saturday posted a message honoring the dead from Pearl Harbor—accompanied by a picture of Obama descending the stairs next to the Pearl Harbor Memorial. The picture barely fits the name of the Arizona Memorial so it can frame Obama in the foreground. The post´s statement reads: Today, with solemn pride and reverence, let us remember those who fought and died at Pearl Harbor, acknowledge everyone who carried their legacy forward, and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the ideals for which they served. President Obama The Obama Administration´s current shipbuilding plan shrinks the size of
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack,
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the hapless, goalpost-shifting so-called "architect" of Obamacare, told Fox News´ Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that President Barack Obama´s promise "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was absolutely true--with one important caveat: if you like your doctor, "you can pay for it." Wallace grilled Dr. Emanuel, challenging his false claims that California´s enrollment was keeping pace with the percentage of the young population necessary to keep the system afloat, and pointing out that the president´s promise on doctors would collapse once people lost their insurance or their