Letters to the Editor
-
Fools
"Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in declaring that the Supreme Court's "abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution."
It is not only the lack humanity that is so startling - don't they know that the procedure they outlawed is rare and only used in extreme cases, and only because it is the best choice out of bad ones, and usually in situations where the parents do want to keep the pregnancy, but due to extreme medical conditions have to end it?
In addition to their lack of compassion, their grotesque interpretation of the Constitution is even more startling. If they are suggesting there has to be a specific language in the Constitutional for a womans right to choose, they are idiots. In a totalitarian state, individual rights are only those granted by the state, in a free state, individual rights are those not explicitly denied by the state. The Constitution is not there as a tool to deny rights but to keep the state that wants to deny rights in check. Claiming that there is no basis in the Constitution for a womans right to choose, infers there is Constitutional basis for determining an embryo is a person with inalienable rights.
Deplorable stonehearted fools.
-
Which is as it should be
However if the court has tipped one judge to the right, this case will probably lead to a complete reversal on Roe v. Wade.
Which is as it should be, because it will just return us to the status quo ante. You will have to use the power of persuasion to convince people one state at a time on the merits of abortion on demand for any reason or no reason and not rely on friendly judges to override popular will.
Good luck with that.
-
Wrong
this procedure, even as described by the Right, is in some cases the safest thing for a mother's health (rare, everyone agrees).
Wrong. The American Medical Association said the procedure is never medically justified, and I'm sure that's what factored in the court's decision.
-
best represented their views
The 93K people in FL who voted for the candidate that best represented their views, did not get the candidate that best represented their views, they got the most shallow, incompetent and corrupt administration arguably in the history of the nation. Along with a never ending war as a bonus.
So go feel proud about that.
-
Good
Good. I'm glad anonymous agrees it's Doctors and The American Medical Association who should be making medical decisions on the behalf of their patients - not bloviating politicians and lawyers and judges in a court room.
-
more lies
Contrary to the lies of supporters of this bill, late term abortions of are only performed in this manner if they are not viable. -- dfield
Contrary to the lies of dfield, even the abortion doctors themselves admit to performing most intact D&E's on normal, healthy babies.
Dr. Martin Haskell, who boasts of inventing the procedure, told American Medical News that most of his partial-birth abortions were elective, meaning there was no medical reason for the abortion. (Diane M. Gianelli, "Shock-Tactic Ads Target Late-Term Abortion Procedure," American Medical News, July 5, 1993, p. 1.)
Ohio Dr. Martin Ruddock said that more than one-half of his partial-birth abortions involve normal fetuses. (David Brown, "Late Term Abortions," Washington Post, September 17, 1996, p. Z12.)
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, confessed to that he "lied through [his] teeth" during a 1995 interview with ABC’s "Nightline" when he stated that women had partial-birth abortions only in the most extreme circumstances of life endangerment or fetal anomaly. Fitzsimmons went on to say that a vast majority of these abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers. (Diane M. Gianelli, "Medicine Adds to Debate on Late-Term Abortion," American Medical News, March 3, 1997, p. 3; David Stott, "An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied," The New York Times, February 26, 1997, p. A12.)
Shall I go on?
-
a familiar canard
I'm glad anonymous agrees it's Doctors and The American Medical Association who should be making medical decisions on the behalf of their patients - not bloviating politicians and lawyers and judges in a court room.
A familiar canard, but they in fact do it all the time. They set forth procedures for sound medical practice, who may practice medicine and in what places, what are the standards for those people and place, who may receive what procedures, who may perform them, etc. etc. etc.
Why are you not concerned about the laws that say no one under the age of 18 can get a tattoo or a piercing without a parent's permission?
Highly selective outrage, yours.
-
sajwan
So you believe that in America, it is your duty not only to ignore your own principles in the voting booth, if your principles can't win the day -- but also to excoriate others who do vote their principles (at least if they are liberal; right-wingers and idiots who think George Bush is okay are excused). Real gutsy there.
Full disclosure: I voted for Gore, though Nader better represented my views at the time (I was a pragmatist). But I loathe hearing self-righteous folks attack others for deciding to vote their principles -- especially when they give the fifty million who voted for Bush a pass.
To think that everyone who isn't a GOP racist must work for the Democrats isn't really a whole lot different than Bush's outlook -- you're either with us or against us. Way to make the tent bigger.
-
Do Not Trust Alitos Opinions, He Wants a Fifth Scalia on the Court, So He is Playing "Kennedy"
I will make this short and sweet. I have been watching Alito. His opinions since he joined the Court do not match his prevoius rulings. He is playing a political game, possibly of his own devising, or maybe Karl Rove and the Republicans told him what to do. He is trying to pretend to be a moderate of the Justice Kennedy mold, in order to lull the nation and Senate Democrats into a false sense of security.
Were Alito to make the kind of rulings and deliver the kind of extreme right wing, anti-abortion opinions that he wants to make--and which he will soon start making as soon as the Scalias control the Court--the nation's women and Senate Democrats would subject all Supreme Court nominees in the future to much more rigorous scrutiny.
Didn't Alito's mother tell us about his political views on abortion? Mothers always know.