Remind me never to travel in any "red" state!
I think you can just discount Gov. Willard Romney's statement as just posturing to run for Prez. There's no way that the Mass legislature would pass such an abortion ban.
That fucking does it. Time to open the heavy stuff. Grey Goose lemondrops at litbrit's house...
And to the War on Sex kicks into high gear.
Remember, kids, no sex with republicans. It's the law.
When I had my abortion, an ultrasound was performed. I assumed at the time that it was just a double check to make sure the embryo was implanted in the right place & didn't give it much thought.
We weren't required to see the ultrasound photo although you could if you wanted to (I did).
This was in a deep-blue state, by the way.
At any rate, I don't have a problem with an ultrasound being required as part of the process as long as seeing the picture is optional.
i have to go look for a concrete story on the romney thing. not that i don't believe it, because i do. i am just a masochist that way.
Interestingly enough--all the states you've listed are considered "red states." If Roe does get overturned, pretty much the only states you'll be able to get an abortion will probably be California and New York.
There is one thing that has always been in the back of my mind. If the religious wing-nuts do overturn Roe, and we'll assume that the red states do outlaw abortion, what will the next big issue / rallying cry for the wing-nuts be? Gay marriage? I can't see gay marriage be as strong of a rallying cry as abortion was for the past 30 years. And what is more, once Roe is overturned, you are going to see a profound shift in the political landscape as women realize that their own civil, and reproductive, rights are being supressed by male legislatures. The Democrats will then have a strong rallying cry, and perhaps an infusion of support by women as they realize the difficulties, hardships, and dangers of back ally abortions.
Overturning Roe will be the turning point in the destruction of the religious wing-nut's power over the Republican Party.
In Colorado, according to NARAL, there's a standing ban on abortion, with the exceptions of rape and incest victims and to protect the life of the mother. Notice I didn't say health. It's never been taken off our books since Roe became law. It has been challenged, I think, but it's never gone away.
Supposedly it's unconstitutional and unenforceable, but we'll see. It's kept 70% of all our counties from providing any abortion services.
Getting the number 1 listing on Google's blogsearch (type in "abortion" in the search engine) is a blog called Molly Saves The Day, which, if you scroll down a bit, offers a manual on how to perform an abortion...
Overturning Roe will be the turning point in the destruction of the religious wing-nut's power over the Republican Party.
That is just as chickenshit an argument for progressives as it is for the wingnuts who sit safely behind their keyboards, cheering on the Iraq war. It's all good as long as someone else does the dying.
Progressive who argue this are generally sitting safely in deep-blue states and/or are financially well-off in red states. The only reason they consider this an acceptable turn of events is becasue they assume that they will be able to insulate themselves from the casualties.
How many deaths do you consider to be "acceptable losses" before it happens?
What if it was not some anonymous woman in a Red state who had to do the dying for Roe? Are you willing to let your wife / sister / cousin / friend be the one who has to bleed out on her kitchen floor?
The Hawaii Law Enforcement Coalition was outraged by a court decision which overturned a manslaughter conviction of a woman whose crack ingestion killed her unborn baby, so its legislative agenda includes criminalizing 3rd-party behavior which harms an unborn fetus (mother and doctors are exempt in this proposal). See page 4 of this document.
Hawai'i is about as blue a state as you can get, but our supposedly non-partisan prosecutor is actually a Republican who's thinking of running for the soon-to-be-vacated House seat currently held by a sort-of-Democrat. The incumbent is challenging our junior Senator (Akaka, D) in a primary.
Fiat-- Nobody here wants anyone to die for an abortion. But the fact is that the majority of the people in those red states voted for the people who are trying to ban it (or didn't vote at all, same difference) so don't act like there's something wrong with us for having a "they made their bed" moment.
Frankly what we're all truly hoping that the move to ban is enough to wake people up to the reality that abortion is more than just a political football to them, they're playing to win.
Don't forget Arkansas--our governor says he supports SD-type bans: http://www.arktimes.com/Weblogs/...7c-
7ed16bb5ed5b
The Democrats will then have a strong rallying cry
Theoretically. I'll believe it when I see it.
The majority of the people in those red states voted for the people who are trying to ban it (or didn't vote at all, same difference) so don't act like there's something wrong with us for having a "they made their bed" moment.
Again, the theory and the reality are not necessarily the same. Saying that people living in red states deserve what their red politicians do to them is on a par with saying that we all deserve what Bush is doing to our country because "we" voted for him. There are pro-choice people all over the country, even in the midst of the reddest of red states. There are also innocents, like teenage girls who can't vote, but who can still become pregnant.
I don't think anyone's an acceptible casualty, let alone so we can say "I told you so."
Fiat: I'm not saying I want to see women die in the back allyways due to illegal abortions. I also don't want abortion overturned. Yes, I do live in blue-state California, which is far more liberal than the rest of the red state country, and where abortion will still be allowed. What I am saying is that overturning Roe could become that tipping point where the religious wing-nuts will not have their big, social issue rallying cry that they've been using for the past 30 years. If there is any issue that has held the Republican Party together, it is the abortion issue. You can't even move up the party ranks, without declaring yourself as pro-life. When was the last time you've seen a serious Republican presidential contender as being pro-choice? It will never happen as long as the wing-nuts control the Republican Party through their control of the social issues--and the big social issue they have is abortion. Overturn Roe, and you negate the abortion issue in the future political debates, since the Republicans have achieved their goal of overturning Roe.
Eric -- and my point, ultimately, is that the ends do not justify the means.
Massachusetts—Governor Mitt Romney says he would support a ban in South Dakota’s mold if it were brought before him.
Just about the exact opposite of the sentiment he espoused when running for governor, btw.
Not that it surprises me......
- oddjob
Fiat: I'm not expressing that the ends do not justify the means. I'm expressing alternative political outcomes. I'm trying to objectivly express alternative scenarios, if abortion is overturned. This is one alternative scenario that could happen if abortion is overturned. There are other alternative scenarios that I didn't consider--Rana pointed out that a majority of red-state voters voted to either ban abortion, or chose not to vote. I certainly didn't forsee that. But at the same time, those red state voters that allowed their legislatures to start passing the anti-abortion laws, if Roe is overturned, will have to face the long-term political consequences of women dying in back alley abortion clinics, a long-term increase in babies being sent through the foster-care system, or even worst--newborn babies being left on the back steps of stores, or dead newborn babies thrown into dumpsters that could happen within their red states. I don't want that to happen. But like it or not, these are the possible alternative outcomes if the Supreme Court overturns abortion. I wish it would not happen. But I feel it is important enough to be objective in looking at these possible political outcomes.
That is what I'm trying to say.
And Fiat, if abortion is overturned by the Supreme Court, it may also change the political nature and structure of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the long term. That is also another alternative political outcome that I was trying to analyze here in my comments.
Clearly, the tide is turning back in favor of personal responsibility.
Remember girls: Unborn women have rights, too.
Personal Responsibility? Oh, for fuck's sake...
Dave, do me a favor. Blow me sideways. The abortion debate has nothing to do with "personal responsibility," as much as you'd like it to.
I also love how you call the unborn "women," while calling women "girls." Ass.
Dave-
how's about exercising some "personal responsibility" yourself and stop trolling round here? It's become apparent that you like raking the conservative muck. Aren't there enough blogs for O'Falafel or Rush Limb-off for you to get your fix?
To me, "personal responsibility" includes the right to make decisions about YOUR OWN situation, between YOU and YOUR PHYSICIAN without having the input of a bunch of cardiac cripple, COPD candidate white men in their late 60's calling the shots to access to women's healthcare. Oh, and that includes the misguided pharmacists who preach their holier than thou attitude while displaying the ultimate in hypocrisy and not performing the basic requirements of their job, which is to dispense medicine.
Romney's not running again because he'd lose, big-time. So he should shut up.
I'm thinking this whole thing will be the death knell for the Republican party, and leave us with the Democrats and the Greens.
Works for me.
Commenting by HaloScan
