In the forty years since Roe v. Wade was passed, there has been an increasing trend on the part of states to circumvent the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion by restricting women’s access to the procedure and penalizing doctors who perform it. Now the federal government is getting in on the anti-choice action.
Last week, The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill would narrow the window currently set out by federal law and the Supreme Court, which bans most abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797, known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” was crafted by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and passed in the GOP-led House this week by a vote of 228-196.
The ban was originally crafted to apply to Washington, D.C. only and failed in the House last year, but after the conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell last month on three counts of first degree murder after babies were born live and subsequently killed at his Philadelphia abortion clinic, Franks expanded its scope to apply the ban nationwide.
To be clear, Gosnell was performing illegal late term abortions, and pro-choice activists – including Planned Parenthood – have unilaterally condemned his actions. Using the Gosnell case in an unconstitutional attempt to restrict women’s access to the services they need is shameful political exploitation and grandstanding of the worst kind. The bill, would not have its intended effect of ending abortions after 20 weeks if it becomes law. It would instead have the opposite effect, forcing women to visit providers like Gosnell who prey on desperate women because they would have no other place to turn.
In a statement issued after the Gosnell verdict, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Vice President for Communications said, “This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women’s options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.” This bill would do exactly what Ferrero warned against.
President Obama threatened to veto the bill in a statement issued Monday:
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.
If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.
He should do just that. A majority of Americans now believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a NBC/WSJ poll. What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this polling question since 1989.
Yet conservative activists in many states have been successful in passing laws that are putting increased restrictions on a woman’s right to make choices about her reproductive health. The paternalistic tone of recent state anti-abortion laws is evident to anyone who cares to look beyond the thin veneer of a press conference or a gubernatorial signing statement. Using the government to regulate women’s bodies – and what they choose to do with them – in accordance with a particular set of beliefs is the obvious motive. And now some in Congress would like to do the same.
The intended outcome of these types of laws, both state and federal, is to severely restrict – and for some women, effectively abolish – a right that was established 40 years ago.
Because they can’t get abortion outlawed outright, state legislators swayed by anti-choice activists are attempting to legislate abortion clinics out of existence. For example, there are four states in the U.S. with just one abortion clinic, according to the Guttmacher Institute – Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, and North Dakota.
The sole clinic in Mississippi was issued a temporary reprieve this spring after being told it could be shut down due to failure to comply with a controversial state law that requires all OB-GYNs who perform abortions at the clinic to have privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. The sole abortion clinic in North Dakota has sued to block a similar law, while Alabama passed the same type of law in April.
Admitting privileges can be difficult to obtain as many hospitals will not grant them to out-of-state doctors, and both MS and ND rely heavily on traveling physicians to perform the procedures. The law on hospital privileges was only one of several abortion measures signed into law in North Dakota in April, including the country’s most restrictive law, one which bars abortions at six weeks of pregnancy, which will be challenged in court as an unconstitutional violation of Roe v. Wade.
If women cannot get to a clinic that offers the procedure (or if doctors are prevented from performing it) do they really have the “choice” that Roe says they have? No they do not. The lack of available providers can effectively abolish choice for low-income women, who cannot afford to travel. The cost of gas money, time off from work, arranging childcare for other children she may have while she has to travel – these are all practical considerations of lack of access to a nearby facility that would weigh on any woman seeking an abortion, but they would weigh far more heavily on low-income women, who would then be forced to carry a pregnancy to term into poverty.
Additionally, many states have recently passed laws requiring physicians to be in the physical presence of the patient when prescribing mifespristone — a pharmaceutical drug that induces an abortion at a very early stage of pregnancy — effectively prohibiting doctors from prescribing the medication over the telephone and reducing access to abortion in rural areas.
Regulatory restrictions placed specifically on abortion providers, known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, bans on the coverage of abortion by health insurance policies that will be offered through state exchanges as part of the Affordable Care Act, and laws requiring abortion providers to perform ultrasounds and show the image of the fetus to their patients before the procedure have also been common in the last two years. This is very troubling to Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, which seeks to advance the cause of sexual and reproductive health through research, policy analysis, and public education.
According to Nash’s research, in 2000, one-third of women lived in a state that was openly hostile to abortion. By 2011, that figure had jumped to half of all women. “What we’ve seen over time is a wholesale change in the abortion landscape,” Nash said. “Particularly in the last two years, we have just seen a tidal wave of restrictions rolling across the country.” According to Nash, 92 new restrictions were enacted in 2011 and 43 were enacted in 2012, the highest and second-highest number of annual restrictions ever.
This cannot continue. State legislators and lawmakers in Washington, D.C. must look at the public shift in attitudes regarding this issue and stop their attempts to effectively nullify Roe v. Wade with these restrictive laws. The majority of Americans do not support this trend, but they are being drowned out by a vocal minority that wants to impose its own set of beliefs on everyone else. It is time for the majority to get vocal and fight back – before it’s too late.
Amy Lazenby is the associate opinion editor at FITSNews. She is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz or email her at amy@fitsnews.com.
***
240 comments
If our congress spent their time passing important legislation like immigration reform and providing constitutional oversight of the run-amok intelligence community, they wouldn’t have time to waste passing bills that have no chance of becoming law, but only serve to pander to their fundamentalist ‘base’. Shame on them all!
You don’t share the same value of life that I do… not even close.
No one is compelling you to have an abortion or anyone in your family. Apply your family values to your own family and allow the rest of us to apply our values to our families, thank you very much.
The biggest miracle of life begins at conception. There would be no life without this miracle. Taking it away at a whim or for any reason less than to save life of the mother is murder.
Is “miracle” in this case reference to all things in science you don’t understand. Oh em gee, statistical principles of quantum mechanics explain our general understanding of physics and chemistry… Miracle!
Call it what you would like. But without it, you and I wouldn’t be.
Actually your not to far from the truth. It’s Ockham’s buddy. You see, everytime science answers (purportedly) a question, it raises 6 – 10 more. When the only thing to do is simply apply Ockham’s rationale to the equation. God Created it. It really is that simple. Just cause you can explain it, doesn’t mean He didn’t. It simply means that now you understand it! :)
I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for my dad getting a stiffie either, I wouldn’t call that a miracle. (Insert inevitable “yo mama” joke here.)
Willie can quote how many children were “lost” to abortions, or hell, tally up pregnancies prevented by birth control too. How sacred will life be when it comes to feeding millions of kids born into poverty, or letting them starve? Is life sacred when deformities or defects render you a chronic hospital patient racking up bills beyond what any insurance plan’s cap is, assuming the parents have insurance? What is the sacred part of millions of kids in foster homes?
We can’t take care of the lives currently in the country, and the party that staunchly opposes abortion, and yes, access to birth control, is the party that wants to reduce welfare at what current spending levels are.
Things lose their value when you stop caring about them after a certain point. A miracle is Jesus feeding the 5,000 and yet we bitch about feeding a few million. Jesus had a few fish and loaves of bread. Pretty sure America has more than that at its disposal.
Well said, Smirks, well said. I think a lot of people who call themselves “pro-life” have proven themselves to actually be “pro-birth,” for the reasons you gave. They want so badly for a woman to carry a baby to term, but once the child is here, tough luck, kiddo!
Is that why so many Christian families are so desperate to adopt children that they are forced to look outside this country? Again, show me some real world examples of children STARVING TO DEATH in this country….t doesn’t happen…
Plenty of people adopt domestically, so your first sentence is untrue. People adopt from foreign countries because it often takes less time than domestic adoptions, there’s almost no fear of the birth mother coming back to get the child, and it’s often less expensive with fewer American legal hoops to jump through. And yes, you may turn a blind eye to it, but there are starving children in America. Check out the organization No Kid Hungry here for stats: http://www.nokidhungry.org/problem/hunger-facts We try to help the situation with welfare programs. Do you support those? If not, you’re only pro-birth, not pro-choice.
I am absolutely pro birth, pro life, pro child and pro family. So Fucking What? What is this new BS phrase that is being bandied about. Anyway you look at it, I’m not pro MURDER.
MURDER is a BS phrase for abortion.
that comment is a BS phrase for a murderer.
When will you address the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the childs rights. Does the child have rights?
People adopt out of the country because it is simpler to do, less legal shit with it. You’re welcome to advocate for loosening the needless and burdensome regulations with domestic adoption so that it isn’t so bad.
As for children starving to death? In the US, I’m not sure if it happens at a significant rate. Starving in general? Well, I can attest that it does happen. I didn’t get free lunches at school, but thank goodness it was only a little over $1 because most days of the week it was the only meal I got, if I even got that. Weekends sucked for that reason.
I hope you aren’t asserting that starvation is OK as long as you aren’t so malnourished that death is an actual possibility.
Who speaks for the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the childs rights. Does the child have rights?
Who speaks for the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the child’s rights. Does the child have rights?
Smirks;
I’m sorry. I want to make sure I understand you completely and thoroughly.
The euthanasia of unborn children is an acceptable alternative to taxation and foster care. Why not just take it to the next level and have forced sterilization? That would suit your argument just as well.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that there is nothing noble in fighting for an unborn child’s life and then abandoning them after they are born.
I think there are justifiable abortions and unjustifiable ones. I don’t agree with unjustifiable ones. I don’t think any set of laws is going to be able to restrict unjustifiable ones without unjustly stopping legitimately needed ones. I think that the best way to combat abortions and the need for welfare is to vastly increase preventative measures to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.
If we are going to take a broad ban to abortion, especially with no measurable increase in unwanted pregnancy prevention, there will be a population boom among the poorest and least able/capable of raising children, and it will have an impact on society in an extremely negative way. If you help, you are fucked by the sheer cost of a vastly increased lower class. If you don’t help, you are fucking millions of people over, many of whom may turn to fucking us over to get by. There are HUGE consequences that must be dealt with, there is no avoiding it with something like this.
To me, wanting to stop the practice of abortions and wanting to cut down on welfare and government dependence are mutually exclusive, unless you really just do not give a shit about anyone other than yourself and are fine with millions more people suffering, washing it off your conscience with the notion that “At least I fought for their right to life!” Me? I’m well aware of what destroying welfare and increasing the birth rate among the impoverished will do. We most certainly would need strong gun rights then.
Preaching for more babies born into poverty and less aid to the impoverished is morally bankrupt, regardless of the morality of whatever other beliefs are.
Fuck That.
I can appreciate what your saying, but it’s clearly a moral-less argument defined by the left.
I’ve just lost all respect for your opinions because of this. I’m sure you’ll get there one day. You don’t live on the upper west side of manhattan do you?
I’ve just lost all respect for your opinions because of this.
Even if I gave a shit about that, I suspect you never had any respect for any of my opinions except for those you agree with anyways.
When was the last time a child..or anyone starved to death in this country? This is the typical liberal excuse for abortion and it just doesn’t hold water because it doesn’t actually happen….
Starvation doesn’t become “acceptable” just because people aren’t dying from it. I’ve known people who have fallen on hard times in the past, and during those times whose only meal in a day consisted of nothing but plain rice, grits, or ramen. You can pretend whatever you want about starvation in America, but that is not acceptable nutrition for a child.
You can Google what malnutrition can do to a kid.
You are entitled to your opinion, just not entitled to force it on others. Some think capital punishment is murder, some don’t; some think killing someone in a war is murder, some don’t. The questions surrounding abortion are not questions of moral absolutes, no matter how the Right To Life supporters try to cast them as such. We live in a secular society, and as odd as it seems, I thank God for that fact every day.
I’m thinking the 10,12,or 16 year old that is abused by her father and becomes pregnant is not thinking miracle……..and why do you not consider it murder(your word) to abort when the mother’s life is in danger. Do you really not think a 12 year old’s mental life is in danger when she has to give birth to her father’s baby.
If our congress spent their time passing important legislation like immigration reform and providing constitutional oversight of the run-amok intelligence community, they wouldn’t have time to waste passing bills that have no chance of becoming law, but only serve to pander to their fundamentalist ‘base’. Shame on them all!
You don’t share the same value of life that I do… not even close.
No one is compelling you to have an abortion or anyone in your family. Apply your family values to your own family and allow the rest of us to apply our values to our families, thank you very much.
The biggest miracle of life begins at conception. There would be no life without this miracle. Taking it away at a whim or for any reason less than to save life of the mother is murder.
Is “miracle” in this case reference to all things in science you don’t understand. Oh em gee, statistical principles of quantum mechanics explain our general understanding of physics and chemistry… Miracle!
Call it what you would like. But without it, you and I wouldn’t be.
Actually your not to far from the truth. It’s Ockham’s buddy. You see, everytime science answers (purportedly) a question, it raises 6 – 10 more. When the only thing to do is simply apply Ockham’s rationale to the equation. God Created it. It really is that simple. Just cause you can explain it, doesn’t mean He didn’t. It simply means that now you understand it! :)
I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for my dad getting a stiffie either, I wouldn’t call that a miracle. (Insert inevitable “yo mama” joke here.)
Willie can quote how many children were “lost” to abortions, or hell, tally up pregnancies prevented by birth control too. How sacred will life be when it comes to feeding millions of kids born into poverty, or letting them starve? Is life sacred when deformities or defects render you a chronic hospital patient racking up bills beyond what any insurance plan’s cap is, assuming the parents have insurance? What is the sacred part of millions of kids in foster homes?
We can’t take care of the lives currently in the country, and the party that staunchly opposes abortion, and yes, access to birth control, is the party that wants to reduce welfare at what current spending levels are.
Things lose their value when you stop caring about them after a certain point. A miracle is Jesus feeding the 5,000 and yet we bitch about feeding a few million. Jesus had a few fish and loaves of bread. Pretty sure America has more than that at its disposal.
Well said, Smirks, well said. I think a lot of people who call themselves “pro-life” have proven themselves to actually be “pro-birth,” for the reasons you gave. They want so badly for a woman to carry a baby to term, but once the child is here, tough luck, kiddo!
Is that why so many Christian families are so desperate to adopt children that they are forced to look outside this country? Again, show me some real world examples of children STARVING TO DEATH in this country….t doesn’t happen…
Plenty of people adopt domestically, so your first sentence is untrue. People adopt from foreign countries because it often takes less time than domestic adoptions, there’s almost no fear of the birth mother coming back to get the child, and it’s often less expensive with fewer American legal hoops to jump through. And yes, you may turn a blind eye to it, but there are starving children in America. Check out the organization No Kid Hungry here for stats: http://www.nokidhungry.org/problem/hunger-facts We try to help the situation with welfare programs. Do you support those? If not, you’re only pro-birth, not pro-choice.
I am absolutely pro birth, pro life, pro child and pro family. So Fucking What? What is this new BS phrase that is being bandied about. Anyway you look at it, I’m not pro MURDER.
MURDER is a BS phrase for abortion.
that comment is a BS phrase for a murderer.
When will you address the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the childs rights. Does the child have rights?
People adopt out of the country because it is simpler to do, less legal shit with it. You’re welcome to advocate for loosening the needless and burdensome regulations with domestic adoption so that it isn’t so bad.
As for children starving to death? In the US, I’m not sure if it happens at a significant rate. Starving in general? Well, I can attest that it does happen. I didn’t get free lunches at school, but thank goodness it was only a little over $1 because most days of the week it was the only meal I got, if I even got that. Weekends sucked for that reason.
I hope you aren’t asserting that starvation is OK as long as you aren’t so malnourished that death is an actual possibility.
Who speaks for the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the childs rights. Does the child have rights?
Who speaks for the child? Lets hear what you have to say about the child’s rights. Does the child have rights?
Smirks;
I’m sorry. I want to make sure I understand you completely and thoroughly.
The euthanasia of unborn children is an acceptable alternative to taxation and foster care. Why not just take it to the next level and have forced sterilization? That would suit your argument just as well.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that there is nothing noble in fighting for an unborn child’s life and then abandoning them after they are born.
I think there are justifiable abortions and unjustifiable ones. I don’t agree with unjustifiable ones. I don’t think any set of laws is going to be able to restrict unjustifiable ones without unjustly stopping legitimately needed ones. I think that the best way to combat abortions and the need for welfare is to vastly increase preventative measures to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.
If we are going to take a broad ban to abortion, especially with no measurable increase in unwanted pregnancy prevention, there will be a population boom among the poorest and least able/capable of raising children, and it will have an impact on society in an extremely negative way. If you help, you are fucked by the sheer cost of a vastly increased lower class. If you don’t help, you are fucking millions of people over, many of whom may turn to fucking us over to get by. There are HUGE consequences that must be dealt with, there is no avoiding it with something like this.
To me, wanting to stop the practice of abortions and wanting to cut down on welfare and government dependence are mutually exclusive, unless you really just do not give a shit about anyone other than yourself and are fine with millions more people suffering, washing it off your conscience with the notion that “At least I fought for their right to life!” Me? I’m well aware of what destroying welfare and increasing the birth rate among the impoverished will do. We most certainly would need strong gun rights then.
Preaching for more babies born into poverty and less aid to the impoverished is morally bankrupt, regardless of the morality of whatever other beliefs are.
Fuck That.
I can appreciate what your saying, but it’s clearly a moral-less argument defined by the left.
I’ve just lost all respect for your opinions because of this. I’m sure you’ll get there one day. You don’t live on the upper west side of manhattan do you?
I’ve just lost all respect for your opinions because of this.
Even if I gave a shit about that, I suspect you never had any respect for any of my opinions except for those you agree with anyways.
When was the last time a child..or anyone starved to death in this country? This is the typical liberal excuse for abortion and it just doesn’t hold water because it doesn’t actually happen….
Starvation doesn’t become “acceptable” just because people aren’t dying from it. I’ve known people who have fallen on hard times in the past, and during those times whose only meal in a day consisted of nothing but plain rice, grits, or ramen. You can pretend whatever you want about starvation in America, but that is not acceptable nutrition for a child.
You can Google what malnutrition can do to a kid.
You are entitled to your opinion, just not entitled to force it on others. Some think capital punishment is murder, some don’t; some think killing someone in a war is murder, some don’t. The questions surrounding abortion are not questions of moral absolutes, no matter how the Right To Life supporters try to cast them as such. We live in a secular society, and as odd as it seems, I thank God for that fact every day.
I’m thinking the 10,12,or 16 year old that is abused by her father and becomes pregnant is not thinking miracle……..and why do you not consider it murder(your word) to abort when the mother’s life is in danger. Do you really not think a 12 year old’s mental life is in danger when she has to give birth to her father’s baby.
Ban Assault Abortions!
Drive-by family planning?
Ban Assault Abortions!
Drive-by family planning?
This may help a few right-wingers from right-winger areas, but on the whole, it will likely help to move many centrists to the left. The voting population in the United States has changed, and it appears the far right cannot get that through their collective head. They are continuing to damage the Republican brand. I would not want to be a moderate Republican right now.
That’s the only kind of Repuklicrat there is left in this country.
This is an issue to be taken up by both parties: Education, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and the ethics and value system that would develop with those two priorities present. It makes no sense that a country that spends more per capita on education reaps results that demonstrate such ongoing poor judgement. What are we emphasizing in our school system? Abortion and ignorance are freedom and progressive?
Progressives care more about what goes on in a slaughterhouse than what goes on in their neighborhood’s women’s clinic. Wasn’t Sanger more a bigoted, eugenics proponent than champion of the poor?
In a roundabout way, you seem to be hinting at the accurate point that right-wingers routinely prevent educators from being able to speak frankly about sex, instead insisting that teachers simply tell students to behave morally. How has that worked out for South Carolina and other conservative states in terms of teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc.? You also miss the point that freedom moves in both directions — not only in the direction allowing dimwits to purchase automatic weapons.
It’s worked great, where parents take responsibility for the children, Troll.
Come again.
Nope. 3 kids and two divorces. That’s enough for me. No More.
TGB aka Carnak the Magnificent:
Come again?
What Monica Lewinsky’s dry cleaner asked when she brought a stained dress in to be cleaned.
*Rimshot*
What are we emphasizing in our school system?
When I was in school? Don’t have sex, you might get an STD or pregnant, but if you insist, use a condom, birth control, etc.
I prefer that than “Don’t have sex, I’m not giving you any information on how to protect yourself if you do, just don’t do it.” Sorry, but human nature tends to break set rules, pretty much everyone knows that. You will not stop people from having recreational sex. It is not going to happen, regardless of what you think is “moral.”
I am not talking about morality per se. I am talking about the wholesale normalizing and subsidizing of bad behavior=no personal responsibility. Yes, unplanned pregnancies and “recreational sex” and STDs will continue to occur but the shifting of consequences (financial or otherwise) from one group to another is unethical. Throughout history, societies who have followed the path of unlatching consequences with behavior have not fared well.
“I would not want to be a moderate Republican right now.”
Why, because you might become the party’s presidential nominee? Not that the left can admit it, but the Republican Party has had the more moderate presidential candidate in at least the last 3 election cycles, and arguably the more moderate candidate since 1984 given that Gore has come out of the closet as a hardcore lefty rather than a conservative Democrat since quitting politics. All this talk of wars on women and extremists is really nothing than naked demagoguery.
As to the way the country is trending, I linked to the Gallup polling below, but more Americans identify themselves as pro-life (48%) than pro-choice (45%), and they overwhelmingly oppose late term abortion. When you add the 52% who think it should be legal only “under certain circumstances” (its not in the results, but I suspect the vast majority of those respondents mean only in situations involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother) to the 20% who want it outlawed completely and you have almost 3/4 of the population. But Democrats are certainly winning the cultural war. The same poll that finds more Americans consider themselves pro-life reveals that 51% of the people think the country is more pro-choice, with only 35% feeling that the country is more pro-life.
The point is that moderate Republicans must overcome the lunacy of the far right. Who cares who becomes the nominee?
Except for the right wing, there is no such thing as being one or the other on abortion. I would bet 99% of people are “pro life,” for example, as opposed to “pro death.” The issue is much more nuanced than the numbers you cite indicate.
“The point is that moderate Republicans must overcome the lunacy of the far right. Who cares who becomes the nominee?”
LOL. Are you really arguing that who a party chooses as its standard bearer has no bearing on the issue of the supposed extremism of a party?
The Left is more absolutist on abortion. 26% saying abortion under all circumstances versus 20% saying no under all circumstances. Not a lot of nuance in defending the right to abort a full term baby. The left vigorously defended partial birth abortion, which is indistinguishable from what Gosnell was doing, other than purposefully leaving part of the baby in the birth canal (and I supposed hygiene).
And I think it is absolutely fair to describe the hard Left’s agenda as pro-death. Indeed, someone even wrote a book to that effect. http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1596980044
I’m saying it makes little difference who runs if the party’s brand is screwed, which it is fast becoming.
Branding is about perception, not reality. And it is largely out of the party’s control, given the bias of the media.
This may help a few right-wingers from right-winger areas, but on the whole, it will likely help to move many centrists to the left. The voting population in the United States has changed, and it appears the far right cannot get that through their collective head. They are continuing to damage the Republican brand. I would not want to be a moderate Republican right now.
That’s the only kind of Repuklicrat there is left in this country.
This is an issue to be taken up by both parties: Education, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and the ethics and value system that would develop with those two priorities present. It makes no sense that a country that spends more per capita on education reaps results that demonstrate such ongoing poor judgement. What are we emphasizing in our school system? Abortion and ignorance are freedom and progressive?
Progressives care more about what goes on in a slaughterhouse than what goes on in their neighborhood’s women’s clinic. Wasn’t Sanger more a bigoted, eugenics proponent than champion of the poor?
In a roundabout way, you seem to be hinting at the accurate point that right-wingers routinely prevent educators from being able to speak frankly about sex, instead insisting that teachers simply tell students to behave morally. How has that worked out for South Carolina and other conservative states in terms of teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc.? You also miss the point that freedom moves in both directions — not only in the direction allowing dimwits to purchase automatic weapons.
It’s worked great, where parents take responsibility for the children, Troll.
Come again.
Nope. 3 kids and two divorces. That’s enough for me. No More.
TGB aka Carnak the Magnificent:
Come again?
What Monica Lewinsky’s dry cleaner asked when she brought a stained dress in to be cleaned.
*Rimshot*
What are we emphasizing in our school system?
When I was in school? Don’t have sex, you might get an STD or pregnant, but if you insist, use a condom, birth control, etc.
I prefer that than “Don’t have sex, I’m not giving you any information on how to protect yourself if you do, just don’t do it.” Sorry, but human nature tends to break set rules, pretty much everyone knows that. You will not stop people from having recreational sex. It is not going to happen, regardless of what you think is “moral.”
I am not talking about morality per se. I am talking about the wholesale normalizing and subsidizing of bad behavior=no personal responsibility. Yes, unplanned pregnancies and “recreational sex” and STDs will continue to occur but the shifting of consequences (financial or otherwise) from one group to another is unethical. Throughout history, societies who have followed the path of unlatching consequences with behavior have not fared well.
“I would not want to be a moderate Republican right now.”
Why, because you might become the party’s presidential nominee? Not that the left can admit it, but the Republican Party has had the more moderate presidential candidate in at least the last 3 election cycles, and arguably the more moderate candidate since 1984, especially given that Gore has come out of the closet as a hardcore lefty rather than a conservative Democrat since quitting politics. All this talk of wars on women and right-wing extremists taking over the party is really nothing more than naked demagoguery.
As to the way the country is trending, I linked to the Gallup polling below, but more Americans identify themselves as pro-life (48%) than pro-choice (45%), and they overwhelmingly oppose late term abortion. When you add the 52% who think it should be legal only “under certain circumstances” (its not in the results, but I suspect the vast majority of those respondents mean only in situations involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother) to the 20% who want it outlawed completely, you have almost 3/4 of the population. But Democrats are certainly winning the cultural war. The same poll that finds more Americans consider themselves pro-life reveals that 51% of the people think the country is more pro-choice, with only 35% feeling that the country is more pro-life. Sadly, demagoguery is effective.
The point is that moderate Republicans must overcome the lunacy of the far right. Who cares who becomes the nominee?
Except for the right wing, there is no such thing as being one or the other on abortion. I would bet 99% of people are “pro life,” for example, as opposed to “pro death.” The issue is much more nuanced than the numbers you cite indicate.
“The point is that moderate Republicans must overcome the lunacy of the far right. Who cares who becomes the nominee?”
LOL. Are you really arguing that who a party chooses as its standard bearer has no bearing on the issue of the supposed extremism of a party?
The Left is more absolutist on abortion. 26% saying abortion under all circumstances versus 20% saying no under all circumstances. Not a lot of nuance in defending the right to abort a full term baby. The left vigorously defended partial birth abortion, which is indistinguishable from what Gosnell was doing, other than purposefully leaving part of the baby in the birth canal (and I supposed hygiene).
And I think it is absolutely fair to describe the hard Left’s agenda as pro-death. Indeed, someone even wrote a book to that effect. http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1596980044
I’m saying it makes little difference who runs if the party’s brand is screwed, which it is fast becoming.
Branding is about perception, not reality. And it is largely out of the party’s control, given the bias of the media.
Damn Disqus, replying is all but impossible on mobile browsing. Tapping the bottom of reply or even share will register a click for an up vote. Terrible.
Damn Disqus, replying is all but impossible on mobile browsing. Tapping the bottom of reply or even share will register a click for an up vote. Terrible.
Regardless of whether this a wise political move, your characterization of public opinion on abortion is quite misleading. There has been very little change on the subject in many, many years. Roughly 70% consistently say that abortion should always be illegal, or legal only sometimes. This NBC poll is obviously an outlier.
Got any stats to back up your claims? Also, regardless of the poll you decide to use, Roe v. Wade is still in effect. Until and unless you get that overturned, political stunts like this one are unconstitutional once they become law. Legislatures in states like ND pass these laws expecting a court battle – the governor there said so when he signed their bill. So they pass laws that they know will be tied up for years in court battles financed with taxpayer money. Is that really what we want out legislatures doing with our time and money?
Yes
This is where we separate the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives masquerading as fiscal conservatives. Restricting access to these services (and to birth control) causes children to be born into poverty, like Smirks said, and then the welfare roles increase. If you want the kids to be born but don’t offer any services after that to a woman who didn’t want to bring a child into a bad situation to begin with, then you are truly pro-birth instead of pro-life, like Curious said. And don’t get started on the “they should have used protection to begin with” mess – we all know that mistakes happen and nothing other than abstaining is 100% effective, and if you think people aren’t doing what comes naturally to them, then you’re closing your eyes to reality. If you don’t like the idea of letting a woman decide what to do with her own body, then surely you’d like the idea of decreased welfare roles when kids aren’t born into poverty. No? Then you’re pro-birth, which is a morally dubious position since you care more about a fetus than an actual child (not to mention the mother), and you’re not a fiscal conservative.
You are absolutely correct on your last point. I am not a fiscal conservative. I am a conservative. I could give a rats patoot about the remainder of your argument as it is pro murder. This is a decision, not an “accident”. I don’t care if you use birth control (typical monthly crap, condoms, whatever excepting the morning after pill which is also murder…could be murder.) or not. If you make a conscious decision to end the life of another that is premeditated murder. Plain and simple. There is no ambiguity here. Your spouting off at the mouth about you know best, science knows best or anyone/anything knows best does not make it factual.
Ultimately, abortion is not going away, nor do I think it should. Abortion on demand is murder anyway you try to sugar coat it. It always has been and always will be. If a mother and father (as this is his child too) determines that the mothers life is more important than the childs, that is absolutely non of my business. That is between them and God (in your case whatever demon you worship).
“Abortion on Demand” is a BS phrase, too. It implies that women don’t actually think about this decision before they make it. If you really think people are having this procedure so flippantly, then you really are blinded by your own ideology. There are a multitude of reasons women get abortions – rape, incest, life of woman is threatened, poverty, age – and none of them are your business. It’s also a legal right, so unless you’re planning to bring a case o the Supreme Court to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, you’re really don’t have a leg to stand on.
It’s not an implication and you assume that everyone having abortions is actually thinking it through instead of thinking ‘ shit, I still gotta get back to work/down to the welfare office’.
I believe I said that for legitimate reasons its none of my concern.
Lets help you shut your fracking poor thought pattern down and close your mouth.
When does the childs right come into play? Who speaks for the murdered child? Straight answers now. No BS. Lets here how you defend the child?
A fetus isn’t a child. That’s where the fundamental disagreement lies. A fetus isn’t a person and doesn’t have rights. A woman is a person and does have rights. That’s the law, Frank, whether you like it or not. If you don’t, then work to change the Supreme Court ruling that makes it so.
Ah there it is. Liar and Murderer. Children have no rights is that it?
Children do have rights. A fetus is not a child, it’s a fetus. Thus, a fetus does not have rights. Pretty plain logic there. That’s been my argument from the beginning.
BS You’re a murdering liar. You stand behind the coat tails of the establishment and have no thoughts of your own. Speak to the childs rights. I gladly and freely express both fact and opinion on boths subjects while you run and hide behind any thing that supports your argument. What is the childs right?
A fetus isn’t a child.
I personally don’t agree with that. I think there are legitimate reasons to get abortions, and I think prevention (i.e. contraceptives) should be stressed bigtime to prevent unnecessary abortions, but a fetus is a form of human life. It is one thing when the mother didn’t have a choice in what lead up to their pregnancy, or are medically threatened, or the fetus isn’t viable, but I don’t agree with stripping the humanity from something that is clearly human in nature.
Well, we’re going to disagree on the fetus/child issue, but the rest of your argument, the part about a lack of compassion once a child is born, is where we agree, as well as on the multitude of reasons a woman seeks an abortion. Poverty is a big factor there. BTW, I always enjoy your posts, Smirks.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
BS. That’s a fracking BS ePetition site, not a poll. Further you need facts and not polls.
It’s a compilation of abortion related poll results. Poll results are facts, and relevant ones, when the issue was poll results.
Aren’t the polls showing Americans turning on Obama as his corruption is exposed????…I love that poll data…
Poll results are (edit): never relevant. It’s like saying that the 2nd amendment should be discussed when speaking of abortion.
I was addressing the comment in the article that concerned public opinion (polls) on abortion. Polls results are relevant to that issue. You’re an idiot.
Very intelligent post.
This site is infested w/ closed-minded thinking, perpetuated by the media and the left. It’s rare , but refreshing, to see honesty and truth from another poster…Thanks…
This site is infested w/ closed-minded thinking
Except for those days you don’t come.
Actually Smirks, every day you reply on this topic.
Regardless of whether this a wise political move, your characterization of public opinion on abortion is quite misleading. There has been very little change on the subject in many, many years. Roughly 70% consistently say that abortion should always be illegal, or legal only sometimes. This NBC poll is obviously an outlier.
Got any stats to back up your claims? Also, regardless of the poll you decide to use, Roe v. Wade is still in effect. Until and unless you get that overturned, political stunts like this one are unconstitutional once they become law. Legislatures in states like ND pass these laws expecting a court battle – the governor there said so when he signed their bill. So they pass laws that they know will be tied up for years in court battles financed with taxpayer money. Is that really what we want out legislatures doing with our time and money?
Yes
This is where we separate the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives masquerading as fiscal conservatives. Restricting access to these services (and to birth control) causes children to be born into poverty, like Smirks said, and then the welfare roles increase. If you want the kids to be born but don’t offer any services after that to a woman who didn’t want to bring a child into a bad situation to begin with, then you are truly pro-birth instead of pro-life, like Curious said. And don’t get started on the “they should have used protection to begin with” mess – we all know that mistakes happen and nothing other than abstaining is 100% effective, and if you think people aren’t doing what comes naturally to them, then you’re closing your eyes to reality. If you don’t like the idea of letting a woman decide what to do with her own body, then surely you’d like the idea of decreased welfare roles when kids aren’t born into poverty. No? Then you’re pro-birth, which is a morally dubious position since you care more about a fetus than an actual child (not to mention the mother), and you’re not a fiscal conservative.
You are absolutely correct on your last point. I am not a fiscal conservative. I am a conservative. I could give a rats patoot about the remainder of your argument as it is pro murder. Edit: (Getting Pregnant/Having Sex) This is a decision, not an “accident”. I don’t care if you use birth control (typical monthly crap, condoms, whatever excepting the morning after pill which is also murder…could be murder.) or not. If you make a conscious decision to end the life of another that is premeditated murder. Plain and simple. There is no ambiguity here. Your spouting off at the mouth about you know best, science knows best or anyone/anything knows best does not make it factual.
Ultimately, abortion is not going away, nor do I think it should. Abortion on demand is murder anyway you try to sugar coat it. It always has been and always will be. If a mother and father (as this is his child too) determines that the mothers life is more important than the childs, that is absolutely non of my business. That is between them and God (in your case whatever demon you worship).
“Abortion on Demand” is a BS phrase, too. It implies that women don’t actually think about this decision before they make it. If you really think people are having this procedure so flippantly, then you really are blinded by your own ideology. There are a multitude of reasons women get abortions – rape, incest, life of woman is threatened, poverty, age – and none of them are your business. It’s also a legal right, so unless you’re planning to bring a case o the Supreme Court to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, you’re really don’t have a leg to stand on.
It’s not an implication and you assume that everyone having abortions is actually thinking it through instead of thinking ‘ shit, I still gotta get back to work/down to the welfare office’.
I believe I said that for legitimate reasons its none of my concern.
Lets help you shut your fracking poor thought pattern down and close your mouth.
When does the childs right come into play? Who speaks for the murdered child? Straight answers now. No BS. Lets here how you defend the child?
A fetus isn’t a child. That’s where the fundamental disagreement lies. A fetus isn’t a person and doesn’t have rights. A woman is a person and does have rights. That’s the law, Frank, whether you like it or not. If you don’t, then work to change the Supreme Court ruling that makes it so.
Ah there it is. Liar and Murderer. Children have no rights is that it?
Children do have rights. A fetus is not a child, it’s a fetus. Thus, a fetus does not have rights. Pretty plain logic there. That’s been my argument from the beginning.
BS You’re a murdering liar. You stand behind the coat tails of the establishment and have no thoughts of your own. Speak to the childs rights. I gladly and freely express both fact and opinion on boths subjects while you run and hide behind any thing that supports your argument. What is the childs right?
A fetus isn’t a child.
I personally don’t agree with that. I think there are legitimate reasons to get abortions, and I think prevention (i.e. contraceptives) should be stressed bigtime to prevent unnecessary abortions, but a fetus is a form of human life. It is one thing when the mother didn’t have a choice in what lead up to their pregnancy, or are medically threatened, or the fetus isn’t viable, but I don’t agree with stripping the humanity from something that is clearly human in nature. Compassion for human life must include compassion for fetuses. We should strive to lower the abortion rate in all forms, whether it be reducing rape, incest, birth defects, complications, or unplanned pregnancies. We owe it to mothers in many of those instances, but we owe it to the unborn child as well. It just so happens we have the greatest control over unplanned pregnancies.
That being said, compassion for a fetus that disappears after birth is not compassion, it is blind ideology. If you are willing these souls into the world, you better have a plan on how to deal with them. Married soccer moms with six figures and a compassion for raising kids properly aren’t the biggest demographic seeking abortions; single mothers, teenagers, and the poor are. Those involve high risk factors for lacking all manner of things growing up and high risk factors of drug addiction, a life of crime, or also falling into poverty, working 80 hours a week at low-paying jobs to make ends meet. Our government and economy would strain under that weight, if not society itself.
No simple, single stance to this is going to be “right,” I guarantee you. It is a tough issue, and a vast majority do not consider all aspects of the argument.
Well, we’re going to disagree on the fetus/child issue, but the rest of your argument, the part about a lack of compassion once a child is born, is where we agree, as well as on the multitude of reasons a woman seeks an abortion. Poverty is a big factor there. BTW, I always enjoy your posts, Smirks.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
BS. That’s a fracking BS ePetition site, not a poll. Further you need facts and not polls.
It’s a compilation of abortion related poll results. Poll results are facts, and relevant ones, when the issue was poll results.
Poll results are (edit): never relevant. It’s like saying that the 2nd amendment should be discussed when speaking of abortion.
I was addressing the comment in the article that concerned public opinion (polls) on abortion. Polls results are relevant to that issue. You’re an idiot.
This was very unnerving…to me anyway. If we can give out condoms to young adults we should have them sit still long enough to listen to this testimony.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/
This was very unnerving…to me anyway. If we can give out condoms to young adults we should have them sit still long enough to listen to this testimony.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/
“To be clear, Gosnell was performing illegal late term abortions, and pro-choice activists – including Planned Parenthood – have unilaterally condemned his actions.”
Good point and good article, Amy! To use the illegal wrongful procedures and actions by Gosnell as a reason to deny women abortions, makes about as much sense as using crimes committed by criminals as a “reason” to deny good citizens the right to own and use firearms.
“To be clear, Gosnell was performing illegal late term abortions, and pro-choice activists – including Planned Parenthood – have unilaterally condemned his actions.”
Good point and good article, Amy! To use the illegal wrongful procedures and actions by Gosnell as a reason to deny women abortions, makes about as much sense as using crimes committed by criminals as a “reason” to deny good citizens the right to own and use firearms.
Man is BigT gonna crap his pants tomorrow morning when he wakes up and reads this! The explosion of expletives about “Lizenby” will be on!
When does the childs rights happen? Speak to the childs rights.
Man is BigT gonna crap his pants tomorrow morning when he wakes up and reads this! The explosion of expletives about “Lizenby” will be on!
When does the childs rights happen? Speak to the childs rights.
I believe if one of the four states look at their own court records they could find scores of OBGYN docs that could care less about what happens to the child.
I believe if one of the four states look at their own court records they could find scores of OBGYN docs that could care less about what happens to the child.
If Lazenby believes her own data she should be THRILLED the GOP is aggressively kicking the Anti-Life politicians and Obama….
If her numbers are correct, then this is the GOP’s political suicide just before the most-important Congressional election in 100 years…If the public is w/ Lazenby and the Anti-Lifers….this is a key ceding of power for ALL (that’s left) for Obama wants to do to our country…
I submit: Lazenby and the rest of the Anti-Life crowd, do not get it…This is an IN YOUR FACE slap to Obama, on the belief that he is Done for all practical political reasons…
From Gosnell, The Sequester, to gun control, Benghazi, immigration, Ft. Hood Shooter, Boston Bombing and all the Corruption, it shows that Obama is weak. And Republicans being aggressive FOR THE PEOPLE is a WINNER for the GOP….
Ah, Abortion, the Boston Bombing, and Benghazi – three things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, so they are naturally the BigT Trifecta! You really are a joke. You should stop embarrassing yourself with your posts here and get your own blog on which to do so, you know, since you claim to be a writer and everything.
When does the childs right’s happen? Speak to the childs right’s.
For the last time, Frank, a fetus is not a child. It’s a fetus. I’m sorry if science is getting in the way of your ideology.
BS You’re a murdering liar. You stand behind the coat tails of the establishment and have no thoughts of your own. Speak to the childs rights. I gladly and freely express both fact and opinion on boths subjects while you run and hide behind any thing that supports your argument. What is the child’s right?
Obama, like Gosnell, is repulsive as a leader…So the GOP is taking advantage of their failure…
I sometimes go too fast for the minds of the lethargic…forgive me…
We supposedly care so much about the lives of children that states are more than willing to take away Constitutional rights from law abiding citizens in respect to firearms but yet it’s perfectly ok to terminate a pregnancy 6 MONTHS into it? The abortion argument is so filled with hypocrisy that it’s not even funny….even when yu relent and say “OK, abortions could continue in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother..” and pro choice advocates still won’t agree…..because they want to keep murder in play…and that’s exactly what it is….6 months into a pregnancy is murder and no excuse for it…but i guess we just pick and choose abritrary ages of children to protect at all costs….
You are exactly right.
Your close. I agree with the premise of your comment. I don’t think there should be any time limits. There should be no abortion on demand. Its murder, plain and simple. No way to sugar coat it.
I dont agree with ANY time limits either but I was just using these as examples that even if u give the pro choicers an inch they still want a mile.
You are correct. My Bad. Issue just burns my but. Hey, how about asking Curious when the child gets rights. I’m gonna post that question on every post, regardless of subject till I convert a libtard or it leaves the forum.
Okay, so since you support the right to life, you’re good with all the social welfare programs that help children born into poverty?
What about the childs rights? Lets here you speak for what rights the child has?
So we must be in favor of handouts to deadbeat, irresponsible so-called parents, who hate their children, or Murder them…Hitler, and his pal the Devil are REAL Proud of vicious anti-lifers, like you….
That said: With the Astronomical increase in welfare spending, if it’s either or like you claim, there should not be ONE, SINGLE Abortion…since the government is waiting to spend all that it takes to care for children, the Anti-Lifers want to kill…
I believe we should take all steps to take care of our children but at the same time we shouldn’t be incentivizing people to have kids in order to avoid having to work which is what we’ve done especially with the black community. Stop incentivizing people to live on welfare…stop making it comfortable….
As pro-life people love to point out, abortion is tragically racist since abortion clinics “target” (AKA serve) a disproportionate amount of black mothers. That’s something to consider if you want to help get the black community off of welfare, because the last thing an unplanned pregnancy can do is make your financial situation better.
We supposedly care so much about the lives of children that states are more than willing to take away Constitutional rights from law abiding citizens in respect to firearms but yet it’s perfectly ok to terminate a pregnancy 6 MONTHS into it? The abortion argument is so filled with hypocrisy that it’s not even funny….even when yu relent and say “OK, abortions could continue in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother..” and pro choice advocates still won’t agree…..because they want to keep murder in play…and that’s exactly what it is….6 months into a pregnancy is murder and no excuse for it…but i guess we just pick and choose abritrary ages of children to protect at all costs….
Your close. I agree with the premise of your comment. I don’t think there should be any time limits. There should be no abortion on demand. Its murder, plain and simple. No way to sugar coat it.
I dont agree with ANY time limits either but I was just using these as examples that even if u give the pro choicers an inch they still want a mile.
You are correct. My Bad. Issue just burns my but. Hey, how about asking Curious when the child gets rights. I’m gonna post that question on every post, regardless of subject till I convert a libtard or it leaves the forum.
Okay, so since you support the right to life, you’re good with all the social welfare programs that help children born into poverty?
What about the childs rights? Lets here you speak for what rights the child has?
I believe we should take all steps to take care of our children but at the same time we shouldn’t be incentivizing people to have kids in order to avoid having to work which is what we’ve done especially with the black community. Stop incentivizing people to live on welfare…stop making it comfortable….
As pro-life people love to point out, abortion is tragically racist since abortion clinics “target” (AKA serve) a disproportionate amount of black mothers. That’s something to consider if you want to help get the black community off of welfare, because the last thing an unplanned pregnancy can do is make your financial situation better.
Every society that has practiced Child Sacrifice has perished….How much longer will we let the Godless left push us down a path of destruction?????
When the women of our culture proudly Demand the Killing of babies, w/o shame, we should all Weep….It is as sickening as any people can ever lower themselves…
“increasing trend on the part of states to circumvent the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion by restricting women’s access to the procedure and penalizing doctors who perform it. ”
Are any restrictions on abortion appropriate in your view? Your statements about Gosnell* suggest that you recognize some limits, so I would ask how do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable restrictions? If you recognize any restrictions as valid, please explain why the science over when a baby begins to feel pain is not a valid basis for making distinctions, since your article is curiously silent on the whole point of the bill. Which is a sad commentary on the debate from the pro-choice crowd. Never acknowledge the moral issue of the baby’s status. The PP statement you cite is a good example. The one woman Gosnell killed died due to neglect, rather than murderous intent. She is worthy of mourning and justice, to be sure, but it is an odd point of emphasis given the dozens of babies he purposely and gruesomely murdered and dismembered (I guess for those keepsakes in his jars). Yet Eric Ferraro could not spare a word for the dozens of helpless victims of Gosnell, no he only has room for outrage over the one fully grown one. A writer asked a good question about this pattern (only talk about the woman and her doctor, while ignoring the third leg of the stool, so to speak), is it simply callousness or a recoiling from the horror of what you have created?
” A majority of Americans now believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a NBC/WSJ poll. ”
This is so vague as to be meaningless sophistry on what constitutes “all or most cases”. You cite no polling data that “most” means anytime after 20 weeks. And the “most cases” language is directly contrary to Gallup’s decades long tracking of the abortion issue. Only 26% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances, and, per Gallup, 52% of Americans think it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx I would love to see polling data on how many of those 52% mean only with rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions. I suspect it is the vast majority. Add in the 20% who think it should never be legal, and almost 3/4 of the population think abortion should be allowed at best only under “certain circumstances”. Moreover, more people self-identify as pro-life (48%) than pro-choice (45%) per the latest Gallup polls, although the same poll found, no doubt through the bias of the media, that people grossly misjudge whether the American public as a whole is pro-life or pro-choice (“51% of U.S. adults say the public is mostly “pro-choice,” while 35% say “pro-life”) http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx?ref=more
“The bill, would not have its intended effect of ending abortions after 20 weeks if it becomes law. It would instead have the opposite effect, forcing women to visit providers like Gosnell who prey on desperate women because they would have no other place to turn.”
Ignore the ridiculous notion that Gosnell is a basis for LESS restriction of abortion, this idea that there will be no reduction from legal restriction is asserted as a truism by the left without any factual support. The evidence I have seen suggests otherwise – that making it harder to obtain an abortion does in fact reduce the number of abortions. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349989/if-roe-were-overturned-michael-j-new
* Although the lawyer in me notes that you really only condemned the “illegal” nature of what he does, without really getting into whether you see anything wrong on the merits in the procedures he performed. If the bill you write about passes, many abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks, even though you clearly have no objection to such a procedure on the merits. Gosnell is a monster, and recognizing as much should not depend on the arbitrary cutoff in weeks that a law adopts.
I would disagree with the position of using ‘pain’ receptors firing as a benchmark for when euthanasia should or should not be allowed. Lepers don’t feel pain. Should they be murdered.
This is a forum. Your post should go in as a letter to the editor. to much to read. Too big of a waste of time.
Abortion on demand is murder.
That might be something the author could have argued if she was interested in actually debating the issue, rather than trying to fit it into this idiotic war on women meme. But to your point, you are assuming that pain recognition is a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one.
Ah. The lawyer in you. Nuff Said.
Yes, those pesky lawyers with their “logic” and their “arguments”. They really are the worst.
Yes those pesky lawyers that gave us:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Thereby giving a business entity ‘Personhood’. On a personal level if you want to spend a bagillion dollars to elect someone, so be it. Business owners, donating as people is correct. Corporations, by virtue of their incorporations, are designed to essentially be ‘Not for profit’ in that all profits are returned to shareholders. Shareholders as persons can do as they please.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Denying citizenship to citizens by birthright.
Not to mention Roe v. Wade
The unmittigated right to kill a child at anytime and anyplace. Effectively deying citizenship to unborn children as the reside on US soil.
We need not go to the countless number of local decisions regarding child custody (most atty know factually this number to be in the 85%+ number in favor of women)
Why does it take so long to get divorced? Couldn’t be those ‘pesky’lawyers. Their not out for the money, only the benefit of their client :P 4 fracking years, but I’m finally free.
To paraphrase ‘Me thinks though dost pervert to much!’
Eat shit and die.
Lawyers gave us the Constitution and defend the liberties we are arguing about in this thread. I am glad you mentioned Dred Scott, because it gives me the opportunity to quote the classic statement from Curtis’ dissent:
“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”
Pretty neatly sums up Roe.
I don’t do family law, but I am starting to sympathize with your spouse.
“Lawyers gave us the Constitution…”
Yeah, might want to rethink that one Mr. Attorney.
“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws…”
The only “Fixed” rules that govern the interpretation of laws are those that allow free men to remain free. Who the fuck made this guy/girl king. I thought the constitution was a ‘living document’ Sotomayer et.al.
fuck you libtard.
Not all lawyers are liberals – far from it. You ever met an insurance defense attorney? I don’t agree with CL on the abortion issue, obviously, but I would never disparage him for being a lawyer. That’s an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with his argument about abortion. I do agree with his argument that “Lawyers gave us the Constitution and defend the liberties we are arguing about in this thread” – because he’s right.
1. Since when are any of the Founding Fathers lawyers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Occupations_and_finances
2. When are you going to address my question about the rights of children? Do children have rights in this country? Why is it legal to murder children?
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html
Rethink it why? 2/3 of the members of the constitutional convention were lawyers. So many of the leading Founders were lawyers that it is easier to point to those who were not than list those that were.
Your response to the Curtis quote is so incoherent I don’t even know how to respond. Curtis made no pretense to being a king. Indeed, he was criticizing that very mindset, which underlies the living Constitution concept that gave us Dred Scott (and later Roe).
BS
“The lawyer in you” should recognize the Supreme Court decision on this and federal law that sets fetal viability at 24 weeks gestation. If you don’t like that, then being a case. “Fetal pain” is not widely recognized by the scientific community in peer-reviewed journals. The validity of the life if the mother, as a sentient live person, however, is.
“Bring” a case.
Have you ever read Roe? You know it was written 40 years ago, right? So when it says viability could be as early as 24 weeks, they were talking about the state of science in the early 1970’s. You might be interested to know that there have been improvements since then.
I am not aware of any “federal law” (as opposed to the language in Roe, which you seemed to be treating separately) setting viability at 24 weeks, but many of the state acts certainly borrowed that as a reference point from Roe. But again, it is 40 year old science.
As to the science on pain, it is beyond controversy that pain receptors begin developing as early as 8 weeks and are basically developed by 20 weeks. Babies respond to physical stimulus prior to 20 weeks. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/Fetal-Pain-The-Evidence.pdf
The only real open area for discussion is the left’s contention that some higher cognitive function or human experience (i.e. post-birth conditioning) is necessary to “understand” or “perceive” the pain stimuli a baby undeniably receiving and physically responding to by 20 weeks development.
Posting a study from the National Right to Life Committee is not presenting unbiased scientific research. The lawyer in you should recognize that. Roe is still the law. It was written 40 years ago, and it still stands. Brown v. Board of Ed was written longer ago than that, and it still stands as well. Challenge it if you don’t like it, but posting pseudo-science from an organization with a stated bias and agenda doesn’t help your “case.”
But Curiousless, neither is simply stating that a child is something other than a child sufficient to define the child as something other than a child. Therefore, when will you address the childs rights in the abortion debate? I’m gonna follow you around and post this on everyone of your posts. You will get tired of coming to this site. I’m gonna ask everyone I can to do the same thing. Family, friends and other forum posters. You don’t get to be right by spouting BS anymore. When does the child get his or her rights?
Its not a study by NRLC and it in no way purports to be their research. It is a compilation of medical sources on the issue, none of which you have – or, I suspect, can – refute.
The Roe standard was supposedly viability (with a loophole that swallowed the rule, but I digress), and pegged viability as low as 24 weeks under then current medical capabilities. Viability is approaching 20 weeks now, yet you want to lock in stone 40 year old science. Why do you hate science?
As to primacy of Roe, many liberal scholars admit that it is a horribly reasoned opinion, even if they agree with the result. For instance: See the attached where Lawrence Tribe, Justice Ginsburg and others are quoted on the shaky reasoning of Roe. http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661 The SCOTUS is right because it is final, it is not final because it is right.
SCOTUS can and has reversed itself, so it’s not final. Why don’t you bring a case, CL?
What kind of case do you want me to file? Are you going to be my plaintiff?
I think the point is that unless and until Roe v. Wade is overturned, it’s still the law of the land, and these laws that run counter to that decision aren’t going to stand. If you don’t like Roe, challenge it to see if you can get it overturned. That’s the way it works.
Or Congress can pass a law changing the status quo that a public interest group challenges, and it makes its way up to SCOTUS. That’s the way it typically works, be it abortion or the Commerce Clause (e.g. Obamacare).
From what I’ve read, currently 24 weeks is when the fetus has around a 50% chance of survival. 21 weeks or less has a less-than-1% chance of survival. The earliest survived premature birth I could find is 21 weeks 5 days, back in 2011 (apologies in advance for linking to the Daily Mail):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html
Pain receptors is entirely another thing, though.
Roe created this regime where it was not murder if the baby was not viable (although it did not really limit itself to that) and said 28 weeks was truly “viable” in the sense you suggest as far as likelihood of survival, but that a baby could survive as early as 24 weeks. The 24 then gets cemented as law by many states, yet babies are surviving earlier than that thanks to the advances of science.
“increasing trend on the part of states to circumvent the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion by restricting women’s access to the procedure and penalizing doctors who perform it. ”
Are any restrictions on abortion appropriate in your view? Your statements about Gosnell* suggest that you recognize some limits, so I would ask how do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable restrictions? If you recognize any restrictions as valid, please explain why the science over when a baby begins to feel pain is not a valid basis for making distinctions, since your article is curiously silent on the whole point of the bill. Which is a sad commentary on the debate from the pro-choice crowd. Never acknowledge the moral issue of the baby’s status. The PP statement you cite is a good example. The one woman Gosnell killed died due to neglect, rather than murderous intent. She is worthy of mourning and justice, to be sure, but it is an odd point of emphasis given the dozens of babies he purposely and gruesomely murdered and dismembered (I guess for those keepsakes in his jars). Yet Eric Ferraro could not spare a word for the dozens of helpless victims of Gosnell, no he only has room for outrage over the one fully grown one. A writer asked a good question about this pattern (only talk about the woman and her doctor, while ignoring the third leg of the stool, so to speak), is it simply callousness or a recoiling from the horror of what you have created?
” A majority of Americans now believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a NBC/WSJ poll. ”
This is so vague as to be meaningless sophistry on what constitutes “all or most cases”. You cite no polling data that “most” means anytime after 20 weeks. And the “most cases” language is directly contrary to Gallup’s decades long tracking of the abortion issue. Only 26% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances, and, per Gallup, 52% of Americans think it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx I would love to see polling data on how many of those 52% mean only with rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions. I suspect it is the vast majority. Add in the 20% who think it should never be legal, and almost 3/4 of the population think abortion should be allowed at best only under “certain circumstances”. Moreover, more people self-identify as pro-life (48%) than pro-choice (45%) per the latest Gallup polls, although the same poll found, no doubt through the bias of the media, that people grossly misjudge whether the American public as a whole is pro-life or pro-choice (“51% of U.S. adults say the public is mostly “pro-choice,” while 35% say “pro-life”) http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx?ref=more
“The bill, would not have its intended effect of ending abortions after 20 weeks if it becomes law. It would instead have the opposite effect, forcing women to visit providers like Gosnell who prey on desperate women because they would have no other place to turn.”
Ignore the ridiculous notion that Gosnell is a basis for LESS restriction of abortion, this idea that there will be no reduction from legal restriction is asserted as a truism by the left without any factual support. The evidence I have seen suggests otherwise – that making it harder to obtain an abortion does in fact reduce the number of abortions. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349989/if-roe-were-overturned-michael-j-new
* Although the lawyer in me notes that you really only condemned the “illegal” nature of what he does, without really getting into whether you see anything wrong on the merits in the procedures he performed. If the bill you write about passes, many abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks, even though you clearly have no objection to such a procedure on the merits. Gosnell is a monster, and recognizing as much should not depend on the arbitrary cutoff in weeks that a law adopts.
I would disagree with the position of using ‘pain’ receptors firing as a benchmark for when euthanasia should or should not be allowed. Lepers don’t feel pain. Should they be murdered.
This is a forum. Your post should go in as a letter to the editor. to much to read. Too big of a waste of time.
Abortion on demand is murder.
That might be something the author could have argued if she was interested in actually debating the issue, rather than trying to fit it into this idiotic war on women meme. But to your point, you are assuming that pain recognition is a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one.
Ah. The lawyer in you. Nuff Said.
Yes, those pesky lawyers with their “logic” and their “arguments”. They really are the worst.
Yes those pesky lawyers that gave us:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Thereby giving a business entity ‘Personhood’. On a personal level if you want to spend a bagillion dollars to elect someone, so be it. Business owners, donating as people is correct. Corporations, by virtue of their incorporations, are designed to essentially be ‘Not for profit’ in that all profits are returned to shareholders. Shareholders as persons can do as they please.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Denying citizenship to citizens by birthright.
Not to mention Roe v. Wade
The unmittigated right to kill a child at anytime and anyplace. Effectively deying citizenship to unborn children as the reside on US soil.
We need not go to the countless number of local decisions regarding child custody (most atty know factually this number to be in the 85%+ number in favor of women)
Why does it take so long to get divorced? Couldn’t be those ‘pesky’lawyers. Their not out for the money, only the benefit of their client :P 4 fracking years, but I’m finally free.
To paraphrase ‘Me thinks though dost pervert to much!’
Eat shit and die.
Lawyers gave us the Constitution and defend the liberties we are arguing about in this thread. 2/3 of the members of the convention were lawyers, and the writers of the Federalist papers were all lawyers. So I am proud to be a lawyer and to be able to make arguments rather than just hurling insults.
I am glad you mentioned Dred Scott, because it gives me the opportunity to quote the classic statement from Curtis’ dissent:
“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”
Pretty neatly sums up Roe.
I don’t do family law, but I am starting to sympathize with your spouse.
“Lawyers gave us the Constitution…”
Yeah, might want to rethink that one Mr. Attorney.
“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws…”
The only “Fixed” rules that govern the interpretation of laws are those that allow free men to remain free. Who the fuck made this guy/girl king. I thought the constitution was a ‘living document’ Sotomayer et.al.
fuck you libtard.
Not all lawyers are liberals – far from it. You ever met an insurance defense attorney? I don’t agree with CL on the abortion issue, obviously, but I would never disparage him for being a lawyer. That’s an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with his argument about abortion. I do agree with his argument that “Lawyers gave us the Constitution and defend the liberties we are arguing about in this thread” – because he’s right.
1. Since when are any of the Founding Fathers lawyers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Occupations_and_finances
2. When are you going to address my question about the rights of children? Do children have rights in this country? Why is it legal to murder children?
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html
Rethink it why? 2/3 of the members of the constitutional convention were lawyers. So many of the leading Founders were lawyers that it is easier to point to those who were not than list those that were.
Your response to the Curtis quote is so incoherent I don’t even know how to respond. Curtis made no pretense to being a king. Indeed, he was criticizing that very mindset, which underlies the living Constitution concept that gave us Dred Scott (and later Roe).
BS
“The lawyer in you” should recognize the Supreme Court decision on this and federal law that sets fetal viability at 24 weeks gestation. If you don’t like that, then being a case. “Fetal pain” is not widely recognized by the scientific community in peer-reviewed journals. The validity of the life if the mother, as a sentient live person, however, is.
“Bring” a case.
Have you ever read Roe? You know it was written 40 years ago, right? So when it says viability could be as early as 24 weeks, they were talking about the state of science in the early 1970’s. You might be interested to know that there have been improvements since then.
I am not aware of any “federal law” (as opposed to the language in Roe, which you seemed to be treating separately) setting viability at 24 weeks, but many of the state acts certainly borrowed that as a reference point from Roe. But again, it is 40 year old science.
As to the science on pain, it is beyond controversy that pain receptors begin developing as early as 8 weeks and are basically developed by 20 weeks. Babies respond to physical stimulus prior to 20 weeks. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/Fetal-Pain-The-Evidence.pdf
The only real open area for discussion is the left’s contention that some higher cognitive function or human experience (i.e. post-birth conditioning) is necessary to “understand” or “perceive” the pain stimuli a baby undeniably receiving and physically responding to by 20 weeks development.
Posting a study from the National Right to Life Committee is not presenting unbiased scientific research. The lawyer in you should recognize that. Roe is still the law. It was written 40 years ago, and it still stands. Brown v. Board of Ed was written longer ago than that, and it still stands as well. Challenge it if you don’t like it, but posting pseudo-science from an organization with a stated bias and agenda doesn’t help your “case.”
But Curiousless, neither is simply stating that a child is something other than a child sufficient to define the child as something other than a child. Therefore, when will you address the childs rights in the abortion debate? I’m gonna follow you around and post this on everyone of your posts. You will get tired of coming to this site. I’m gonna ask everyone I can to do the same thing. Family, friends and other forum posters. You don’t get to be right by spouting BS anymore. When does the child get his or her rights?
Its not a study by NRLC and it in no way purports to be their research. It is a compilation of medical sources on the issue, none of which you have – or, I suspect, can – refute.
The Roe standard was supposedly viability (with a loophole that swallowed the rule, but I digress), and pegged viability as low as 24 weeks under then current medical capabilities. Viability is approaching 20 weeks now, yet you want to lock in stone 40 year old science. Why do you hate science?
As to primacy of Roe, many liberal scholars admit that it is a horribly reasoned opinion, even if they agree with the result. For instance: See the attached where Lawrence Tribe, Justice Ginsburg and others are quoted on the shaky reasoning of Roe. http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661 The SCOTUS is right because it is final, it is not final because it is right.
SCOTUS can and has reversed itself, so it’s not final. Why don’t you bring a case, CL?
What kind of case do you want me to file? Are you going to be my plaintiff?
I think the point is that unless and until Roe v. Wade is overturned, it’s still the law of the land, and these laws that run counter to that decision aren’t going to stand. If you don’t like Roe, challenge it to see if you can get it overturned. That’s the way it works.
Or Congress can pass a law changing the status quo that a public interest group challenges, and it makes its way up to SCOTUS. That’s the way it typically works, be it abortion or the Commerce Clause (e.g. Obamacare).
From what I’ve read, currently 24 weeks is when the fetus has around a 50% chance of survival. 21 weeks or less has a less-than-1% chance of survival. The earliest survived premature birth I could find is 21 weeks 5 days, back in 2011 (apologies in advance for linking to the Daily Mail):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html
Pain receptors is entirely another thing, though.
Roe created this regime where it was not murder if the baby was not viable (although it did not really limit itself to that) and said 28 weeks was truly “viable” in the sense you suggest as far as likelihood of survival, but that a baby could survive as early as 24 weeks. The 24 then gets cemented as law by many states, yet babies are surviving earlier than that thanks to the advances of science.
Dear Amy Lazenby,
Young lady…U got spunk. That much is for sure; but as for your grasp of reality is concerned; you need to get out to an abortion facility and actually take a look at how these fine women (and doting men) get to the facility in the first place..!!
Geez…!!
How do 99.9% of these women get to a facility..?? By car and by bus, right..!? Well, just how many of the children that are “saved” from these facilities actually go on to grow up to be SLAVES to foreign OIL at the gas pump or will go off to DIE for foreign OIL…??
Amy have you ever thought about that..?? Heck, Amy, have you ever thought of how YOU could help save lives by actually supporting your local economy..??… by begging for LOCAL Algae Bio-diesel to be grown in you hometown by people that are out of WORK..?? Maybe these fine people that are out of work who have abortions would not have time to get pregnant as much if they had a JOB to go to….. to help the WAR effort..??
Amy, you can scream about abortions all you want too…go ahead..!! BUT, it is still a woman’s right to choose at this point. Just like you have a choice to remain a SLAVE to foreign OIL at the pump you by your gas at….that is getting our service personnel KILLED…!!!
Amy, you need to get some clarity..!! Do you have a clue what is going on in Syria that effects our state’s economy..?? DO you have a clue…Amy..? We wonder if your husband does…?? Maybe he is like most other fine citizens in the comment section who never stop to even consider such financial implications and ramifications..!!!?
Amy, do you like working for FITSNEWS..?? Then what are you going to do to make it different than the Post and Courier..?
Amy, did you go to journalism school to learn how to write to please an editor or did you go to journalism school to inform citizens of what they need to know..?
Amy, for the love of the Carolina flag, you need to get in front of Nancy Mace and ask her some questions about “abortions” in Pakistan and Syria that is gonna cost our kids dearly in the future..!!
Amy…..its time to grow up.
Lazenby gets bold for the Anti-Life Campaign AFTER Gosnell is exposed as a brutal murderer, and you claim by driving a car…we’re killers..
This site gets nuttier and nuttier by the day…
Thank God Almaighty for a GOP Congress that is fighting the fight for good, and the people..and I’d LOVE to oust Obama, to start pumping OUR oil, and take the Obama Gas-Price Burden off Families…the ones that don’t kill their babies, like Lazenby wants you to do…
Tango……no not killers……more along the lines of un-informed Pension investors….!
Oh: Thanks for clering that up, Phil….
This site gets nuttier and nuttier by the day…
Someone call a doctor!
I just ruptured my spleen.
Dude, what’s with your obsession with tying oil to everything this lady writes? And with her?
It’s T
Dude……
maybe you need to watch this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZMg4vFcRQs
Amy does not have two left feet or…. Ugly shoes…!!
She just doesn’t understand that FITSNEWS is a law office…!!
When a jury realizes that everyone who comments here at FITSNEWS is a SLAVE to foreign OIL and are not being told exactly what to do about it……what will the ramifications be to the popularity of this website and how it will be USED..!!!???
Think DUDE…..if you cut off a country’s OIL supply and energy sector…..just how many “abortions” will that result in..??
The abortion issue is really a distractive issue. It keeps concerned women from realizing what their babies will grow up to DIE for if they choose NOT to have an abortion.
I do not just tie OIL to Amy……….it is tied to everything this website DOES……period..!!
So, how is this website doing everything possible to beat the Post and Courier and tell its readers how South Carolina can help the WAR effort..?? Every gallon of gas sold in our state is foreign..! Do we have Oil wells here in our state..?? Nope..? So, what leverage do South Carolina citizens have as consumers to help the WAR effort..?
The Law Offices of FITS News, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe; PA , for one, welcome our Canadian and Mexican foreign oil supplier overlords.
?
Dear Amy Lazenby,
Young lady…U got spunk. That much is for sure; but as for your grasp of reality is concerned; you need to get out to an abortion facility and actually take a look at how these fine women (and doting men) get to the facility in the first place..!!
Geez…!!
How do 99.9% of these women get to a facility..?? By car and by bus, right..!? Well, just how many of the children that are “saved” from these facilities actually go on to grow up to be SLAVES to foreign OIL at the gas pump or will go off to DIE for foreign OIL…??
Amy have you ever thought about that..?? Heck, Amy, have you ever thought of how YOU could help save lives by actually supporting your local economy..??… by begging for LOCAL Algae Bio-diesel to be grown in you hometown by people that are out of WORK..?? Maybe these fine people that are out of work who have abortions would not have time to get pregnant as much if they had a JOB to go to….. to help the WAR effort..??
Amy, you can scream about abortions all you want too…go ahead..!! BUT, it is still a woman’s right to choose at this point. Just like you have a choice to remain a SLAVE to foreign OIL at the pump you by your gas at….that is getting our service personnel KILLED…!!!
Amy, you need to get some clarity..!! Do you have a clue what is going on in Syria that effects our state’s economy..?? DO you have a clue…Amy..? We wonder if your husband does…?? Maybe he is like most other fine citizens in the comment section who never stop to even consider such financial implications and ramifications..!!!?
Amy, do you like working for FITSNEWS..?? Then what are you going to do to make it different than the Post and Courier..?
Amy, did you go to journalism school to learn how to write to please an editor or did you go to journalism school to inform citizens of what they need to know..?
Amy, for the love of the Carolina flag, you need to get in front of Nancy Mace and ask her some questions about “abortions” in Pakistan and Syria that is gonna cost our kids dearly in the future..!!
Amy…..its time to grow up.
Dude, what’s with your obsession with tying oil to everything this lady writes? And with her?
It’s T
Dude……
maybe you need to watch this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZMg4vFcRQs
Amy does not have two left feet or…. Ugly shoes…!!
She just doesn’t understand that FITSNEWS is a law office…!!
When a jury realizes that everyone who comments here at FITSNEWS is a SLAVE to foreign OIL and are not being told exactly what to do about it……what will the ramifications be to the popularity of this website and how it will be USED..!!!???
Think DUDE…..if you cut off a country’s OIL supply and energy sector…..just how many “abortions” will that result in..??
The abortion issue is really a distractive issue. It keeps concerned women from realizing what their babies will grow up to DIE for if they choose NOT to have an abortion.
I do not just tie OIL to Amy……….it is tied to everything this website DOES……period..!!
So, how is this website doing everything possible to beat the Post and Courier and tell its readers how South Carolina can help the WAR effort..?? Every gallon of gas sold in our state is foreign..! Do we have Oil wells here in our state..?? Nope..? So, what leverage do South Carolina citizens have as consumers to help the WAR effort..?
The Law Offices of FITS News, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe; PA , for one, welcome our Canadian and Mexican foreign oil supplier overlords.
?
Bottom line…..if it’s not your womb….back away,and leave it to the woman who OWNS it.
Bottom line…..if it’s not your womb….back away,and leave it to the woman who OWNS it.
Tired rhetoric…
Tired rhetoric…
It’s time to start being honest about the abortion issue. Abortion up to 20 weeks is legal in the United States. The issue is not abortion but late term or ‘partial birth’ abortion. If you aren’t familiar with the procedure look up, late term/partial birth abortion. This procedure has been banned since 2003, but certain states, many democrats and Planned Parenthood violate the law every year. It was banned for being considered murder of a viable fetus. 20 weeks is plenty of time, to decide for an abortion, especially since most of them are paid for by tax payers.
Partial birth abortion or ‘Intact dialation and extraction’, which democrats prefer, is a horrible procedure, look it up online. I was fully supportive of abortion until I learned what partial birth and post birth (infanticide) abortions were.
Reproductive rights do not equal murdering an infant. Shaheen just pulled her ad accusing Brown of opposing, women’s right to choose. When it is discovered what they are actually supporting, and mandating taxpayers to pay for, millions of Americans are going to be furious and disgusted.
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/17/abortionist-just-gets-3-month-license-suspension-for-illegal-late-term-abortions/