Author
|
Topic: Is it time for Roe v. Wade to go away?
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 24 July 2005 12:48 PM
I just read this article by Kathy Pollitt, originally published in the Nation, here taken from the SF Chronicle.Scary, but fascinating. edited to add quote: Overturning Roe would definitely energize pro-choicers and wake up the young featherheads who think their rights are safe because they have always had them. That's why some staunch pro-choicers have bring-it-on moments. "Overnight," writes Susan Estrich in a recent syndicated column, "every election, for every state office, would become a referendum not on parental consent or partial birth abortion, but on whether regular old middle-class adult women could get first-trimester abortions. When you think about it that way, you have to ask, 'What could be better for Democrats?'." [ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 24 July 2005 01:25 PM
Thanks for posting that article.Politically, it would be devastating to the Republicans if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The issue of abortion would then become a purely political question and, since a majority of American favour abortion rights (to one degree or another), it would be an issue that would pull a lot of moderate Republicans to the Democratic camp. Given the close split in "popularity" between the Dems and the Repubs, it would very likely be enough to move the Presidency and the Congress back to the hands of the Democrats. I tend to look at the the decision in a manner similar to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. By the early 1970s, the right to an abortion was, politically, becoming more and more acceptable to Americans and more and more states were permitting it. It simply was not the lighting rod of an issue it became after Roe was handed down. Ultimately, I think a national concensus would have been reached and a very devisive issue put to rest democratically, rather than by judicial fiat. Now that a generation (or two) of women have lived under Roe's rights, I agree with Justice O'Connor that it should be left as it is. But, if it is overturned by a future Court, it will be bad news for the Republicans.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 24 July 2005 02:14 PM
To me George Bush is insincere on a vast number of things - right from his faith, to his beliefs on abortion, to many matters of politics - I had lacked a great deal of confidence that words would translate into action. The reality is that if every politician who professed to be prolife had made changes on the Supreme Court that reflected those promises (i.e. Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor)Roe vs Wade would have been overturned years ago. I didn't actually believe that George Bush would appointment someone who reflected the views he professes to have an abortion. My hesitation was echoed a lot by persons who in print media refused to express confidence regarding his abortion views. Even though he had written that he felt that Roe vs Wade had poor premises behind it that another set of arguments wouldn't have arrived him at the very same conclusion. In the last week or so it has been made public that his wife was on the Exectutive of feminists for life and that she remains their legal counsel. That should offer clarity. I don't have a moment's hesitation now that I understand his views. There have been articles published recently that suggest that the Democrats feel that their abortion stance has been a very divisive issue that has left them without key support. It is their alleged that we will see a newer softer face re: their views on abortion. Even Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary, has made comments that were interpreted as being a softening of her stance. I saw articles that included comments from prochoice activists suggesting that she needed to not soften it to the extent that her views appeared wishy-washy. Given that she has received 100% ratings from pro-choice activists that's significant - at least in my mind. I'm not sure that it's a given that holding a prochoice view is going to translate into tonnes of support. quote: Politically, it would be devastating to the Republicans if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The issue of abortion would then become a purely political question and, since a majority of American favour abortion rights (to one degree or another),
I would have said one time not too long ago but the last election in the USA changed that for me. I am not so sure that's the truth. I bounce back and forth in my mind about what is the right view. I am absolutely convinced that if John Kerry had been convincingly prolife that he would have won. The way that Karl Rove brought out the fundamentalists and rallied every vote that he could -whether you disagree with George or not - certainly speaks volumes about the importance of that political base. Those people weren't coming out for the Iraq war - they were coming out because of abortion. Christians were getting emailed and sermoned about their duty to stand up on this issue and to vote. They had a massive drive effort to get out the vote of the house bound even. I would NEVER have imagined that abortion would have been a priority during a time of war to be honest. It was, in my view, what shifted the tide at the election. If Bush had been prochoice - President Kerry would be in power. At the same time with very real threats to abortion - something I didn't expect within my lifetime let alone right now - there is really not that much happening to oppose these anticipated changed. There are places like move on trying to inspire people in favour of abortion but really I'd have thought marches would have been happening! Will the Republicans feel the wrath if they do this? No doubt!! They will have people marching to washington, making views on abortion a litmus test as they vote themselves, and so forth. They experienced the very same thing with the war - some of the largest demonstration in history - and George was absolutely resolved. Resolved AND re-elected. You have to remember that many of the people who regard this as deciding issue for them as they cast their vote - well, they wouldn't be voting for George anyway! Mostly he's going to further anger people that wouldn't vote for him if wore an "I had an abortion" t-shirt right from the National Organization of Women!! Also here are MANY Catholics who vote democrat just because they've gotten into that routine. People who have always sort of looked at the "WHOLE package" (edited) and decided they are MORE comfortable with democrats DESPITE their views on abortion and sort of thought "abortion is here to stay anyway". They didn't see actually changing abortion laws as feasible. Will those people prove to stay democrats if the Republicans actually demonstrate that they CAN change this - I am betting a sizable majority be voting for the Republicans if they pull it off. Bush and company will experience the rewards of creating LIFETIME republicans amongst a VERY faithful voting blck if they make this happen. He's going to have to balance that with the anticipated anger of many others - most of which wouldn't vote for him no matter what! And while you say that most americans are in favour of abortion to one degree or another you have to appreciate that Karl Rove is really going to want to focus on those areas where people's comfort starts to waver and he will put a face to the situation. Do you remember when Mr. Clinton brought forward women who had had partial birth abortions because of especially sad circumstances? Putting a face to the person making the decision helped to soften the perception of his decision. Mr. Rove will do the same. Just to toss out a few examples - he's going to bring someone like Gianna out with George Bush on the campaign trail which will cause marked discomfort - I mean who wants to sit there with her and talk about how prochoice they are? It will - and has -made even some of the most ardent activists decidedly uncomfortable. He'll bring forward parents who have minor children have abortions that they weren't involved in. Cases that would tug at the heart strings like matters where the girl died (a very rare complication) or was taken there by an older man that impregnated her. He's going to get into the track record of some clinics into turning a blind eye to statuatory rape. He's going to do all of this and more. Karl Rove has a history of being almost magical in terms of his ability to add to his bag of tricks. George isn't going to fire him - NOT EVER. The whole thing going to be nasty beyond imagination on both sides. At one time I thought it would have been an act of political suicide to hold George's stated views on abortion and actually begin to create the changes but now I'm not so sure. This is going to be the most interesting nomination process in years. [ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ] [ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646
|
posted 24 July 2005 03:22 PM
I dunno, Hailey's analysis of the politics of abortion in the US sounds dead-on to me. Anyway, skdadl, is there any indication that Bush is willing to fire Karl Rove short of Rove getting convicted of a criminal offence?I gather that Hailey has her finger on the pulse of the Christian right in a way many of us lefty babblers don't. And unfortunately it's the Christian right, not lefty Canadians, who set the parameters of what is or is not politically feasible in the US. Political outcomes that sound crazy and improbable to us are perfectly feasible down here. I think Hailey's right, and it scares me. As for the people who say the abortion issue should be determined "democratically" by state legislatures, well, that's what's going to happen whether we like it or not. The problem is, I'm not confident that mainstream American voters are pro-choice enough to defend legal, safe, accessible abortion. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm concerned that until women start dying from illegal, unsafe abortions as they did in the 1960s and earlier, American voters will not believe that abortion is a legitimate form of health care that women genuinely need.
From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 24 July 2005 03:36 PM
quote: Hailey: have you been following the fortunes of Mr Rove in recent days?
They protected him for two years. Do you doubt for a moment that Bush knew EXACTLY what he did!! I am fully and absolutely convinced that in the absence of a criminal conviction that he will remain in office. Karl Rove can rally the troops of support like nobody else. They are joined at the hip. And really the public outcry is minimal in comparison to what it should be. This woman could have died from his actions! The Republican party isn't going to let ANYTHING happen to Karl Rove. quote: The problem is, I'm not confident that mainstream American voters are pro-choice enough to defend legal, safe, accessible abortion. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm concerned that until women start dying from illegal, unsafe abortions as they did in the 1960s and earlier, American voters will not believe that abortion is a legitimate form of health care that women genuinely need.
I think that part of the issue is that those people who are pro-choice really don't feel anything is at risk. Heck, I consider myself very interested in this issue and prior to this last election I'd have told people that it was going to be legal for my lifetime! The tides have changed and not everyone seems to get that. I am not going to debate in the feminist forum your report with regards to the 1960's but I will share that even those who are prochoice activists do not universally believe that abortions being made illegal will duplicate the risks that they attribute to that era. There are underground movements that believe that abortions can be safely performed at home by trained professionals just as childbirth is.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 24 July 2005 03:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by puzzlic: IAs for the people who say the abortion issue should be determined "democratically" by state legislatures, well, that's what's going to happen whether we like it or not. The problem is, I'm not confident that mainstream American voters are pro-choice enough to defend legal, safe, accessible abortion. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm concerned that until women start dying from illegal, unsafe abortions as they did in the 1960s and earlier, American voters will not believe that abortion is a legitimate form of health care that women genuinely need.
This is the key question. To deal with abortion in the abstract has been a very USian posture for the last few decades. To actually get back to the stage where women risk back alley abortions is another matter entirely. But . . . I see a gradual hardening of attitudes in this country toward many different disadvantaged groups. We speak of "compassion fatigue" as it it were a given. More and more, laws are written to clear the poor from our nation's streets without a thought to where they might land up going. We build more prisons as employment opportunities and ascribe moral failings to criminal behaviour more and more. Will people turn a blind eye to back alley abortions? I hope not. But I wonder. I have to admit, I am surprised that Bush seems willing to go down this road and I do think that Roberts on the court does set up a revisit of Roe v. Wade. Assume the decision goes back to the states, do women who want abortions land up trekking to Massachusetts as a matter or course? Or will we get into a situation more like prohibition (and much like pre-Roe days) where if you have the money and right connections, you can get the procedure without much trouble while law enforcement conveniently looks the other way? Or will the Christian Right really lay down the law and provide draconian punishment for both women and doctors? That's the greatest worry - I don't think these folks want this decision left to individual states - they want a national Federal law or Constitutional amendment banning the procedure entirely and now that they smell some degree of success, whether they settle for half-measures remains to be seen. As for the Democrats, nothing can be expected of them; they have rolled over like satisfied dogs. Essentially, we're a one party state now.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646
|
posted 24 July 2005 04:01 PM
quote: do women who want abortions land up trekking to Massachusetts as a matter or course? Or will we get into a situation more like prohibition (and much like pre-Roe days) where if you have the money and right connections, you can get the procedure without much trouble while law enforcement conveniently looks the other way?
AE, I agree with everything you've said. As for these questions, I'm confident that wealthy women who can afford to travel to Canada or Mexico (or, if Congress refrains from passing another abortion ban, to Massachusetts, California or New York) to get their abortions. Heck, wealthy women will probably be able to pay their doctors, or other responsible, competent medical practitioners, do do it for them. I'm not worried about wealthy women dying.It's teenagers and poor women who will increasingly have to resort to unsafe abortions -- like that teenage girl in Michigan who had her boyfriend hit her in the belly with a baseball bat, and the undocumented Mexican woman in the Carolinas who had her sister mail her some Misoprostol to abort herself, and then somehow the police found out and she was arrested and charged. When women have to resort to quack practitioners or self-abortion, it is inevitable that some will be infected and die. The worst-case scenario, which could happen in the most anti-abortion states like South Dakota and Talibama, might be anti-abortion laws like those in Chile that require all medical personnel to make a police report about any woman who seeks medical treatment of post-abortion complications. That is, if a woman hemorrhages or becomes infected, she'll be afraid to go to the hospital for fear of exposure, and prison. OK, enough procrastinating on this thread -- I gotta do some work now ...
From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 24 July 2005 05:03 PM
Perhaps I'm less cynical (or more naive?) than most on this board but I don't think that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would result in the banning of abortion by Congress.If R v. W was overturned, the worst PROBABLE case would be that the ruling would be followed by outright bans in a very few states, significant restrictions in many states and largely unfetter abortion rights in a significant minority of states. There is simply too much popular support for abortion rights in the U.S. I think the more fundamental problem with Roe was that it was issued by judicial fiat. In a democracy, that's very dangerous. While we might very well approve of the result of R v. W, the method by which it was achieved should raise serious concerns. Such, judicial activism is usually supported by those who benefit the most by it (and, in the last thirty years, that has tended to be those who hold liberal ideas). But, judicial activism, of which R v. W is an example, should not be encouraged. I think the best way to understand that concern would be to look at a flip side hypothetical: The Court rules, as a matter of Constitutional law, that a fetus is a "human being" and, thus, entitled to all protections of all other citizens. Just like R v. W stripped away from the anti-choice supporters a democratic outlet to reverse the ruling (short of a very, very rare Constitutional amendment), such a ruling would do the same for pro-choice supports: They would be powerless to use Congress or the various state legislature to reverse the ruling and make abortion lawful again (because it would be constitutionally prohibited.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 24 July 2005 05:56 PM
quote: Hailey, funny how I can agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the Rove situation and yet we so fundamentally disagree over abortion.
I think having cognitive skills transcends this issue! quote: Suppose there was a law banning all forms of medical and surgical childbirth, punishable by lengthy terms of imprisonment for women and doctors.
Let me assure you that there will be virtually no support for the idea of women being punished through imprisonment. Whether you agree or not the prolife community, as a whole, has a tend to see women who have had abortions as victims. They tend to believe that 99.9% of women who have had abortions harbour huge psychological burdens as a result of the procedure. There is a very strong possibility that they will advocate harsh sentences for physicians who perform abortions. That will not occur in isolation though that will also include the continuation of other ongoing efforts i.e. picketing their homes, refusing to engage in a professional relationship with a prochoice physician, etc. quote: It would be reasonable to expect that such a law would result in a completely unnecessary increase in women's (and children's) risk of childbirth-related infection, complications and death, no?
I have read literature from prochoice women's groups that suggests that they believe that they can safely induce an abortion at home during the first trimester. Infact it is their home that it becomes a procedure done in the home rather than using clinics and hospitals. They believe that it will lessen the difficulties of the experience. It's tied into the whole philosophy of women providing care to other women outside of the hospital setting. quote: As I say, there is a much bigger story than just Rove. I think that this is about to happen.
That makes my ears perk up - what?? what?? quote: Hailey, what does this mean?
Audra, it was meant to read the WHOLE package and has been amended. quote: If R v. W was overturned, the worst PROBABLE case would be that the ruling would be followed by outright bans in a very few states, significant restrictions in many states and largely unfetter abortion rights in a significant minority of states
I don't think anyone's predicting anything more than that.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425
|
posted 24 July 2005 07:44 PM
Roe v. Wade is settled law. It is somewhat sacred as "legal precedent". But does that mean it cannot theoretically be overturned? No.In the real world, I just don't see it. We all remember the social tidal wave that erupted to protest against the Vietnam War. That ended President Johnson's political career. That was just a walk in the park compared to the firestorm that would erupt if Roe was overturned. Justice Roberts said in his previous hearing, for the federal appellate court, that he will respect Roe. I take him at his word. If Bush is stupid enough to think that overturning Roe will help the Republicans, he greatly needs to have his head examined. If Roe is overturned, the Republicans will be in the political wilderness at the local, state, congressional and presidential levels for a decade. The Republicans will have to change their name to "Mudd". If Bush had nominated another Scalia or Thomas, I would be deeply worried. As it is, I expect the center of the court to hold and Roe to emerge unscathed.
From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 25 July 2005 07:57 AM
quote: But the successful overturning of Roe vs. Wade isn't the kind of trivial self-destructive right-wing excess that I would consider a harmless gift to the left.... But overturning the judgment on which access to abortion currently premises itself in the United States from the point of view of legal precedent? Are American women really willing to make that kind of sacrifice a bargaining chip with which to procure a few more Democratic representatives?
Really well put, Yst, and thank you for saying it. It needs pointing out that the political strategists who talk about playing such games are usually talking about sacrificing someone else's liberties, in this case the most vulnerable of women -- poor and/or young and/or residents of certain regions. Hailey's enthusiasm for privatised ... arrangements ... I suppose we could call them is an endorsement of the same cruel logic of privilege. It was always true, even when abortion was illegal, that many women could figure out how to get safe (and often expensive) ones; other women risked their lives to get butchered; and many women, of course, just gave up and submitted to biology as destiny. I can't believe that anyone would be arrogant enough to endorse the return of that regime with such cheer, but there you go. And a PS: This isn't the Plame-scandal thread. It is untrue that Plame was just a desk jockey, but anyone who wants the details on issues like that should be working his/her way through the threads in the U.S. forum.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 25 July 2005 08:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Women in Ireland manage the travel without problem, don't they?
Huh? What do you mean, "without problem"? Wilfred, do you grasp what we are talking about here? Do you understand the seriousness either of an abortion or of the failure to have easy access to one? I am equally concerned about the plight of all women who do not have such access. Getting American women to Canada or Irish women to Scotland is very much a sad half-measure, an unnecessary extra trauma for those women as well as a horrifying intrusion into their private lives. How could anyone look forward to such arrangements, much less to capitalizing off them?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646
|
posted 25 July 2005 10:14 AM
quote: Women in Ireland manage the travel without problem, don't they?
I'm waiting for the day when the government passes a law banning health care that only men need. Don't worry, men: if you can afford to, you can buy a flight (or, if you have a car and the time off work, you can drive for three days in each direction) to get to to another country for an appointment. What, you can't? Well, then, sorry, you won't get the health care. I mean, if you don't get the health care, then you're just letting nature take its course -- that's what your body was designed to do anyway. I don't know why you men keep complaining about the ban. Men's health care is available in other countries, so why is it such a problem that, under our country's values, the health treatment you need is illegal?
From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 25 July 2005 10:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by puzzlic: I'm waiting for the day when the government passes a law banning health care that only men need. Don't worry, men: if you can afford to, you can buy a flight (or, if you have a car and the time off work, you can drive for three days in each direction) to get to to another country for an appointment.
puzzlic, word. Add also: oh, and if the treatment you 'need' leaves you woozy and unable to drive, you'll need to bring friend to drive you home. And, cash, of course, bring a lot of cash. And, crossing the border, when the official asks 'Purpose of trip? Business or pleasure?', ponder that one.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879
|
posted 25 July 2005 11:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: I would NEVER have imagined that abortion would have been a priority during a time of war to be honest. It was, in my view, what shifted the tide at the election. [ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]
All of this rings true to me. Maybe it's just perspective and location, but looking out my front window it seems that the opinion of the people is obsessively, hysterically anti-abortion. I am surprised to hear otherwise from some of you. That gave me some hope, until I realized that I might be one of the only ones sitting here in the heartland of the US. I truly don't believe that Roe vs. Wade is a settled issue. I see a huge swell of people that would move heaven and earth to criminalize abortion. I agree with Hailey's assessment about the last campaign, particularly the part about Catholics. Bush and co. mobilized the conservative Catholics this past year. I never thought that would happen. It reminds me of the Kerry campaign, in that most liberals I knew were confident he would win. They really, truly thought it was inconceivable that Bush could take it. They were wrong. I sense the same thing with abortion rights here.
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 25 July 2005 11:51 AM
vmichel, I agree that, on the surface, it seems counter-intuitive that so many people, in a time of war, would be focused on the domestic social issues that seem to move so many in the U.S. and that seem to have determined the outcome of the last election.I suspect that that phenomenon is very common, though, whenever a group of people start to feel that they can't grasp what is happening to their world. Some people will turn away from fearsome or frustrating complexities and fix instead on the few things they think that they still can control. Psychoanalysts used to call this displacement, which still seems to me as good a metaphor as any. You can see exactly the same thing going on among fundamentalists in other cultures. The rest of the world may be going to hell in a handbasket, but at least we can control our women! Something like that. And of course, it gets worse. You and I can't see that destroying London or Istanbul or Bali is the best way to get Western nations to change their foreign policies, but some of the foot-soldiers, at least, have been taught to fix on the superficialities of Western "decadence" as the root of all human problems, and that seems to work. The political analysis gets displaced on to an easier target. Foot-soldiers on all sides are encouraged to do that by propaganda.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879
|
posted 25 July 2005 12:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: I suspect that that phenomenon is very common, though, whenever a group of people start to feel that they can't grasp what is happening to their world. Some people will turn away from fearsome or frustrating complexities and fix instead on the few things they think that they still can control.
skdadl that's insightful. It makes sense of something I've seen, which is that a lot of people's response to 9/11, the war, etc. is to become more involved in anti-abortion activity. I've heard many people express "The world is falling apart, so much tragedy and death everywhere, and I can't affect any of that. What I can do is protect the babies here, in my county/city/state, by fighting that clinic/law/sex ed curriculum." For the record I completely oppose their efforts. But I think many are coming from a place of passion and grass-roots mobilization for change, and we are kind of underestimating them right now.
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 26 July 2005 01:54 AM
Regarding Valerie Plame and Karl Rove: quote: Originally posted by Stargazer:
Crime or no crime? Hmmm.....guess then the law is wrong and you are right. It is perfectly fine and within the law to out a CI agent (and yes she was an agent) as long as you're Karl Rove that is. From you're posting above it seems that any Bush admin. answer will be good enough from you, after all, according to you, its not a crime.
#1 Why are you jumping all over me and saying, sarcastically, "the law is wrong and you are right"? Where did I say, or even imply, that the law was wrong or that Rove didn't break the law? I didn't state that and, more importantly, that wasn't even the point of my post (more on that in a moment). #2 Have you even read the law (I have and I can give you the citation should you care to read it). It's far from clear that any crime was committed. An interesting amicus brief filed by The New York Times and 35 other major news organizations argued pretty convincingly (in the criminal case against the two reports accused of contempt of court for refusing to reveal the name of the source) that no crime was committed by the source (I can also give you the source for that, if you like). It's not a black and white case, as much as you, evidently, have concluded it to be. #3 The purpose of my post, my friend, was to simply challenge the assertion made by a prior poster that Rove's conduct was "endangering someone's life". On the face of it, that assertion is patently absurd. Valerie Plame's life was not "endangered" by what Rove said, whether or not it is criminal (which I said in my post is a separate matter). That was all that I was saying. Please read more carefully.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 26 July 2005 12:34 PM
It's another gorgeous morning in Tahsis, sunlight and shadow play across the slopes of the many mountains and the trees shimmer in the light. Like Skdadl, I am well past the age of being in any way personally threatened by anti-abortion activity, and, like Skdadl, even if I wasn't coming up on 67 I've had a hysterectomy... and still I am worried and even a bit frightened by what the defeat of RoevsWade would mean... The ReligiousReich would be strengthened, for a start. There would be more and ever more of them looking for other arenas in which to wage their war... first abortion then the queers... and after the queers... who next?"In germany theyfirst came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics , and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me .. and by that time no one was left to speak up". Pastor Martin Niemoller. I was raised surrounded by fundamentalist thinkers. I can still quote endless bits of scripture. I don't believe a word of it but I can quote it. And I am very threatened by the Reich, because what I quote and disbelieve, they believe. And they believe it on a level not easily understood by people who are not fundamentalist. They believe in spite of the evidence of their own eyes, their own ears, their own experience. They believe and that belief allows them to just flat-out turn off entire sections of their brain. They will fight tooth and nail to stop all abortion for any reason and then vote against any kind of social programme which helps the very children which resulted from the lack of abortion. Many of them will not vote at all because in their minds what happens here on earth in this life is tainted by the devil worshippers and anyway the Bible tells them not to become "part of" this world but to focus on God. And if God were running for office they'd register and vote for God but since God isn't running they wont' vote at all. But they'll demonstrate against a clinic and yell insults at the women who enter it. And who will be next if they win and RoevsWade is defeated? These fundamentalist wingnuts are pouring money and organizers into Canada. The 49th is not a wall they cannot cross. They see Canada as a place which ought to be part of a North American nation. They are not able to see that their determined capitalism is against the teachings of Christ. It is those contradictions which sent me racing away from what would probably have been a very comfortable nest. All I had to do was "believe", marry a suitable fundamentalist man, have children, keep a clean house and do what I was told to do. That's all. And when you express any worry about things like capitalism vs christianity you are told to have faith. How can you have faith if you don't believe in the first place? Well,you pray. And to whom do you pray if you don't believe? Well you have to have faith. In what? Pray and grace will give you faith... and I couldn't turn off my head. My first huge seed of doubt was when, as a very little child, going to church with my beloved grandmother, I saw a recruiting poster in the church. And I asked WHY it was there, complete with a picture of a soldier with a gun when the ten commandments said Thou Shalt Not Kill. And my grandmother, the absolutely kindest and most loving woman I have ever met told me "you'll understand when you're older, dear.". And I am older, much , much older and I still do not understand, grandma. I mean what does God have to do? Write it in flaming letters across the sky? Or just set everybody's bush on fire? Thou Shalt Not Kill. They quote that to support the anti-abortion fight and ignore it when it comes to Iraq. Or Nicaragua. Or El Salvador. Or Cuba. Or, eventually, Canada. They believe "go thou unto the highways and byways and take to them My Word.". And so they do that, with tanks and bullets and bombs and depleted uranium and now they have microwave weapons and white sound weapons and... they do not see the contradiction between that and Thou Shalt Not Kill. All this fuss, and rage, and the bragging about the stiff upper lip of the Londoners and how uncivilized the bombers were and what proof it is that we will never understand "those people" and for the past dozen years every day in Iraq those who wave the stars and bars slaughtered more innocent people than have died in London. And "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't apply? Thou Shalt Not Steal..but where is the massive outrage over Enron? Or Haliburton? Or....???? Thou Shalt Not Covet... but your neighbours oil reserves werent' mentioned to Onward christian soldiers... RoevsWade is the thin edge of the wedge. If they win they'll start in on how queers shouldn't be school teachers... or librarians... or... alive. For they are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord God Jehovah and should be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death, their bodies left for the wolves and the scavenger dogs... And after they come for the queers...they will eventually come for the socialists... and they will SURELY come for you, my friend. who will be left to speak for you if you are silent now? You think PM the PM or any other politician is going to do anything about the way the Reich is funding and infiltrating the fundamentalists in Canada? He who is so proud of being Canadian he flies every other flag from his boats? To avoid taxes and employment standards... Render unto God that which is Gods and to Caesar that which is Caesars... so PM the PM of Canada flies the flag of Liberia on his boat? We have every reason to worry. Even those of you who are biologically uninvolved have reason to worry. Because you may be next. And eventually, you will be "it".
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104
|
posted 26 July 2005 02:25 PM
I think one of the main problems is that womyn put their autonomy withic rights based discourse. The fact is this is all wrapped up within society being institutionalized to mass degrees. It's natural that some people propose a counter institution of views that can effect female autonomy in this way.This is what leads me to believe that people should socially organize based on affinity. Idealy womyn should have their own clinics for and by them. Also DIY and self-reliance in regards to abortion is not a bad thing at all. Particularly if you can learn about some natural oriented ways to have an abortion. Ultimately the big problem here is moralism. Life should never be moralized or put into objective categories.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 26 July 2005 03:04 PM
quote: They will fight tooth and nail to stop all abortion for any reason and then vote against any kind of social programme which helps the very children which resulted from the lack of abortion
There are, indeed, people who are against abortions who will begrudge support for children born to families that have economic and social challenges. It is unspeakably morally flawed. quote: And when you express any worry about things like capitalism vs christianity you are told to have faith. How can you have faith if you don't believe in the first place? Well,you pray. And to whom do you pray if you don't believe? Well you have to have faith. In what? Pray and grace will give you faith...
I would never discourage people from having faith that all things will work themselves out but I think part of having faith is also demonstrating the fruits of that faith which includes helping people out. quote: This is what leads me to believe that people should socially organize based on affinity. Idealy womyn should have their own clinics for and by them.
Can I ask you to expand on that? quote: vmichel, most of us don't know, but Hailey has faith that there are such ways. See her posts above.
Skdadl my sole intention with that was to share that there are people who are prochoice that believe that just as childbirth can be accomplished by midwives in the home that abortions should be provided in the same setting with skilled people. As someone who doesn't even really like the idea of childbirth being at home because so much can go wrong I am NOT agreeing with that. I am not promoting it.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879
|
posted 26 July 2005 03:07 PM
Vigilante, thx.Hailey, can you share any more info about those groups? I'm not being a jerk, I'm sincerely curious. I never heard you could DIY with abortion before and this blows my mind. ETA: I just got real sad and happy at the same time, realizing that I might be the first generation of women ever to not have any knowledge of DIY abortions... [ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104
|
posted 26 July 2005 03:18 PM
quote: This is what leads me to believe that people should socially organize based on affinity. Idealy womyn should have their own clinics for and by them. Can I ask you to expand on that?
It simply means that human social organizations should be decentralized to the point where you affiliate with people you largley agree with without any over-arching institution interfering. To put it bluntly, mass society should be dismantled. Look at the Hutterites for example. Pretty socially conservative bunch, but unlike their more politically oriented couterparts they live a communal existance. It's not my type of organization, however they're not trying to force them selves down other peoples throat.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 27 July 2005 12:04 PM
Hailey, I have no quarrel with people who have faith and who follow the actual teachings of Christianity. I have a real problem with the Religious Reich because they would gladly shove their version of Scripture down our throats and up our basic fundaments. I think they are one of the major dangers we face.If a person has faith, that person is probably very lucky. Some of us do not have that faith. And all that happens when you admit you lack faith is someone tells you to pray, and God will grant you the grace to have faith. If you do not have faith to whom do you pray? To the God in whom you already do not believe? It's a cat-chasing-her-own-tail problem which seems to have no solution. If RoevsWade falls the rest of the dominoes are going to tumble, too. After abortion, I feel it is queers will be the target. Soon after the queers it will be the Jehovah's Witnesses... then probably the Seventh Day Adventists... trade unionists...Plymouth Brethren...Amish...Hutterites... anyone who is perceived as "different" will be picked off until only those who are part of the Reich will have any rights... and somewhere in their list will be a place for you and your sons... because my own bias tells me that the right-wing fundamentalist Reich is the human hand of Satan. Yeah, I admit it, I might not "believe" in God vs the Devil as it was taught to me but I do believe there is an active force for good and an active force for evil and every day of our lives we choose, time and time again, which active force we will follow... and the force the Reich follows is evil. "For I am come that ye may have life, and have it more abundantly" does not seem , in their minds, to apply to all of us..only to them... and they want it all...they are fascists... and they are male supremicist fascists of the first order... they are mean spirited and their plans for your sons would involve uniforms, boots, bullets and bombs... all in the name of the Prince of Peace, of course. And for our own good,you understand.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saskatchewan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9644
|
posted 27 July 2005 02:43 PM
Although I really liked having my daughter at home and am generally pro-DIY and pro-midwifery, I think that one of the reasons Canadian women are still able to get abortions has to do with them being routinely provided in hospitals and as an integrated part of the social healthcare system. The private clinic system in the states has made abortion providers and clients highly visible, vulnerable, and isolated. I don’t think one needs to associate oneself with the fascist anti-choice movement in order to be committed to making parenting a viable choice for women. Improving social programs for children and women, socializing day-care, supporting public education, working to make women with small children less isolated (an enormous social problem and certainly THE single largest complaint I’ve heard from mothers), encouraging community and sharing – these are all things that can be done pro-children and pro-women. I can understand your frustration, Hailey, if you’re looking at this from an angle of basic inequality and restricted choice. If a woman cannot make the choice she would prefer to make given a set of odds stacked against her, then it’s perfectly legitimate to want to change the circumstances to allow more freedom of choice. What I cannot support is forcing women against their wishes to abort or carry a pregnancy to term because the larger society has decided that women exist only as vessels.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 28 July 2005 09:03 PM
quote: I don’t think one needs to associate oneself with the fascist anti-choice movement in order to be committed to making parenting a viable choice for women. Improving social programs for children and women, socializing day-care, supporting public education, working to make women with small children less isolated (an enormous social problem and certainly THE single largest complaint I’ve heard from mothers), encouraging community and sharing – these are all things that can be done pro-children and pro-women
I don't think that someone has to have a specific position on abortion in order to believe on social programs that contribute positively to children and families. What do you mean about programs for women who are home with children and perceive themselves as isolated? And in terms of your last paragraph I don't think that you have to be prolife to be concerned that women are not always feeling they have an array of options and are choosing amidst the pressure of no viable alternative. And yst that's pretty nutty to want to put that in a children's parade. How sad!
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 28 July 2005 09:34 PM
Women who stay at home with their babies are not 'perceiving' isolation, they are experiencing it, unless their sisters, cousins, sisters-in-law and nieces, whatever, are all having babies at the same time. If that's not the case, then they are isolated geographically, demographically and practically - though it might not be the case if they are living in a commune or an open house.In Quebec, this kind of isolation is recognized and addressed by a variety of community services, including some centres de la petite enfance.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|