Demonstrators mark Roe v. Wade anniversary

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Demonstrators mark Roe v. Wade anniversary

MARTIGA LOHN

Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Thousands of abortion opponents massed outside Minnesota's Capitol on Sunday in one of several protests nationwide on the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, amid heightened hopes and fears over what a new face on the Supreme Court will mean for the decision establishing abortion rights.

A crowd of sign-wavers clad in parkas, winter boots and collars turned up against a cutting wind to call for a ban on public funding of abortion.

"We must stop abortion in our state," said Scott Fischbach, head of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. "Things are changing in this country."

Many abortion opponents said they were heartened by President Bush's choice of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate who was often the court's swing vote.

Alito, who appears to have solid support from the Senate's Republican majority, refused during his confirmation hearings to agree with assertions by Democrats that Roe v. Wade was "settled law," upsetting supporters of abortion rights and heartening opponents.

"We have a dream today that someday soon this will not be an anniversary of sadness, but an anniversary of justice restored," said Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

In San Francisco, thousands of abortion opponents shouldering signs with slogans such as "Peace Begins in the Womb" marched Saturday, while abortion rights supporters along the march route waved clothes hangers and shouted "Bigots go home."

"Abortion rights have been slowly whittled away while we haven't even been looking," said Kitty Striker, 22, who decorated her hair with small coat hanger replicas for the counter-protest. "That's what's so shocking and so scary to me."

In Idaho, nearly 400 abortion protesters marched at the Statehouse Saturday, including Reid Richardson and his 5-year-old stepdaughter, Allie Zebley, who carried sign with her ultrasound photo and the words, "This is me at 16 weeks."

About half that number gathered Sunday outside the Idaho Capitol in support of abortion rights.

"When American women are barred from accessing health services at the whim of a politician's religious beliefs, we are not in a democracy at all," said Bree Herndon-Michael, a member of the Idaho Women's Network.

The largest abortion demonstration was expected Monday in Washington, D.C., where anti-abortion activists planned to converge on the mall to hear speakers supporting their cause and march on the Congress and Supreme Court.

Many who support abortion rights held a candlelight vigil in front of the Supreme Court Sunday night, waving signs that read: "Alito-No Justice For Women," and "Keep Abortion Legal."

The nation's high court made abortion legal on Jan. 22, 1973. But efforts to restrict or outlaw the procedure have been just as enduring; 34 states have passed laws requiring parents either to be notified or to give consent when their underage daughters seek abortions.

This year, abortion foes in Minnesota will try to encourage the Legislature to ban public funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients, which has been required since a 1995 state Supreme Court decision. They are also campaigning against the re-election of a justice who supported the decision.

In Michigan, a group of ministry leaders used the anniversary to launch a new anti-abortion organization, Michigan Chooses Life. One goal is to support efforts to get a measure on the 2006 ballot that would change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing at the moment of conception. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has said that even if the measure does succeed, it will be challenged in court.
Click to expand...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13688003.htm
 
Part of me is curious to see what would happen to the GOP base if Roe v Wade were overturned and the issue was sent back to the state level. Are the rabid anti-abortion crowd single-issue voters? Would they cease to influence national races? Or would they migrate to some other religious-based issue? Is there another issue that would galvanize them like abortion?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Part of me is curious to see what would happen to the GOP base if Roe v Wade were overturned and the issue was sent back to the state level. Are the rabid anti-abortion crowd single-issue voters? Would they cease to influence national races? Or would they migrate to some other religious-based issue? Is there another issue that would galvanize them like abortion?[/QUOTE]
They tend to be single-issue voters, but it's more a reflection of what mobilizes them than any intellectual incapacity or disinterest in politics in general. I would imagine that RvW will only be overturned (or attempted to be) in the event that the right wing has a plan for keeping this fervent constituency, as without them, they are doomed in any and every election.

So, if they can overturn Roe v Wade, and also keep the christian zealot constituency focused on something (hating queers, for instance) that keeps them involved, they'll overturn it in a second. On the other hand, if they're afraid of losing them after repealing abortion rights, they will continue to dangle it in front of them like the carrot that it truly is.

An excellent Op-Ed from today's NY Times:
Judge Alito's Radical Views

If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.

As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward for the nation, or a step backward? Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution.

Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the country needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.

It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law.

Judge Alito would also work to reduce Congress's power in other ways. In a troubling dissent, he argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law banning machine guns, and as a government lawyer he insisted Congress did not have the power to protect car buyers from falsified odometers.

There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito with their commitment to abortion rights.

Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court seeking justice should expect little sympathy. In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them.

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision.

The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O'Connor's seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is this: we, as a nation, KNOW what Alito's views on abortion are; his unwillingness to consider it "settled law," as well as his 1985 memo prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will overturn abortion in a heartbeat. The notion of judicial nomination hearings in which they deflect a question is absurd, and Alito has shown that he has his views, and that those views inform his perception of the law (and thus, his perfectly transparent unwillingness to consider abortion laws on a case by case basis suggests that he is not a person willing to uphold the constitution before his personal preferences). The question, though, is: are the Republicans willing to sacrifice the single most important constituency that contributes to their dominance?
 
The radio pointed out that Reagan, Bush I and Dubya have all managed to be "out of town" whenever the anti-abortion crowd marches. You'd think they'd get the hint by now - I want your vote but I'm going to keep you crazy yahoos at a distance.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The radio pointed out that Reagan, Bush I and Dubya have all managed to be "out of town" whenever the anti-abortion crowd marches. You'd think they'd get the hint by now - I want your vote but I'm going to keep you crazy yahoos at a distance.[/QUOTE]

I think they have gotten the hint, and I think that's why Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The religious right-wing is starting to question why exactly they're voting for Republicans if the Republicans aren't going to do anything for them. There's no way they're going to switch to the Democrat side, but there's a growing risk that they'll simply give up and stop voting, which will be more than enough to shift the country to Democrat-controlled.

There's a lot of risk to overturning RvW - the backlash from the majority of the country, and the possibility that the religious coalition they've built will fall apart without a uniting issue, but I think it comes down to one simple fact: the Republicans don't have much of a choice anymore. The current path clearly leads to guaranteed loss. They're just going to have to roll the dice and see what happens - maybe things will still work out for them. A chance at success, no matter how small, is a whole lot better than guaranteed defeat.

Even after its overturned, abortion still provides decent fuel. The backlash from the majority of the country will be a problem, but they may still be able to appease them by framing it as a 'states rights' issue, while still appealing to the religous right by fighting in the states that still have legal abortions.

And, as was already said, although their religious coalition was originally built on RvW, they've managed to create additional dividing issues that may appeal to their supporters (the uppity gays who think they should have rights being chief among them.)
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I wouldnt be surprised if he mentioned a crusade in that speech[/QUOTE]

I think there may be a conflict with the sanctity of life issue, ya know with that whole eating people thing at Maarrat.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think there may be a conflict with the sanctity of life issue, ya know with that whole eating people thing at Maarrat.[/QUOTE]

to them life is not important, this is seen in their willingness to send people in wars and execute others.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Yet again our government misses a chance opportunity to tag them so we can better monitor the herd.[/QUOTE]
If only that damn requirement to get "wiretap warrants" weren't always getting in the way of everything...
 
Here's a question: on pure issue framing, pro-lifers tend to look more understanding and rational that pro-choice people. What is the purpose of waving coat hangers? Wearing them in one's hair? That's fucking appalling!

Is it necessary for pro-choice activists to respond to absurdity with absurdity of its own? Is the pro-choice movement only viable so long as it remains positioned 180 degrees from the fervent pro-life movement? Why can't pro-choice people calmly say, "hey, let's work to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and work on reducing the number of abortions as well as unwanted children. We need abortion available as a last resort opportunity, but there are other options of birth control out there."

Is it impossible to ask for that? I think one crucial way to expose how ludicrous the pro-life crowd is involves their stance on birth control in general. Suggest providing sex education, birth-control pills, condoms, and other things that the American public easily views as a right (and perhaps a necessity), and at that point the unwillingness of the pro-life movement to negotiate on anything becomes apparent, as does their faith-motivated approach to American freedoms.

Why do pro-choice advocates feel the need to be as tasteless as the pro-lifers?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']An excellent Op-Ed from today's NY Times:[/QUOTE]

Talk about one of the biggest oxymorons in the world..... :rofl:

There is no such thing as excellence in the NY Slimes.

I would have a hard time believing movie times if I were a resident of Kool Aidville.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's a question: on pure issue framing, pro-lifers tend to look more understanding and rational that pro-choice people. What is the purpose of waving coat hangers? Wearing them in one's hair? That's fucking appalling!

Is it necessary for pro-choice activists to respond to absurdity with absurdity of its own? Is the pro-choice movement only viable so long as it remains positioned 180 degrees from the fervent pro-life movement? Why can't pro-choice people calmly say, "hey, let's work to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and work on reducing the number of abortions as well as unwanted children. We need abortion available as a last resort opportunity, but there are other options of birth control out there."

Is it impossible to ask for that? I think one crucial way to expose how ludicrous the pro-life crowd is involves their stance on birth control in general. Suggest providing sex education, birth-control pills, condoms, and other things that the American public easily views as a right (and perhaps a necessity), and at that point the unwillingness of the pro-life movement to negotiate on anything becomes apparent, as does their faith-motivated approach to American freedoms.

Why do pro-choice advocates feel the need to be as tasteless as the pro-lifers?[/QUOTE]

How can you compare wearing coathangers to showing pictures of mutilated foetuses?

I also think pro choicers make all those points, and when I was watching the last pro choice march on washington (it was on cspan I believe) they did make those points between the actual demonstrations. The only thing is abortions itself, when you're dealing with a month or 2 month old foetus many don't care how many there are, I certainly don't.

Though the killing of foetuses is a legitimate argument, just as the deaths and injuries that will result from back alley, or other dangerous forms of abortions are a legitimate argument. They both have their place, but I fail to see the disgusting side of a speaker waving a coat hanger during a speach. There is a difference between rallying supporters and sympathizers and being a respectable politician. Its not the most sophisticated tactic, but it does have its place.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why do pro-choice advocates feel the need to be as tasteless as the pro-lifers?[/QUOTE]

I once attended what turned into a rather large pro-life/pro-choice clash a number of years ago (it wasn't exactly planned, I more just happened to be in the area. It would be a long story. Anyway...) There were a number of kooky pro-choice protesters among the large crowds of the 'saner' people, and many, many, many more pro-life kooks. The pro-life kooks easily outnumbered the pro-choice kooks by at least 10 to 1, and that's an extremely conservative estimate. I'll give you 3 guesses as to which group of kooks showed up on the news that night.

Every group has a number of kooks in it - that's just life - but not all groups have equal numbers. I would without hesitation say that the pro-life side has far, far many more crazies in it. As for why the pro-choice groups seem to show up at least as often in the news, well, you may want to talk to the 'liberal media' about that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']How can you compare wearing coathangers to showing pictures of mutilated foetuses?

I also think pro choicers make all those points, and when I was watching the last pro choice march on washington (it was on cspan I believe) they did make those points between the actual demonstrations. The only thing is abortions itself, when you're dealing with a month or 2 month old foetus many don't care how many there are, I certainly don't.

Though the killing of foetuses is a legitimate argument, just as the deaths and injuries that will result from back alley, or other dangerous forms of abortions are a legitimate argument. They both have their place, but I fail to see the disgusting side of a speaker waving a coat hanger during a speach. There is a difference between rallying supporters and sympathizers and being a respectable politician. Its not the most sophisticated tactic, but it does have its place.[/QUOTE]

Are you British? Do you spell 'color' 'colour' and 'favorite' 'favourite'? Why in the world do you spell fetus like a pompous ass?

Ad hominems out of the way, perhaps I'm a bit biased because I see the potential for rational thinking in the pro-choice movement, and it doesn't need to involve the kind of fear-mongering that waving coathangers creates. To me, waving a coathanger, while useful, is just as tasteless as a picture of a fetus.

Let me be clear. I have a strong stomach. Anyone who wants to be grossed out by those photographs of dead babies better be a vegetarian, or better be equally appalled by photographs of meat in their sunday circulars. It's a photo, and one that doesn't bother me at all. The concept of an abortion is troubling to me, but that doesn't mean that I find it to be physically nauseating. It's also a tasteless tactic, and in the end, I find the fetus or the coathanger to be symbols used to sway people who don't want to seriously consider the issue to be emotionally dragged to one side of the issue or another.

"Oh my god, I didn't know that an aborted fetus looked like that!" or "Oh my god, I didn't know that women died because they couldn't get a legal abortion!" is all that it is trying to acheive. That, to me, while it's obviously useful (some people just aren't going to put the intellectual effort into an issue), succeeds in perpetuating the nonnegotiable aspect of abortion rights through its oversimplification. That is the most appalling thing to me (that neither side is willing to make any concessions), because things might progress (we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions per year without outlawing them) more than they have. Face it: neither side of this issue is willing to admit that there is anything remotely resembling common ground between the sides on this issue, and that's helping create this fervent "we must keep Roe legal/we must do everything to outlaw Roe under any circumstance" attitudes.
 
The problem with the pictures is you don't know they are abortions. And if they are , they are very rare late term abortions or worse, still births. My wife is a doctor who has performed a few and honestly tells me, very few are as graphic as the pro-lifers would led you to believe.

In fact, most prolife group use the same dozen photos for all their events.

Myke, you know as well as I that a common ground should be contraceptives, health care, education, and help for the poor. But we know how those go over with the type of poltiician who counts on the pro-life vote. Unfortunately, it is easier to put an "Abortion stops a beating heart" bumper sticker on your car and be on your way. I've always held the belief that being a die-hard pro-Lifer is the easy way. It doesn't require too much effort.
 
Since we've spent $10 trillion on health care, education and "help" for the poor in my lifetime could you enlighten us to when we've spent enough to fix t hings?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's a question: on pure issue framing, pro-lifers tend to look more understanding and rational that pro-choice people. What is the purpose of waving coat hangers? Wearing them in one's hair? That's fucking appalling!

Is it necessary for pro-choice activists to respond to absurdity with absurdity of its own? Is the pro-choice movement only viable so long as it remains positioned 180 degrees from the fervent pro-life movement? Why can't pro-choice people calmly say, "hey, let's work to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and work on reducing the number of abortions as well as unwanted children. We need abortion available as a last resort opportunity, but there are other options of birth control out there."

Is it impossible to ask for that? I think one crucial way to expose how ludicrous the pro-life crowd is involves their stance on birth control in general. Suggest providing sex education, birth-control pills, condoms, and other things that the American public easily views as a right (and perhaps a necessity), and at that point the unwillingness of the pro-life movement to negotiate on anything becomes apparent, as does their faith-motivated approach to American freedoms.

Why do pro-choice advocates feel the need to be as tasteless as the pro-lifers?[/QUOTE]

Thank you though I do think people need to be reminded of what WILL happen if Abortion is overturned.
Also lets fire up another take. Maybe some of these Pro-Lifers are the SAME people that bitch about Welfare. Which costs more? A single condom or your taxes covering someone's Welfare check who's got a kid? Don't try this "Have your cake and eat it too." bullshit.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Thank you though I do think people need to be reminded of what WILL happen if Abortion is overturned.
Also lets fire up another take. Maybe some of these Pro-Lifers are the SAME people that bitch about Welfare. Which costs more? A single condom or your taxes covering someone's Welfare check who's got a kid? Don't try this "Have your cake and eat it too." bullshit.[/QUOTE]

And birth control. Don't forget that both Bush W and the Pope agree that you will burn in hell if you dare to wrap your weiner in plastic.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Since we've spent $10 trillion on health care, education and "help" for the poor in my lifetime could you enlighten us to when we've spent enough to fix t hings?[/QUOTE]

well whatever we spent on your education was a waste.
 
I suspect that none of you have actually ever read the Roe v Wade decision. All of you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what court decisions actually do. The Court did not make abortion legal. It declared a Texas statute unconstitutional - for a variety of reasons. Overturning the decision would not make abortion illegal. And, it is still illegal in most states, if not all, to have an abortion after a period of time described as "viability", usually after the first trimester. The world isn't going to hell in a handbasket with back alley abortions even though this illegality exists.

I wouldn't get too worried until Congress tries to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining "life" and "person."
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I suspect that none of you have actually ever read the Roe v Wade decision. All of you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what court decisions actually do. The Court did not make abortion legal. It declared a Texas statute unconstitutional - for a variety of reasons. Overturning the decision would not make abortion illegal. And, it is still illegal in most states, if not all, to have an abortion after a period of time described as "viability", usually after the first trimester. The world isn't going to hell in a handbasket with back alley abortions even though this illegality exists.

I wouldn't get too worried until Congress tries to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining "life" and "person."[/QUOTE]

I really see little reason why the SCOTUS couldn't simply define a fetus as a person, and therefore grant them a right to life. They've already made decisions as to what qualifies as a person (is a brain-dead person legally a person, and do they have a right to life?), so I would say that its entirely within their power to make such a decision as it applies to fetuses. I think the Republicans would prefer to avoid that situation - it would simply cause too much of a backlash against them, far more so than just kicking it down to the state level - but it doesn't change the fact that its possible without a Constitutional amendment.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you British? Do you spell 'color' 'colour' and 'favorite' 'favourite'? Why in the world do you spell fetus like a pompous ass?[/quote]

Usually rants are reserved for spelling errors, not simply spellings you don't like.

Ad hominems out of the way, perhaps I'm a bit biased because I see the potential for rational thinking in the pro-choice movement, and it doesn't need to involve the kind of fear-mongering that waving coathangers creates. To me, waving a coathanger, while useful, is just as tasteless as a picture of a fetus.
Click to expand...

If its useful, and doesn't harm anyone, then its foolish not to use it. In a war the point isn't just to demoralize and defeat your opponent, but also to rally and increase the morale of your own people so they're more likely to succeed.

Let me be clear. I have a strong stomach. Anyone who wants to be grossed out by those photographs of dead babies better be a vegetarian, or better be equally appalled by photographs of meat in their sunday circulars. It's a photo, and one that doesn't bother me at all. The concept of an abortion is troubling to me, but that doesn't mean that I find it to be physically nauseating. It's also a tasteless tactic, and in the end, I find the fetus or the coathanger to be symbols used to sway people who don't want to seriously consider the issue to be emotionally dragged to one side of the issue or another.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous really. Most people will react differently to a shapeless slab of meat than they will to a picture with a bloody severed cows head, ripped open stomache and limbs thrown everywhere. That you think a slab of meat deserves the same response as showing a bloodied and dismembered body is absurd.

"oh my god, I didn't know that an aborted fetus looked like that!" or "Oh my god, I didn't know that women died because they couldn't get a legal abortion!" is all that it is trying to acheive. That, to me, while it's obviously useful (some people just aren't going to put the intellectual effort into an issue), succeeds in perpetuating the nonnegotiable aspect of abortion rights through its oversimplification. That is the most appalling thing to me (that neither side is willing to make any concessions), because things might progress (we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions per year without outlawing them) more than they have. Face it: neither side of this issue is willing to admit that there is anything remotely resembling common ground between the sides on this issue, and that's helping create this fervent "we must keep Roe legal/we must do everything to outlaw Roe under any circumstance" attitudes.
Click to expand...

You want civility for the sake of civility, what's the point in that? Most strongly pro choice people aren't not going to find common ground with strong pro-lifers on important issues. If they do its simply giving in because its the best they can do, and in the end both sides will hate the decision. Similar to the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I really see little reason why the SCOTUS couldn't simply define a fetus as a person, and therefore grant them a right to life. They've already made decisions as to what qualifies as a person (is a brain-dead person legally a person, and do they have a right to life?), so I would say that its entirely within their power to make such a decision as it applies to fetuses. I think the Republicans would prefer to avoid that situation - it would simply cause too much of a backlash against them, far more so than just kicking it down to the state level - but it doesn't change the fact that its possible without a Constitutional amendment.[/QUOTE]

It's Congress' job to make the laws, not the SC. Congress has avoided the issue for exactly the reasons you describe - it would be political suicide - but nonetheless, it's their job, not the Supreme Court's. They had an opportunity to do something similar in the schiavo case but pussied out and let it go to the supreme court which refused to hear the case. By doing that, they can absolve themselves of any responsibility and again blame the court for action by inaction.

The Court needs a basis to make a decision and without a legislative act to interpret, they cannot make one out of thin air. That's not to say they don't make things up out of thin air, they do, but just think of the backlash that would occur if they determined what the definition of life was. You think people are pissed about judicial activism now?

You should read the Roe decision. Since there are no federal laws defining life, it's inception, or it's viability, the court reviewed many historical bases in common law and english law to get a background of the various states' abortion laws and their origins. The statute in question in the decision, I believe, was a Texas law that was over 100 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top