GOP will take the Senate in 2014. But Does it matter w/o fillabuster proof majority?

[Jaskalas]

I think Hillary is...

There's an age limit for American Idol.

 

[Fayd]

I'd say Elizabeth Warren would be a good option too, but I don't think she has any interest in running.

i honestly don't understand why democrats hold her so highly, when it's been proven she lied to get affirmative action status.

I don't get it. do you guys not care? or do you only care if the person who commits that offense is of a different ideology than you?

 

[doubledeluxe]

I thought GOP numbers were falling from their 80% chance to take it to a pretty close call.

Boggles my mind how anyone could vote for them.

Go independent or go home. Both parties need to be tossed out. They've done very little for us.

 

[werepossum]

I thought GOP numbers were falling from their 80% chance to take it to a pretty close call.

Boggles my mind how anyone could vote for them.

Go independent or go home. Both parties need to be tossed out. They've done very little for us.

Agreed, we need a "None of the above" option. At this point I'm far more concerned about what they might do to me than what they might do for me.

 

[Fern]

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

If abortion was so secure you would think GOP would stop incessantly enacting laws restricting it. I would say the conservatives on the SCOTUS are itching to rule on abortion and waiting for a chance.
-snip-

Yes, they can limit abortion if such limitation conforms to Roe v Wade.

Contrary to many 'summaries' of RvW heard here and elsewhere, the court acknowledged the right(s) of the fetus as well as the woman and sought to balance them. To be brief, the court found a right to abortion until the fetus was viable at which time the fetus had rights too. I.e., banning partial birth abortions would appear to be constitutional because the fetus would be viable at that time.

Otherwise, Yes, some Repub legislators may wish to make abortion as difficult as possible much like Dems continue trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. They can't overturn SCOTUS but try to achieve small gains towards their objective outside of a constitutional amendment.

Fern

 

[lopri]

More than likely, the right will rid the legality of abortions indirectly by passing personhood laws. They will do it under the guise that harming a pregnant women is equal to harming the woman and a baby (in this case the baby isn't born yet but is recognized as living).

I, of course, understand where you are coming from, but I think it is important to distinguish abortion and feticide. Laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons.

Imagine a pregnant woman who is hoping and expecting to deliver a baby. Now imagine someone violently attacked her abdomen with intent to cause her miscarriage. We recognize that there is something qualitatively different about this heinous act compared to battering a woman who is not pregnant, even if the fetus is not yet a human cognizable under the 14th Amendment.

In the context of elective abortion, a pregnant woman autonomously and consensually seeks termination of her pregnancy. In such circumstance where a woman decides not to become a mother now, the decision making agent is the autonomous woman, who would have to undertake the burden (and joy) of pregnancy if she made a contrary decision.

In contrast, forced miscarriage is not only violation of the woman's bodily integrity but also a violation on a potential human being the woman expects to be her baby after the delivery. For this woman, losing the fetus can be every bit as painful as losing a born baby, and the perpetrator acted against the woman's will.

Thus, in my view, there is nothing troubling in distinguishing these different situations and treating feticide, but not abortion, as something similar to murder. The underlying justification is consitent both morally and legally.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Sort of like that batshit crazy Harry Reid asshole.

We the people get the government we deserve. If you get crappy government, that's what you deserve.

Agree to both statements

 

[FerrelGeek]

i honestly don't understand why democrats hold her so highly, when it's been proven she lied to get affirmative action status.

I don't get it. do you guys not care? or do you only care if the person who commits that offense is of a different ideology than you?

The bolded text says it perfectly.

 

[thraashman]

i honestly don't understand why democrats hold her so highly, when it's been proven she lied to get affirmative action status.

I don't get it. do you guys not care? or do you only care if the person who commits that offense is of a different ideology than you?

From the research I've done she claimed native American ancestry based on stories she was told by her family. I've found no evidence that she was given any special treatment as a result and in fact her work fighting for the rights of people has been highly acclaimed. She consistently one of the few members of Congress who actually fights for the rights of the people instead of fighting against them (such as the entire GOPs attacks against women's rights, homosexuals rights, rights to healthcare, voting rights, rights of the poor). If all you've got is an ill advised touting of a ancestry with less than solid proof that she did 20 years ago, I'd like to point you towards ... well every single action of every single Republican and about half of Democrats that are made weekly.

 

[ivwshane]

I, of course, understand where you are coming from, but I think it is important to distinguish abortion and feticide. Laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons.

Imagine a pregnant woman who is hoping and expecting to deliver a baby. Now imagine someone violently attacked her abdomen with intent to cause her miscarriage. We recognize that there is something qualitatively different about this heinous act compared to battering a woman who is not pregnant, even if the fetus is not yet a human cognizable under the 14th Amendment.

In the context of elective abortion, a pregnant woman autonomously and consensually seeks termination of her pregnancy. In such circumstance where a woman decides not to become a mother now, the decision making agent is the autonomous woman, who would have to undertake the burden (and joy) of pregnancy if she made a contrary decision.

In contrast, forced miscarriage is not only violation of the woman's bodily integrity but also a violation on a potential human being the woman expects to be her baby after the delivery. For this woman, losing the fetus can be every bit as painful as losing a born baby, and the perpetrator acted against the woman's will.

Thus, in my view, there is nothing troubling in distinguishing these different situations and treating feticide, but not abortion, as something similar to murder. The underlying justification is consitent both morally and legally.

Its a slippery slope that feeds off of people's emotions.

http://www.propublica.org/article/this-alabama-judge-has-figured-out-how-to-dismantle-roe-v-wade