Alito confirmed!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Assuming you have the right to remove your support from someone. How does this justify an abortion where you shred the child with a suction vacuum machine?

I never said it did, I was saying that I can't see a justifcation against now allowing the mother to have birth induced. Or to have a c-section. Remove the foetus from her, and let the state take care of her. If the foetus is alive before birth, it should be treated in exactly the same way as a baby is.

[Gatekeeper]

DinoDoc wrote:

They are likely already traveling hours to get an abortion in states likely to reinstate bans. Post-Roe that wouldn't change.

Hmm. Well-spoken for someone who will never have to worry about it, unless you knock a girl up and actually decide to take responsibility for the deed and resulting pregnancy. A lot of males don't do that — BTW, did you know that a fair number of teen pregnancies are not caused by teenage males, but by middle-aged males? Yeah, I didn't know that either until I read about it in a series of wire stories on the subject some years ago.

Anyway, back on track: If my home state of South Dakota were to ban all abortion, except for the life of the mother being threatened, then Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls would close.

Now imagine you're a woman living in, oh, Wall, S.D. Yes, the little town "famous" for Wall Drug and its free ice water. Right now, a woman has to travel to Sioux Falls for any sort of family planning service (up to including abortion), a trip that takes roughly seven to eight hours one-way (rough estimate). There are already "counseling" and "waiting period" laws on the books in South Dakota. Practical effect? If a woman desires an abortion say, a week or two after being inseminated, she'll be lucky to beat the cut-off point (no abortions are allowed after the first trimester, which is something I do agree with, BTW) after going through the hoops. Jumping through said hoops oftentimes means multiple trips to Sioux Falls, lost work time and personal expense (insurance doesn't have to cover birth control or family planning services in South Dakota, although, strangely enough, they do cover sexual aids, such as Viagra).

Now close Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls. Where does this woman from Wall go? North Dakota is out. Montana is out. Wyoming is out. Nebraska is really iffy. Ah-ha! Why, she can just travel to some clinic in Minnesota! Ipso facto, problem solved! (Hint: I'm being a bit snarky here.)

I don't think it'd be hard to craft compromise legislation that bans abortion after the first trimester and makes sex education — including abstinence — mandatory. And why is it so hard to make Plan B palatable? Make it over-the-counter only, but also make it so a buyer has to provide two forms of ID before getting some. There, that makes it more readily available while at the same time ensuring it doesn't become an excuse for wild, unprotected sex every night of the week. (Have more *faith* in the people, my dear religious control-freak types!)

On a somewhat related tangent, the anti-abortion crowd in my state is now also going after birth control, and not just Plan B-type stuff, either. I can't figure out this fixation some have for controlling the lives of women, for keeping them uneducated in the ways of their sexuality. They say they do it in the name of God and love, but obviously my state's poverty and low wages put the lie to that claim. Now don't get me wrong: I love my home state, but, yes, it's got warts. Such is life.

Gatekeeper

[Ramo]

Yes, women could travel to another state to get an abortion, but only if they have the time and resources. Overturning Roe (or more accurately, Casey), like virtually everything else the Republicans want to do, primarily would **** over the poor.

But the Casey majority will last as long as Stevens is alive. The real threat with the Alito nomination is executive power. While O'Connor wasn't the best person on the Court on this matter, she was a damn sight better than Alito (who resembles Thomas much more than Scalia IMO) will likely be.

[Drake Tungsten]

Where does this woman from Wall go? North Dakota is out. Montana is out. Wyoming is out. Nebraska is really iffy. Ah-ha! Why, she can just travel to some clinic in Minnesota! Ipso facto, problem solved! (Hint: I'm being a bit snarky here.)

Colorado has to be closer to Wall than Minnesota. And Minnesota isn't really much farther than driving to Sioux Falls anyway.

edit: Wall to Denver - 458 miles (about 9 hours 39 mins)

Wall to Minneapolis - 554 miles (about 9 hours 1 mins)

edit 2:

Right now, a woman has to travel to Sioux Falls for any sort of family planning service (up to including abortion), a trip that takes roughly seven to eight hours one-way (rough estimate).

Wall to Sioux Falls - 294 mi (about 4 hours 46 mins)

[Elok]

Roe was doomed the moment it was issued. It got too many people too angry. If Alito doesn't help kill it, the Republicans WILL keep trying until someone else does. It's only a matter of time. You might as well get used to it; in fact, the second Roe is overturned the right loses one of its most potent recruiting tools, so you really should look forward to it.

Not that abortion will instantly become illegal or anything, but the issue is going to have to be legislated someday (as opposed to sitting on it with a SCOTUS ruling), is all I'm saying.

[PLATO]

Indeed Elok....Congress has hidden behind the mantle of a dubious SCOTUS ruling for far to long. If it is to be the law of the land then it should at least be a law.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO
Indeed Elok....Congress has hidden behind the mantle of a dubious SCOTUS ruling for far to long. If it is to be the law of the land then it should at least be a law.

Well, the GOP wants Roe overturned, and the GOP also wants power to devolve to the States, so I don't think you'll be looking at congressional intervention one way or another. Instead, you'll be looking at Blue states where abortion is available, and Red states where it is not. Given that:

1) red states are already poorer than blue states, and
2) red states already have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than blue states, and
3) red states collect fewer taxes and spend less on social programs than blue states

What you're really looking is a situation that will push the blue and red states even farther apart, as the blue retain their prosperity and quality of life while the red sink even further into poverty and/or class stratification.

I'm tempted to say, as a Yankee, "hey, works for me" -- except that this also means that the more impovershed, more class stratified red states will also be gaining in population, and thus federal power. I may live in a state that increasingly resembles Canada, but that state will be in a country that increasingly resembles Mexico.

[Drake Tungsten]

Red states

Thank god they're around to keep our birth rate above Japanese and European levels...

[Winston]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Red states

Thank god they're around to keep our birth rate above Japanese and European levels...

Well, it's not like it takes much of an effort to achieve either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd enjoy seeing Winston live in a red county. I'm thinking rural south Georgia would be a pretty good shock .

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Winston
Abortion is like Communism; the only ones in favour are those who haven't been subjected to it themselves.

Hence the popularity of Communist parties among the elderly in the former Warsaw Pact?

(Not that their brand remotely resembles anything left-wing. Bah.)

But, more seriously, there are plenty of formerly pregnant women who have been subjected to abortion and are still in favour of it.

[Gatekeeper]

Yeah, Drake, rough estimate as in "off the top of my head w/o looking at an atlas because I'm on vacation right now and, damnit, I don't feel like using dictionaries, encyclopedias, style guides and whatnot 'cause it's what I do all the time when I'm *not* on vacation."

Gatekeeper

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Well, the GOP wants Roe overturned, and the GOP also wants power to devolve to the States, so I don't think you'll be looking at congressional intervention one way or another. Instead, you'll be looking at Blue states where abortion is available, and Red states where it is not. Given that:

1) red states are already poorer than blue states, and
2) red states already have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than blue states, and
3) red states collect fewer taxes and spend less on social programs than blue states

What you're really looking is a situation that will push the blue and red states even farther apart, as the blue retain their prosperity and quality of life while the red sink even further into poverty and/or class stratification.

I'm tempted to say, as a Yankee, "hey, works for me" -- except that this also means that the more impovershed, more class stratified red states will also be gaining in population, and thus federal power. I may live in a state that increasingly resembles Canada, but that state will be in a country that increasingly resembles Mexico.

Interesting points for sure. The trick is to have a conservative court and a liberal Congress when Roe is overturned. Then the law can be correctly implemented.

As for State's Rights...why would you be against a population of people getting what they want? Most US states (particularly Southern ones) are larger than most European countries. You would not deny a country the right of self determination would you? Indeed there are reasons for many things to be federally standardized (and I am not debating if Roe should or should not be one...that is IMO an idea for 3/4 of the States to determine while acting in concert with Congress), but there are many factors that would be best left to the individual populations to determine. Why is it important for me to adopt the same value as someone who lives 2000 miles away from me? Equally, why should that person live in fear of the growing power of my area?

The answer is that neithier should be forced to do so. That is why the founders reserved things not in the constitution to the States or the people themselves. Pretty smart fellows.

[ixnay]

Oh snap!

WASHINGTON - New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty_15

[PLATO]

Hehe..next thing you know, he will be voting to uphold Roe and Ted Kennedy will look like even more of an ass (assuming that is even possible considering how much of an ass he already looks like)