The DNA of the Democratic Party

[SteveA]

Quote by: underbear1 You have this backwards, some states had abortion rights prior to Roe, they will retain those laws, the other states abortions will automaticly become illegal again, when Roe gets overturned.

But this is still a state issue. It would simply remove the federal government from being involved.

[underbear1]

Republicans will lose state after state, if they take away woman's right to reproductive control OF HER BODY. btw. don't even think of sticking your filthy laws back on queers, we'll burn this country DOWN!.

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 Republicans will lose state after state, if they take away woman's right to reproductive control OF HER BODY. btw. don't even think of sticking your filthy laws back on queers, we'll burn this country DOWN!.

Dude, you're still missing the point. Overturning Roe/Wade wouldn't take away anything. It would simply turn the issue back over to the states, where it should have stayed in the first place. I donot understand what the big deal is. Send it back to the states and NO government funding for abortions, on any level.

[SteveA]

Quote by: underbear1 Republicans will lose state after state, if they take away woman's right to reproductive control OF HER BODY. btw.

Likely true.

don't even think of sticking your filthy laws back on queers, we'll burn this country DOWN!.

You do recognize, don't you, that Roe vs. Wade simply makes an effective federal law that's imposed on states? Roe vs. Wade can be removed and states don't have to oppose abortion either. So the way things stand now is that federal forces are required by this decision to enter states and impose a ban on anti-abortion laws.

Removing this simply leaves states the option of having abortion laws or not. My guess is that most states wouldn't have anti-abortion laws, but certainly some would. I don't support anti-abortion laws, simply because they intrude on things that appear to be a private issue, but it's certainly not a federal decision. In either event even if states pass an anti-abortion law, it doesn't really prevent women from having abortions, but simply denies them from having in that state. So it's a relative win/win (except for it still relies on democracy and so isn't ideal) because it still allows area that tend to view abortion as murder to still deny it there while not truly preventing abortions elsewhere. The way things stand now with it being seen as a federal issue, you could have the federal government potentially deny all abortions in the U.S.

Anyway, I'm not the one pushing for democracy and if the Republicans got bit by this, it might be a learning experience.

[Osborn F Enready]

Underbear, don't you see how all would benefit from it NOT being a federal issue?

I agree, that is abortion should have never been allowed into federal court.

I wouldn't support a state, nor move to state that didn't allow abortion. If it was at the state level, I could effectively petition and repeal it if my state said abortion was not legal. As it is now, just by allowing the case, they have "ok'd" federal jurisdiction here, and that is the root of the whole problem.

[bishop]

you know.. the first step of overturning roe v. wade would, yes, be to return the issue to the states...

but don't think that the fundies would stop there. they want it banned throughout the country - and they have fellow fundies sitting on the supreme court to help them accomplish it. through skewed interpretations of the constitution, they certainly could flip this issue on its head and ban it nationwide.

that's a big reason why i'm hesitant to accept this nonchalant libertarian perspective.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well Bishop, while I see your point, I don' think we should turn it to the states and STOP there.

You bring up Constitutional interpretation, and that is my highest priority as a Libertarian.

We need to once again, make uniform the interpretation of the Constitution, in the only way we can honestly do such. By review and acceptance by Constitutional scholars, as well as the original meanings and terms used at the time of writing, as well as the writers personal notes on the creation of the Constitution.

Both major parties fear this, and this is why both oppose it. They both have mutually corrupted the terms, use and application of all Constitutional limitations and over-reach in our current system.


This is why I don't like any piecemeal approach at rectification, unless STARTING with Constitutional interpretation, and application of limitation to both the individual, and the governments from local to federal.

[Boetie]

Protostar posts: Overturning Roe/Wade wouldn't take away anything

It will take away something, why do you think Roe v Wade is such a heated debate. It is also tied in with Bush Jr's illegal wiretapping. For those of you that cannot see the connection I'll explain.

Back in 1890 Brandeis wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review titled "The right to privacy."

Forty years later in 1928 Brandeis(now a Supreme Court judge) dissented in a case that upheld the governments right to place wiretaps on telephones without judicial warrants. The dissent was from the Harvard article almost word for word.

What he needed to do was link the right to privacy to the "liberty" right that is protected by the Constitution's due process clause against official restrictions.

Also this opinion of "right to privacy" needed to be extended to sex, procreation, constraception, abortion and homosexuality.

It(right to privacy) was extended to contraception in a 1965 case.

Roe v Wade in 1973 simply added abortion to the privacy right.

So if Roe v Wade was completely struck down this could potentially destroy the right to privacy and also give government greater powers to intrude on that right. ie illegal wiretapping

[underbear1]

There are certain areas of laws that must be true in all states, because corporations and other factors can influence where citizens end up migrating. Civil Rights laws became National, inter-racial marriage became National, and none of the strides in human rights since the 60's would have occured if it had been left state by state piecemeal. Women's rights and LGBT rights are just as valuable to those populations effected, as Civil Rights legislation. Your states rights arguments is what tore this Nation into Civil War, and now you endorse reapplying that argument, but not just North vs South states or Blue vs. Red states, you'll have 50 different battles going on at once.
The theocrat forces will go to states where are abortions are already legal, and file lawsuits to restrict abortions with idiotic hoops a woman must jump through,( I know this, because they've done it for 20 years) Roe and Casey stopped that nonsense. Now if Roe is undone, they will repeat these stupid lawsuits again, and again. The anti abortion forces want activist judges, on their side, as much as they say they denounce them.In the end women will tell this Nation "it's their body and their decision,." and the only one benefitting from these unending cases will be lawyers.

[underbear1]

Poor women will still be granted financial assistance for abortions under medical assistance, what possible difference is it that those funds are provided by state agencies or federal agencies, there will still be people opposed to abortions paying for abortions? Do you seriously think all anti abortion folks will move from states which pay for abortions? Like I said earlier Republican and anti-choice folks end up with pregnant mistresses and teen daughters, why the hell should states which pay for abortions, pay for these women/girls crossing statelines to clean up their little mistakes?

[xyzer]

The Roe/Wade decision saw a judicial invention of a right(privacy) not listed in our constitution and a violation of the X Amendment which relegates control of this to the states and/or the people. In fact it violated the peoples rights and preempted state responsibility.

It is an extreme example of judicial activism undermining our constitution! It has resulted in abortion on demand rather than for some prescribed reasons. This trend has ignored the fact that modern medicine/science reveals that a fetus has human chatacteristics as early as several weeks after conception. Thus there is currently proof that we are in fact allowing the killing of viable human beings most often at the will of the mother. Add to this the availability of contraceptives that are quite effective and harmless and we can easily prevent conception.
Thus we have a problem which I feel should be curbed.

I can see abortion as a solutiion in some cases..rape/incest/malformation/harm to mother or infant, etc. But I think the present law should be modified in the interests of humanity. There are people on this board who decry the loss of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet support the killing of literally millions of human beings in the womb? Strange values IMHO? Strange causes to compare...patriotism and service compared to poor choices or carelessness!

Thus I think the Democrat Party is overboard on this issue. Its paranoid opposition to curbing this grizzly practice amazes me!

[underbear1]

Quote by: xyzer The Roe/Wade decision saw a judicial invention of a right(privacy) not listed in our constitution and a violation of the X Amendment which relegates control of this to the states and/or the people. In fact it violated the peoples rights and preempted state responsibility. It is an extreme example of judicial activism undermining our constitution! It has resulted in abortion on demand rather than for some prescribed reasons. This trend has ignored the fact that modern medicine/science reveals that a fetus has human chatacteristics as early as several weeks after conception. Thus there is currently proof that we are in fact allowing the killing of viable human beings most often at the will of the mother. Add to this the availability of contraceptives that are quite effective and harmless and we can easily prevent conception. Thus we have a problem which I feel should be curbed. I can see abortion as a solutiion in some cases..rape/incest/malformation/harm to mother or infant, etc. But I think the present law should be modified in the interests of humanity. There are people on this board who decry the loss of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet support the killing of literally millions of human beings in the womb? Strange values IMHO? Strange causes to compare...patriotism and service compared to poor choices or carelessness! Thus I think the Democrat Party is overboard on this issue. Its paranoid opposition to curbing this grizzly practice amazes me!

I lived through the coat hanger abortion years, if you haven't, don't tell me about grizzly practices.
if you are opposed to abortions DON'T HAVE ONE!
Rich women could go to Europe and even nice clean illegal "clinics", it was poor and young women that got butchered. You state there are birth control methods that are very effective and harmless. They aren't harmless for many women, and they aren't entirely effective. The breakthough of morning after drugs, is just as stupidly opposed for JUST CHRISTIAN REICH fanatacism, (as they oppose abortions.) There are simply religious fanatic folks who oppose all contraception and this is just they're path back to the bad olde days.

[Athena]

Quote by: Zealot An excellent article by David Brooks of the New York Times makes a profound statement about the two parties today. In 1932 the Democrats had working class DNA. Today, the Democrats have a different DNA, the DNA of a minority party. The way they are conducting themselves at the Alito hearing is sickening. The Democrats have amply shown why they remain the party of the gown, but not the town. In 1971, Fred Dutton wrote: 'The New Deal coalition, including Catholics, white ethnics, was dying, he argued, and should be replaced by a "loose peace coalition" of young people, educated suburbanites, feminists and blacks. That plan was not stupid, but it did not work. The party has been on a downward spiral ever since. John Kerry lost the white working class by 23 percentage points. He lost his fellow Catholics. After every defeat, Democrats vow to reconnect with the middle class whites. But if there is one lesson of the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic party continues to repel those voters just as vigorously as ever. Edited in part from the www.pressdemocrat.com 'How the Democratic Party lost Alitos' Friday Jan. 13, 2006 by David Brooks reprinted from the New York Times.

It is a stupid move to run anyone for president who doesn't have the ideal family of hushand, wife and 2.5 children. A president must represent our ideals, and although divorce is common, it is not the ideal.

Kerry also shot himself in the foot, by changing his mind publically! I don't think many citizens do much thinking about what they think, so they are not apt to understand rethinking something changing one's mind.

The democratic party is not being realistic about who has a chance of winning and who doesn't.

Lastly, the education we have had for the last 4 decades, favors Republics and unless a few things change, I predict the democratic party will die. The best thing going for it is, the mistakes of the republicans, and this is not good.

[underbear1]

A right of privacy is in the Constitution it's called LIBERTY.
It insists that we have control of certain aspects of our lives which no government powers has the right to intrude upon.

[underbear1]

Whether both parties oppose certain concerns of the populace, is fairly immaterial. They (RNC and DNC) both opposed the majority during Viet Nam, and Civil Rights too. They forget they govern by the consent of the people, when people rise up and say HELL NO, they have two choices....... martial law (such as Kent State), or adapting to the will of the people.

[underbear1]

This Nation is rapidly forming the PERFECT STORM, and has nothing to do with climatic changes.
Workers are having their jobs dumped into third world counties for cheaper labor, and safety concerns given a slap on the wrist by Bush's thugs in mining. Minorities and the poor got tipped off by Katrina, how they will be left to dehydrate and die for DAYS with cameras rolling 24/7.Anti War forces are becoming more numerous and more vocal. Gays have been kicked around in 50 states, and now Women Rights are in peril due to a shift in the Supreme Court.........something's GOT TO GIVE!

[xyzer]

After every defeat, Democrats vow to reconnect with the middle class whites. But if there is one lesson of the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic party continues to repel those voters just as vigorously as ever.

I think the political reprobates we viewed during the Alito hearings do not represent the mainstream Democrat population. The senators Schumer, Kennedy,Durbin, Biden, et al, are all trying to appease a fringe minority that walk with financial sticks and are trying to change the customs and mores or our society in any way they can. Since the majority of the Democrat and Republican populace don't want such changes they are trying to get them through the courts rather than the ballot box. Why else would these so called Democrat Senators try to infuse such petty, nasty slanderous accusations into their interviews with Alito? Is a moderate voice a threat?
Whats wrong with a conservative, originalist, approach to societal change? Our constitution has proved remarkkably stable over the past 200 years..unusual among most nations.It provides the means for change...the people! Why are these bozos so intent on shaping us through judicial fiat? Is it that the majority of those who really count..the people..don't want such change and have voted against it?

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 Poor women will still be granted financial assistance for abortions under medical assistance, what possible difference is it that those funds are provided by state agencies or federal agencies, there will still be people opposed to abortions paying for abortions? Do you seriously think all anti abortion folks will move from states which pay for abortions? Like I said earlier Republican and anti-choice folks end up with pregnant mistresses and teen daughters, why the hell should states which pay for abortions, pay for these women/girls crossing statelines to clean up their little mistakes?

That's bullshit. You want women to have the right to choose, fine. I'm willing to compromise. But under no circumstances, should public funds (on any level) be used to pay for abortions. This is what really irks me with the pro choice folks. Not only do they want women to have their right to "choose" they want the rest of us to foot the bill for their mistakes. I'm not one of these people who looks down upon sex. On the contrary, I believe sex is a wonderful thing and should be engaged in as much as possible. But I realize that there are consequences to sex, and pregnancy is one of them. I would never turn to the government to pay for poor decision making on my part, and cannot understand why others would do any differently.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Protostar Quote by: underbear1 Poor women will still be granted financial assistance for abortions under medical assistance, what possible difference is it that those funds are provided by state agencies or federal agencies, there will still be people opposed to abortions paying for abortions? Do you seriously think all anti abortion folks will move from states which pay for abortions? Like I said earlier Republican and anti-choice folks end up with pregnant mistresses and teen daughters, why the hell should states which pay for abortions, pay for these women/girls crossing statelines to clean up their little mistakes? That's bullshit. You want women to have the right to choose, fine. I'm willing to compromise. But under no circumstances, should public funds (on any level) be used to pay for abortions. This is what really irks me with the pro choice folks. Not only do they want women to have their right to "choose" they want the rest of us to foot the bill for their mistakes. I'm not one of these people who looks down upon sex. On the contrary, I believe sex is a wonderful thing and should be engaged in as much as possible. But I realize that there are consequences to sex, and pregnancy is one of them. I would never turn to the government to pay for poor decision making on my part, and cannot understand why others would do any differently.

OK you go tell a poor woman pregnant from being raped you won't pay for the abortion she wants.
yeah, that's gonna happen!

[underbear1]

The government bails out corporations CONSTANTLY, whether it's the auto industry which choose to make gas guzzlers when we face oil gauging, or airlines who choose to overbook every flight to compete on Expedia and Orbitz, but they are going to tell women (who are 51% of the country), hey you're on your own with that sex decision you made. RIGHT!