Reply
Wed 22 Oct, 2003 09:06 am
I learned today that the Senate approved the ban on what are known, politically, as partial birth abortions and I wonder whether something hasn't been overlooked.
A commentator on NPR said that this measure has the potential of stopping abortions performed as early as the 12th week.
Amniocentesis is generally performed between the 15th and 18th weeks of pregnancy and detects debilitating to fatal chromosonal and genetic defects and neural tube disorders.
Allegedly, 140,000 abortions are perfomed in the US after the first trimester, or beginning in the 13th week. I wonder how many of these are because of a news revealed by amniocentesis?
Furthermore, 140,000 is a pretty low number when you consider the population of the United States.
Consider, too, the health and education costs children with the above sort of defects will create. How many of those Senators vote against special education funding and medical funding?
Anti-abortionists lack perspective. Some of their energies might better go to protecting the living. We now know that the chemicals like fire retardants in children's pajamas and insect poisons are responsible for the increased incidence of asthma, as well as behavioral problems.
WBZ's medical reporter Dr. Mallika Marshall recently underwent tests to discover whether she had fire retardants in her body and she does. Now, were I to post this on abuzz, I would be attacked by conservatives who would say that liberals wanted fire retardant chemicals in kids pajamas in the first place but the liberals were the people who resorted to sewing their own pajamas for their kids and to using long johns -- cotton underwear -- as pjs.
The ban on so-called partial birth abortions is a boon-doogle perpetrated by the uneducated and uninformed.
I heard. There is at least on Doctor who is planning on suing (suing who? The Prez?).
this bill, as i understand it, was already overturned by the supremes when it was enacted by a state legislature. assuming no change in the supremes i can only assume it will be overturned again. however, following the florida decision yesterday to over rule the courts we may find ourselves in a new constitutional crisis over separation of powers.
Maybe even worse, look what passed in Texas:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/535139.html
I know that this means soon abortions will be completely illegal, and we will be back to unsafe doctors, coathangers, and unwanted children/children with medical problems.
I would sue them, if I could. This makes me so sad. It looks like secularism may be an impossible dream.
I guess this is what happens when people only elect male fundamentalist christians.
For those of you who want to oppose the overturning of Roe V. Wade, sign the planned parenthood petition:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/action/petition/index.asp?id=2&?ms=saveRoe_petition
They also have some good information on the topic, tracking rulings and whatnot.
http://www.saveroe.com/wow/pba/
Portal Star, that is, indeed, depressing.
I would have more sympathy for the Right to Lifers if each of them would adopt at least two children with severe disabilities, vote to increase school budgets and increase taxes to support special education.
If you like this, and want more like it, then next November vote for the party that wants to get government out of your lives: The Republicans.
hold on a second. The republicans are sort of generally for less federal regulation, and less social care, but they represent Christians, and they are pushing anti-abortion laws (especially GWB, who will probably re-run - he is decidedly anti-abortion.) Democrats aren't pushing anti-abortion laws, but they are pushing more interference of government in social matters, and a stronger federal government. I like to vote libertarian, although I don't know if there's a concensus about where they stand on abortions.
Libertarian is a philosophy not a party - the rights of the individual comes first and formost--------
I don't care what the party says...........
Portal Star
wrote:The republicans are sort of generally for less federal regulation, and less social care
Then why are they in my bedroom, in my my press room, in my doctor's office, in with my lawyer - not ever to aid me but to screw me.
It is your decision!
I am convinced that the Republicans reserve for themselves the right to define what is and what isn't governmental responsibility and governmental regulation.
The irony is that Winston Churchill, a conservative albeit a British Conservative, actually liked a great deal of governmental control and power.
I am certain that most conservatives and/or Republicans have no idea what special needs education is like and the problems a family with a special needs child faces and how high the divorce rate in such families is.
BillW wrote:Libertarian is a philosophy not a party - the rights of the individual comes first and formost--------
I don't care what the party says...........
A political party is an interest group that runs candidates.
Libertarian Party The libertarians run candidates, therefore they are a political party.
What I mean is that I am a libertarian in philosophy (true belief) and definitely not for the party. I have never seen them put forth a candidate that I agree with -
I'm assuming they will carry out the libertarian philosophy. They ran this guy for governor in Austin who was a dolt, but from what I hear the presidential candidates are good.
Just some of them, a lot of - mostly one issue politicians that consider other parts of the philosophy baggage (IMHO)