McCain wins, Frist/Dobson lose

I too think the dems caved and just as they do, lo and behold, look who's coming to visit....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050523/D8A96EO82.html

0 Replies

...and that's really what it's all about isn't it?

The Planned Parenthood lobby.

Notification would cut into their profits.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

...and that's really what it's all about isn't it?

The Planned Parenthood lobby.

Notification would cut into their profits.

that's really a very lopsided view of it lash. and really pretty cynical.

not everything is about money.

how come you don't note that "the religious right's agenda to revoke roe v.wade" is really what it's all about?

i actually don't have much of a problem with notification. maybe under 16 rather than 18, or something.

but i do have a problem with a girl being pressured into having a child that she doesn't want to carry. and you know that a lot of parents would indeed apply that pressure in the name of faith or whatever.

also, do you deny that the notification issue is only another step towards an attempt to repeal roe ?

0 Replies

DTOM - an underage child has to have parental permission to accept an aspirin from a school nurse. Yet, you think a procedure such as abortion should be allowed without the parents' consent?

I don't recall abortion being a central issue in the recent election....except for when the Democrats tried to make it one.

0 Replies

You bet I deny it.

No one is rolling back R v W. It's the law, and it's been the law. You don't go back. Women (and girls) would be getting illegal and unsafe abortions.

But, it will no longer be the cash cow for PP---or the free slaughter of babies at every stage of development.

It won't be rolled back--but it will be humane. There will be a limit, notification of minors, no PBAs.... and that's it, I think.

I was glad to see your opinion about notification. I think that's a sensible age.

The extremes have been pulling at this issue--and now, I think reasonable people will prevail.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Lash wrote:
...and that's really what it's all about isn't it?

The Planned Parenthood lobby.

Notification would cut into their profits.

that's really a very lopsided view of it lash. and really pretty cynical.

not everything is about money.

how come you don't note that "the religious right's agenda to revoke roe v.wade" is really what it's all about?

i actually don't have much of a problem with notification. maybe under 16 rather than 18, or something.

but i do have a problem with a girl being pressured into having a child that she doesn't want to carry. and you know that a lot of parents would indeed apply that pressure in the name of faith or whatever.

also, do you deny that the notification issue is only another step towards an attempt to repeal roe ?

Notification is the rights of the parents to know what is going on in their childrens lives. If the child were to go on a killing spree who would be the first people to be blamed? The parents. If your child dies during an abortion how would you feel if you didn't even know what was going on because the govt told you that you had no right to know?

0 Replies

That is a very valid point, baldimo.

Remove a girl's tooth without parental consent, and lose your license.

0 Replies

Democrats may want to note that Dean would prefer to strike the words 'choice' and 'abortion' out of the lexicon of the party.

He now refers to it as 'women's health'.

Bizarre, I know, but..... consider the source.

0 Replies

kinda like the neo-cons stricking the word "freedom" out and replacing it with "ordered liberty" I think the idea of actual freedom scares the **** of them.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

DTOM - an underage child has to have parental permission to accept an aspirin from a school nurse. Yet, you think a procedure such as abortion should be allowed without the parents' consent?

no, that's the exact opposite of what i said, jw. the only difference i made was "maybe under 16"... go back and read it again.

JustWonders wrote:

I don't recall abortion being a central issue in the recent election....except for when the Democrats tried to make it one.

oh, man. that is so stainless. c'mon. abortion is a central plank of the whole family values thing.

it's hard to deny that abortion was at the center of the debate when republicans crowed for days that bush "won on values". be logical. if the conservative christian right backed him as their guy, do you really think it was because he was in favor of legal abortion ??

that said. how you doin' these days?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You bet I deny it.

No one is rolling back R v W. It's the law, and it's been the law. You don't go back. Women (and girls) would be getting illegal and unsafe abortions.

But, it will no longer be the cash cow for PP---or the free slaughter of babies at every stage of development.

It won't be rolled back--but it will be humane. There will be a limit, notification of minors, no PBAs.... and that's it, I think.

I was glad to see your opinion about notification. I think that's a sensible age.

The extremes have been pulling at this issue--and now, I think reasonable people will prevail.

and i'm equally glad to see your opinion on roe. it would be terrible to turn back the clock on that, as well as a lot of other, issues.

also, i think that yeah, there may be hope for the more reasonable folks to kind of rein things in a little, the country can't survive for long with this constant hammer and tongs routine.

it's not healthy.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Lash wrote:
...and that's really what it's all about isn't it?

The Planned Parenthood lobby.

Notification would cut into their profits.

that's really a very lopsided view of it lash. and really pretty cynical.

not everything is about money.

how come you don't note that "the religious right's agenda to revoke roe v.wade" is really what it's all about?

i actually don't have much of a problem with notification. maybe under 16 rather than 18, or something.

but i do have a problem with a girl being pressured into having a child that she doesn't want to carry. and you know that a lot of parents would indeed apply that pressure in the name of faith or whatever.

also, do you deny that the notification issue is only another step towards an attempt to repeal roe ?

Notification is the rights of the parents to know what is going on in their childrens lives. If the child were to go on a killing spree who would be the first people to be blamed? The parents. If your child dies during an abortion how would you feel if you didn't even know what was going on because the govt told you that you had no right to know?

read it again......

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Democrats may want to note that Dean would prefer to strike the words 'choice' and 'abortion' out of the lexicon of the party.

He now refers to it as 'women's health'.

Bizarre, I know, but..... consider the source.

strangely enough, several of the christian pharamicists that i've seen interviewed (based on their refusal to fill an rx for birth control pills) claim that their refusal to do so and the lectures that they deliver to women (in front of other customers) is due to "the dangers that the drugs pose to a woman's health".

damn, man. everybody's playing some sort of game these days with the words.

it all started when a janitor became a "sanitation engineer" and a clerk became a "sales associate".

see? you can make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. Laughing

0 Replies

IMO we have a bunch of pu_ _ ies for senators.

All they've done is kick the can down the road.....?

0 Replies

Well, when two guys stand facing each other with guns drawn, 'kicking the can down the road' is probably somewhat more prudent that boner-bullets.

This is a very good move. I love the guys that pushed back at extremism and won.

But I don't think this is a null set for Bush. It might be in terms of perception, but I think not in terms of what he (by which I mean Rove and Cheney) would have desired. I think they would have preferred to reduce the power of the Senate. Reducing the power of any one or any thing in the path of their agenda seems a fundamental mode of operation.

0 Replies

And what a blessing to have, at least for a time, surcease from "up or down vote". How many times must republicans (just Frist alone!) used this focus-group-tested phrase in the last two months? Less/more than the number of Monarch butterflies now nestled in those dwindling trees?

0 Replies

townhall doesn't have much yet...a little header which leads "so-called moderates".

0 Replies

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats."- Dobson

Don't ya just love it!

0 Replies

Yes, I do love it. If the Republican party stays tied to, and obligated to, the extremists of the religious right, they'll be more powerful but also more pathologically insane. A bad combination.

0 Replies

I'm pretty sure this represents a net win for Democrats.

WHy?

First of all, they are successfully kicking the can down the road and preparing a moral basis on which to filibuster a supreme court nominee. Reid said the exact same thing today, and while he didn't look overjoyed with the deal he didn't look too upset either.

Second, it wasn't the Democrats who caved in as their primary desire - the desire to preserve the fillibuster - was achieved. It seems to me that with the majority that they had, and the rule changes that they were pimping, if the Republicans had had the votes, they would have made the changes. They didn't have the votes; therefore, they failed to stick tight.

Frist's dreams of presidency are finished. Dobson takes a body blow. It's hard to see how this is a loss for the dems (though letting Owens through is a bitter pill).

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McCain wins, Frist/Dobson lose

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know