Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: snip I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above. Sorry, been busy... You think Reid is not a pro-life Senator? Rush Limbaugh disagreed. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade. The real problem is that the real leadership of the parties has been driven to extremes by what each side sees as the others extremism. Also the GOP is doing its best to get rid of those national moderate members within their party. What's unusual about the politics of abortion compared to other political issues is that the parties have taken pretty extreme positions compared to the public, says Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University professor and co-author of Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of Abortion. An awful lot of people think the answer to (a question about access to) abortion is 'it depends.' I don't feel that in our state it is viewed as a black-or-white situation, says Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who supports abortion rights. People see it in shades of gray. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken in March, a 55% majority took some middle ground on abortion rights -- either supporting them with exceptions or opposing them with exceptions. Most Republicans and most Democrats take positions at odds with their party's platform. More than six in 10 Democrats would outlaw abortion in some cases; more than seven in 10 Republicans would allow abortion in some cases. Dan has said he is not opposed to a morning after pill and doubts that your position is very far from his. He also seems to want to draw the line, recognizing the child as a human whose death should be classified as murder, soon after conception. I do not support abortions after viability of the fetus except to protect the health and life of the mother and suggest that doctors are best qualified to make those calls. These are opposing positions but mine is not that of a nasty liberal Democrat who will let a mother do whatever she wants to her unborn child. The argument that you and Dan seemed to want to try to make was that Democrats, those nasty baby-killers, want abortions to take place right up to giving birth. Y'all were called on it. It was a somewhat natural position for you to take as the GOP has shaped the argument that way in the bills they devise and the attention and language they bring to the wedge issues they raise. -- Gary really should be in bed Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:30 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. and also wrote: At 10:22 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, you wrote: On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. You are again playing fast and loose with the facts by only referring to Roe vs. Wade, and neglecting Doe vs. Bolton, Casey vs. PP of PA, and Stenberg vs. Carhart. The pro-choice side, I have amply demonstrated, doesn't want any lines drawn - as we still have not had anyone able to take my challenge of identifying a *single* restriction on abortion supported by that side. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. You said, life and not health. So, you agree that Stenberg vs. Carhart legalized murder in the United States? You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. Not true. Stenberg vs. Carhart requires an exception for *health*, not *life*, including mental health. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/19/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:30 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. and also wrote: and I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. You are again playing fast and loose with the facts by only referring to Roe vs. Wade, and neglecting Doe vs. Bolton, Casey vs. PP of PA, and Stenberg vs. Carhart. I briefly referred to Casey. The pro-choice side, I have amply demonstrated, doesn't want any lines drawn - as we still have not had anyone able to take my challenge of identifying a *single* restriction on abortion supported by that side. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. You said, life and not health. So, you agree that Stenberg vs. Carhart legalized murder in the United States? This hasn't come up before and I am not yet sufficiently versed in it to decide. You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. Not true. Stenberg vs. Carhart requires an exception for *health*, not *life*, including mental health. Again I would have to see if this true. I have learned not to go by just your interpretation. That may win points on a debate team but not with me. There is a reference to Heinlein in here. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of moral values. This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the vote of the moral values voters. For the record, I didn't say that the reason for Democrats having these discussions was right - just identifying the elements of Conventional Wisdom that cause Democrats to have these discussions, and not Republicans The discussions I was referring to occurred long before the last election. Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. If right-wing news is your definition of CW... And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that since the GOP has adopted a position it is far easier to disagree with and you get elected officials considered moderates with wider disagreement this means that Democrats are the one with the problem? But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above. At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also snipped. The bill passed by Congress contained an exception that the procedure may be used to save the life of the mother. In particular, it provides an exception for a partial-birth abortion necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c1085WUrim:: Why do you provide cites that don't exist? However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury. This language excludes some life-threatening situations by enumerating others. However, the government may not choose among life-threatening circumstances and still preserve women's lives as the Casey decision requires. This was a political bill. Based on many other bills ruled unconstitutional it was known that this bill also would be declared unconstitutional which it was very shortly by three judges in three states. Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? As noted above, the law provided that government does *not* get involved in such decisions. But a conservative pro-life judge held extensive hearings on just that matter and ruled it did. What is your basis for disagreeing with that decision? But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. Should a government threaten you with prosecution if it determines you may be wasting sperm in unsanctioned ways? - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: snip The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: [...] (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. How do you figure? The proviso includes appropriate medical judgment, which leaves psychologists right out, as only psychiatrists are also MDs, and only psychiatrists would be (implicitly) entitled to render *medical* judgment regarding a woman's health. A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Have you taken a breath or two, stepped back and really looked at what you're suggesting, then compared it to the actual figures for abortions? I think you might be a little too emotionally involved in this to see that some of what you're suggesting here really doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/18/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Thank you for that quote. That is very close to my summary except life or health. So are we splitting hairs over how much the health of the mother be endangered? Is it a bigger threat to not allow abortion at all, allow it in some cases of phyical health of the mother, or to allow it if both a doctor and a clinic decide the mother's health is endangered? Dan M. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's a legal abortion. Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too controversial. In the case I know about the de had a 4% complication rate, inducing a later birth and the procedure they used has a 29% complication rate. So banning partial birth abortions even applies to the unalive even with the law struck down. BTW, three separate judges have ruled the partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional because it provides no exception for the woman's health. According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point, Judge Kopf wrote. No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion. In his 474 page judgement he went through the entire argument of both sides and concluded: In summary, examined from the perspective of the trial record, substantial evidence is lacking to support Congress' Findings that there is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures, and that the banned procedure is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. On the contrary, the trial record establishes that there is a significant body of medical opinion that contradicts Congress. No reasonable person could come to a contrary decision. I am thinking these arguments never go anywhere. I worry about the health of the mother and what happens if abortion is outlawed. We know it doesn't stop. Opponents argue about unborn babies or pre-babies, their souls, and the slippery slope. .As well as just spread lies, I think every community has activists spreading their facts about this never necessary procedure. Another Judge was able to turn the trial into a show trial against the DX abortion procedure - even though it's not clear that the DX procedure is what the PBA ban actually bans. (The court in California ruled that the definition was too broad, contradicted medical definitions and was too vague. This third court in New York with a conservative judge found the procedure revolting but the law unconstitutional.) Legal background here: http://www.federalabortionban.org/in_the_news.asp Poland also recently restricted abortions. A study is out, it says what you would expect. Reproductive Health Matters volume 10, issue 19 (not online, sorry), has a report on the results of Poland's abortion ban (Poland banned abortion in 1993, except in cases of rape, a threat to the health or life of the mother, or a severely damaged fetus). The Polish abortion ban is fairly similar to what pro-lifers in the USA have proposed, except that American pro-lifers are opposed to health exemptions. The law didn't measurably reduce the number of Polish abortions; it did, however, force hundreds of thousands of women to obtain illegal abortions (and it drove the price of abortions way up). However, some women who need abortions for health reasons don't have the money or connections to obtain an illegal abortion, or cannot safely have an abortion outside of a legal hospital setting. The result, of course, is that women are hurt. Alicja became pregnant for the third time aged 31; her eyesight had deteriorated with each of her two previous pregnancies. A number of ophthalmologists agreed that another pregnancy could irremediably damage her eyesight, but they refused to write a letter to that effect. One finally did write the requisite letter, but Alicja was turned away from the public hospital where she sought an abortion. The obstetrician-gynecologist she saw there told her
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of moral values. This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the vote of the moral values voters. For the record, I didn't say that the reason for Democrats having these discussions was right - just identifying the elements of Conventional Wisdom that cause Democrats to have these discussions, and not Republicans Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above. At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also snipped. The bill passed by Congress contained an exception that the procedure may be used to save the life of the mother. In particular, it provides an exception for a partial-birth abortion necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c1085WUrim:: Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? As noted above, the law provided that government does *not* get involved in such decisions. But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
