home

High Court to Hear Abortion Case

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:54:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court agreed to hear only one case today. It involves parental notification rights in abortion cases. Scotus blog reports:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a long-unsettled issue of abortion law: the standard to be used in judging the constitutionality of a restriction on a women's right to end a pregnancy. The question is whether such a restriction is to be upheld if there is any circumstance in which it could be applied constitutionally. The Court for some time has not followed that approach in abortion cases, but has never explicitly repudiated it. The working standard the Court has applied is whether a restriction, as written, would put a burden on the abortion rights of a significant number of women.

The issue arises in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144). The case also raises the question whether a parental consent law for minors' abortions must contain a health exception. At issue is such a law enacted in New Hampshire in 2003.

NARAL has issued a press release that should be online shortly stating that the decision "underscores the threat of President Bush to Roe v. Wade" and reminding us that "the constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade hang in the balance of a 5-4 court."

< Supreme Court Declines Mexican Death Row Cases | Nuclear Option: Get Your Fingers Limber >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    High Court to Hear Abortion Case | 70 comments (70 topical)
    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#45)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Damn, he's got me there...Not.
    The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy.
    Perhaps that's lie #5 in this thread alone. Can you really be that gullible? That has got to be one of the most moronic things I've read since coming here. Well, top 25 anyway. Do you also agree that a child is property until around the age of 3?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Actually, Patrick, Blagh's just pointing out what WHITES are saying on the internet... Did you read the links and Google it yourself or are you being typically lazy in disagreeing with something in which you've spent O hours researching? As for 3 year old children, stick to pointing out Blagh's statements- everyone else can speak for themselves...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Again, with the sweeping generalization. That's what "whites" are saying on the interent or what white suprememcists are saying? I would argue that they don't speak for me even if we happen to coincidently find ourselves on the same side of an issue for obviously different reasons. Yes, I looked at the link and laughed. You link to propaganda, then use it on your site as some kind of proof. Like I said moronic. This thread isn't about pro or con abortion, it's about a parent's right to know. You've shown me absolutely nothing except your blind ignorance towards the issue.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    You still haven't answered the question about whether or not you consider a 3 year old as a human or property. I would never have thought I needed to ask that question of anyone, but if Marty's views are typical of those who think like the two of you do, then I do need to ask.
    As for 3 year old children, stick to pointing out Blagh's statements- everyone else can speak for themselves...
    I'm simply asking you if you agree? What? I can't do that?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Sure you can, but if you read any of Blagh's other comments, you'd know it's a dumb-ass question not worth answering, but Blagh'll answer it for you... Blagh believes personally that life begins at viability, which means if the fetus could reasonably be expected to live outside the womb, that it is now protected by society...or should be... That doesn't mean that a 16-week fetus who survives means all abortions are illegal...the question is "reasonable viability" and how we set that standard...by averages, of course... Just like you disconnect black babies from incubators in Texas against the mother's wishes, because the law of averages tells you little Sambo is a dead duck... So there you have it...breech-abortion isn't abortion, it's murder in Blagh's eyes...a girl having an abortion in her 1st trimester is her bloody business, unless you can show how you have the right to interfere with her reproductive processes... Good enough for you? Does that clear things up? And Patrick, since you're full of questions, why don't YOU answer this: Why are the anti-abortionists so slaveringly willing to break laws and even kill doctors to protect unborn people when "born people" are being massacred as we speak, some of which are in Iraq having dinner when a cruise missile introduces itself to their abode? Why doesn't that elicit the same hand-wringing, or the starving buggers in Africa, or the genocide in the Sudan? Why don't you stop worrying about fetuses and start worrying about the people aleady here...Why? Waiting....

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    V2Marty: "life begins when you become a sentient being at about age 3." Lemme guess- you don't have kids. Do you value the life of a human adult over the life of an unthinking adult?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    You mean a repug? Or a handicapped person? That is a hard question... does this adult have memories? Brain dead adults (Schavio) are not people, but masses of meat. A handicapped individual is human though, and afforded all right a human gets.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    I think I hear a clock in the other room.. Cookoo Cookoo Cookoo. I've seen marty and Blahg align themselves together in other threads. With opposition like this, I'm feeling pretty comfortable.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    i align mysel with logic and morality as i percieve them, Blag just happens to have a keen moral compass and quite a bit of logic up his sleeve.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    And your morality allows you to dispose of a child up til the age of 3? Yeah, I'll oppose you with every breath in my body. And to think some accuse Bush of being like Hitler. Words can't express how much your statements offend logic and morality.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#42)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    deleted. Name calling is not allowed here.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    I do not really advocate that anyone "dispose of a child up til the age of 3" but, I am trying to make a point that the argument over abortion is based entirely on the idea you are killing a person. If your definition of a person is tied to a "soul" created at conception, while mine is tied to one's conciousness (which manifests much later), we end up seeing the issue in a much different light.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy's been doing some soul-searching this morning and has come to the conclusion that many before him have reached: The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy. Don't believe Blagh? It's all in black and white right here.... And now we all know...right George?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    One of the arguments in favor of notification laws has been to stop older men from hiding their abuse of young women. To this argument, I think opponents of notification laws could adopt the position of conservatives who oppose "hate crime" laws: the crime itself is already punishable under existing law, therefore we don't need to create new law to control it.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Quaker, I don't get it. Notification laws would only make it harder for that girl to get help. If the abuser, rapist, molester, is in the house, is a parent or other guardian, notification becomes the worst nightmare, and gives the impregnator info he wouldn't otherwise have. Peace.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    except that in those cases, and with court oversight, parental notification could be waived, by law. If a 16 year old is mature enough to make that decision without parental consent they are mature enough to face the adult justice system, no? Why not?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    When confronted with the facts, what advocates for parental notification laws love most is evasion. The most crucial fact is that such notification implies that the parent has the right to force a child to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy. What this means, oh constitutional termites of the Right, is the grandparent's wishes supercede those of the mother. And that's wrong no matter how you slice it. No woman, of whatever age, should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes. Not by her mother, not by her father, and certainly not by the lamebrains in government.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    If a 16-year old is mature enough to make that decision, why not let them just make it without having to justify it any further? This is just another obstacle. If she were an adult, she might have to face a waiting period (you know, to reconsider).

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    The most crucial fact is that such notification implies that the parent has the right to force a child to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy.
    Do parents have rights to control their minor children. That is the question. Take abortion out of the equation.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    "What this means, oh constitutional termites of the Right, is the grandparent's wishes supercede those of the mother." Actually, Glanton, I think the that the termites think that if the law says that a child is not mature enough to make decisions like those involved in voting, driving, drinking, etc., then they also aren't mature enough to make decisions about life and death of others.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Dadler, Obviously those who make this argument (and I'm NOT one of them, BTW) don't envision the problem male living in the same house. Instead, they're assuming that a non-family member seduces and impregnates the underage woman, then carries her off to have an abortion to hide his action. Having sex with an underage woman is already a crime. The argument goes that criminalizing the abortion will make it more difficult for a man to hide the evidence of statutory rape.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Also, I'm no lawyer, but minors can get legally emancipated from their parents. Seems like a reasonable course of action for someone considering such a drastic course of action.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Do we really want a system where a 12 year old can walk in to an abortion clinic and have a serious medical procedure performed without the knowledge of her parents? If so, what possible limits are left to parental responsibility?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Patrick: I think we can all agree pregnancy is a special case. It aint like asking to spend the night with a friend, or even to borrow the car for a few days. sarcastic: More of the same for you. The drinking age, voting, etc. are interesting analogies but none of them match up to the awesome phenomenon of and ramifications involved with pregnancy. I mean, let's stay on Earth for a few minutes. Are we really supposed to see a parallel between your examples and physically forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy to term? In the name of basic decency, mom must trump the grandparents 10 times out of 10.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    "none of them match up to the awesome phenomenon of and ramifications involved with pregnancy." Glanton, to my eyes, you've just made my point.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#14)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Dadler, It's about parental control. You can package it any way you want so it doesn't offend your sense of right and wrong, but it offends mine. No one if forcing anyone to do anything, parental notification says nothing about parental consent (Which I'M all for as well), but an abortion clinic has to be forced to ensure that a minor's parents have been notifed. Come on, the local emergency room won't treat a minor child for a bloody nose, stitch a laceration or give anything but emergency life saving treatment without parental notification & consent. Are you saying this standard should be realxed for abortions? Give me a break. Your the poster child for the what's wrong with the pro-choice movement.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    The previous post was to Glanton, not Dadler, sorry for the confusion. and of course your is supposed to be you're.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Well, sarcastic, if you think the grandparent has the right to force such an awesome thing upon the mother, than I guess it would make your point. Clearly this is how Patrick feels. But then again, both of you would have all women barred from the right to a safe and legal abortion, so I wonder how sersiously one can take you here? Is it not simply an opportunity to chip away at Roe, by whatever means necessary? Indeed, Patrick talks about control, and there's a reason for that. Parental control is one thing, property ownership quite another. I wonder if you can see the difference? At any rate, a minor is not nor should ever be, a piece of property. Nor is any human being. Such cavalier advocacy of one human being's right to deprive another's reproductive rights smacks of slavedriving to me, plain and simple.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Yep, Glanton, we're not going to agree.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Such cavalier advocacy of one human being's right to deprive another's reproductive rights smacks of slavedriving to me, plain and simple.
    The government deprives us of reproductive rights all the time. It is illegal for a man to impregnate his sister, or for an adult woman to impregnate herself by a minor boy. It isn't slavery, it's the government working for the public good. Allowing parents' to override a child's medical decisions about body piercings, wisdom tooth removal, and birth control smacks of slavery just as strongly. Which is to say, not very. (My examples might be legal by artificial insemination... not sure what that would mean for my argument)

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, Roy... The laws are against having sex with one's sister, and against a woman having sex with a minor...but nice try...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    If a twelve year old is mature enough to decide to have an abortion without her parents consent, can she be tried as an adult if she decides to kills a classmate? It seems funny that schools will not give asprin without parents consent, but an abortion, nah, no need to bother mom or dad. Glanton: You are refering to Grandparents and moms. Obviously you consider the product of an abortion to be human.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Don't be foolish, Coyote... Only conservatives would talk of trying children as adults while meantime denying them voting, driving, drinking and all other privileges common to adults...unless it's their own child, then the lawyers go into overtime, right? First of all, a child is not "deciding to have an abortion." A child is not legally able to give consent. Hence, whether this child wanted to have sex or not, she was raped. So, having a raped child with child, you would advocate compounding the tragedy by forcing her to carry the pregancy to term? You guys are very compassionate when you're dealing with kids other than your own...NOT...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Blahgdaddy,
    The laws are against having sex with one's sister, and against a woman having sex with a minor...
    Yes, banning (or at least interfering with) practical impregnation as a deliberate side-effect. I think that shows that we allow our government to restrict reproductive rights, especially with children. It only "smacks of slavedriving" (glanton's words) when it doesn't mesh with one's agenda. There's still plenty of room to argue whether a specific policy is a good idea, of course. Personally I support parental notification, perhaps even after the procedure (since I assume it's safer the earlier it's done), but not requiring consent. Wile E. Coyote,
    It seems funny that schools will not give asprin without parents consent, but an abortion, nah, no need to bother mom or dad.
    The point you're deliberately ignoring is that witholding asprin won't have life-altering consequences, whereas witholding an abortion does.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    So here's a question for notification law supporters: What constitutes valid proof of age? What precautions are clinics required to take to detect frauds? If a 17-year-old presents fake ID, is the clinic liable for damages? Does the doctor face criminal liability? Your answers will tell us who this law seeks to control.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    So we tell children not to have sex or they'll get pregnant, and if they wind up pregant through statutory rape, we make them have the baby? So, if we tell a child not to drink poison, what do we do when the little bugger chugs down a bottle of aspirin- sit him down and make him "take his medicine?" You people are too barbaric for words. You'll put a minor to death... You'll make them carry out a pregnancy after being raped... You'll let millions of Africans die of AIDS because you feel contraception is immoral... Blaghdaddy's just waiting for you all to f*#k off and stop meddling in others' lives...you've done enough, and thanks....

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    What constitutes valid proof of age? What precautions are clinics required to take to detect frauds? If a 17-year-old presents fake ID, is the clinic liable for damages? Does the doctor face criminal liability?
    I dunno, a driver's license from a state that doesn't just issue them to illegal aliens, official state ID, military ID, something that's credible and then we don't have issues with your second two questions as long as the doctor or clinic makes a good faith effort.
    So we tell children not to have sex or they'll get pregnant, and if they wind up pregant through statutory rape, we make them have the baby?
    So much half truths, misstatements and outright lies, I don't know where to begin. F*ck off yourself. In my opinion, parental notification or court supervised medical treatment. If you don't want to tell your parents (and you're an unemancipated minor) you will need court approval prior to receiving an abortion. If that makes me a monster in the eys of some here, I can certainly live with that.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#26)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    "I dunno, a driver's license from a state that doesn't just issue them to illegal aliens,"
    Whunh? You'd have the standard of proof vary according to the policies of the state where the woman lives? So what happens if one of your dreaded illegal aliens shows up with a valid driver's license that says it's her 18th birthday. Do you allow her to have her choice or do you force her to produce another offspring you can try to deport?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Patrick...be careful who you call a liar...you conservatives have cornered the market on that... Blagh's lying to say that it is statutory rape to have sex with a girl under 18? Is he? Blagh's lying to say that conservatives advocate the execution of minors? (Didn't the Supreme Court just tell the Bush gov't that it can't anymore? If they weren't advocating it, what were they doing in court?) Blagh's lying to say that the Pope and the Bush gov't are responsible for denying Africa responsible birth control? Where's the lie or the half-truth in ANY of those statments, Patrick? If you're going to call someone a liar, make sure you have YOUR f*#king facts straight, buddy...you're the liar...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    be careful who you call a liar...
    I'm a little wary to wade into the cross-fire, but it did strike me as fishy to equate providing aid -- just not the most effective -- with "letting millions of Africans die of AIDS". Also, I don't think anybody is "denying Africa responsible birth control", they just aren't giving it away or promoting it.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, what do you call with-holding life-saving contraception because of moral debates? For Christ's sake, who made conservatives the world's babysitter, and why can't they give everyone else the same liberty they scream for themselves? Why? Why? Why? You people love to split hairs when you're trying to bamboozle people, and then you accuse others of splitting hairs...who's splitting hairs while millions of Africans die of AIDS? Liberal? Not.... And you would call not giving aid after a tsunami humane too, wouldn't you? It's not "letting them die," it's just saying "f*#k you," right? You bloody hypocrites... Terri Schiavo required changing laws up and down the nation, but what are a few million jigaboos in a place white people destroyed over four hundred years? Ask the Republicans...they've got all the answers...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Blaghdad is the new soccerdad.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    What does that mean? Good night everyone...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, what do you call with-holding life-saving contraception because of moral debates?
    In this context, I call it half-assedness, since it doesn't work as well promoting and distributing condoms. But the Republican idea of aid is actually good advice: stay abstinent. You seem to be blaming the Republicans for the choices of those who don't follow the advice. Maybe some of the educational material was of crappy quality, like the "you can catch AIDS from tears" screw-up in the states. That'd be different.
    For Christ's sake, who made conservatives the world's babysitter...
    Don't liberals favor more foreign aid spending? Which is more babysitter-like? Maybe your point is that if the U.S. is going to baby-sit at all, we should follow the more effective liberal approach, which I'd agree with.
    You people love to split hairs when you're trying to bamboozle people, and then you accuse others of splitting hairs...
    I think that's true, but, you did ask for your half-truths to be pointed out.
    And you would call not giving aid after a tsunami humane too, wouldn't you?
    Are you equating $350,000,000 of aid, plus sending military assets to directly help, with "not giving aid", and still maintaining that you're utterly honest? Yes, I call the Republican tsunami response human. We met our basic obligation. We could have done more, but so could virtually every person, company, or government.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#33)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Throwing a temper tantrum doesn't make your positions any more valid. The posters above me did a fine job of making the points you requested. Like I said, you don't agree with me and hate me for my opinion and for calling you on yours (as fine an example of liberal tolerence as ever, and unfortunately what we've come to expect), so what. I can live with that. Come again when you don't have to stay as long.
    Patrick...be careful who you call a liar...you conservatives have cornered the market on that...
    Lie #1
    You'll make them carry out a pregnancy after being raped...
    Lie #2
    First of all, a child is not "deciding to have an abortion."
    Oh no? Who is? Lie #3
    You'll let millions of Africans die of AIDS because you feel contraception is immoral...
    Nuff said... Lie #4

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    the problem is that the repugs believee that short-sighted judeo-christian morality applies to all. As an athiest, i value the life of a human adult over an unthinking fetus anyday. life begins when you become a sentient being at about age 3.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    life begins when you become a sentient being at about age 3.
    At the risk of offending our liberal hostess, I'm going out on a limb and saying that abortions after the 10th trimester should be illegal.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    I agree. Killing a thinking being is a crime. Until the child can form thoughts and opinions, it is the mother's (and father's, to a lesser degree) responibility to treat as they see fit. A potential human is not a human though. is it murder to kill a sperm, an egg, a zygote? what about a miscarriage? What about a woman who is physically unable to come to term but gets pregnant anyway? is she a killer? no. ????

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    Parental notification laws only serve to further harm the already harmed. Girls who have been abused, molested, raised in alcoholic homes and the like are most definitely harmed/burdened by notification laws. Now, whether a majority of this particular SCOTUS will acknowledge their plight is another, more disturbing matter. Needless to add, I don't think it wise at all to uphold laws that only serve to burden/harm the most vulnerable pregnant girls.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Blag- “The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy.” This is an extremely bigoted statement that I’m surprised TL hasn’t scrubbed. You do not know what a particular conservative thinks because you 1) know what a handful of other conservative think, and 2) they all share a common skin color. You have committed the cardinal sin of statistics, a lie of omission. In support of your arguably bigoted hypothesis that the abortion debate for whites is about racism you site that the majority of abortions are performed on white women (although the potential skin color of the fetus is unreported). However, from the same page you liberally selected your stats we read that black women are 3 times more likely to abort than white women and Hispanics, 2.5 times more likely. How would I be any less bigoted if I were to selectively report those numbers and claim that the abortion debate for white liberals is about white supremacy? I wouldn’t. Peddle this garbage elsewhere.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    You know what, Blagh includes links so others can read what he's reading and decide for themselves...he doesn't need your approval to state an opinion, and TL's editorial policy is against inciting hatred, not pointing out interesting things one reads online... Funny EVERY person who's taken issue with Blagh's piece (and he deliberately put it starkly) take issue with Blagh's conclusion, ALL THE WHILE ignoring the links he's provided to the ACTUAL STATEMENTS made by WHITE CONSERVATIVES on the issue... Whites say "Abortion is White Genocide..." Blagh says, "Look What Whites are Saying..." And you want to attack Blagh? Get a life... And as for black abortion, their birthrate (remember the jigaboos breeding like rabbits?) more than compensates... If you can't Google it yourself and see that Blagh is only the messenger on this, then be quiet and let informed readers comment, why don't ya?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    And to all of those who say, "What about non-white anti-abortionists, what about liberal anti-abortionists?" You really need to learn how to read, and how Blagh's assertion is that abortion is about white supremacy to white conservatives...anyone can oppose abortion, but what are the motives? Why do white conservatives get into such a lather over abortion when tens of thousands of "arrived" people are dying AT THEIR HANDS? Find a better theory and let Blagh know...oh, and let the white people screaming about "White Genocide" know that they're mistaken, too...since Blagh doesn't know how to read...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    You know what, here are some links for all of you lazy buggers Here and here and here.... Now, read some of them and shut up about Blaghdaddy's "offensive assertion." You're all fools if you don't take the time to learn something instead of just attacking it...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#54)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    “ … Whites say "Abortion is White Genocide..." … “ Again, you have completely missed the point. Whites do not say, but rather some who are white have said. “ … the ACTUAL STATEMENTS made by WHITE CONSERVATIVES on the issue...” Actual statements made by white supremacist that you would like to use to paint all conservatives; wait, no, simply white conservatives. You may be surprised to find that there are a number of white supremacy groups that are championing the anti-globalization and pro-Palestinian movements as well. By your same thick logic we should indict these movements by their association, or rather just the white members of these movements.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#55)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Why are the anti-abortionists so slaveringly willing to break laws and even kill doctors to protect unborn people when "born people" are being massacred as we speak, some of which are in Iraq having dinner when a cruise missile introduces itself to their abode? Why doesn't that elicit the same hand-wringing, or the starving buggers in Africa, or the genocide in the Sudan? Why don't you stop worrying about fetuses and start worrying about the people aleady here...Why?
    I'll answer this dumb ass questions and return the courtesy. Because there are extremists in every facet of life. Someone (Read: You) would have to be an idiot to assume that just because they do something that temporarily aligns them with another group, the other groups subscribes to their philosphy. Also, this thread isn't about the war or even abortion, it's about whether or not a MINOR CHILD should have to notfify her parents if she's getting an abortion. I believe she should, and I believe you've completely lost track of the points that are being made and struggling desperately to support your unsupportable assertions.
    Now, read some of them and shut up about Blaghdaddy's "offensive assertion." You're all fools if you don't take the time to learn something instead of just attacking it...
    This once again proves you don't know what you are talking about. I do not need to read white supremecist propaganda to know that you're offensive. You've proven it time and time again. Plus, I already know they are wrong and just as offensive.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Seems to Blagh that you're more offended by his pointing out White Supremacist views on abortion than the ACTUAL VIEWS...no surprise there...conservatives always want to attack the messenger while refraining from commenting on the MESSAGE... You state that Blagh is out to lunch, but you admit the existence of the White Supremacist propaganda about abortion...so what exactly are you upset about?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    And you didn't answer the question as to why you're not wringing your hands at all the slaughter in the world while chasing "abortionist murderers..." You're more interested in protecting cars on the assembly line than the ones on the road being crushed daily...Blagh's starting to wonder about YOUR politics...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#58)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Blahg says,
    conservatives always want to attack the messenger while refraining from commenting on the MESSAGE...
    Right after I said:
    I do not need to read white supremecist propaganda to know that you're offensive. You've proven it time and time again. Plus, I already know they are wrong and just as offensive.
    Patrick says blahg as relegated himslelf to the relm of one who is not to be taken too seriously. Patrick's point being who cares what the white supremecist think of abortion since Patrick realizes this thread is not about abortions, but about parental notifcation rights in cases of abortion. If this thread were about white sups, Patrick would say they are a bunch of morons too.
    so what exactly are you upset about?
    Patrick is not upset, he's trying to figure out whether your twisted views are representative of the left or just left field. Besides, I've enjoyed laying waste to your superficial argument.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    It ain't Blagh's argument, buddy, he doesn't care one way or another why anti-abortionists oppose abortion... He's just pointing out the fact that, for many white conservatives, it ain't about the "culture of sacred life..." and you've proven Blagh's point by refusing to concede that it's out there...afraid to admit the facts or just dense, who knows? You're boring, Patrick, with your semantics and red herrings. Blagh's still waiting for you to explain your lack of equal compassion for the living that you hold for the unborn...until then, Blagh's done with you and you can chatter all you want...you've already wasted more of his time with your drivel than he'd like to admit... Folks, it's been a blast hangin' with y'all on TL today, and Blagh's gotta go...take care and God Bless... Blaghdaddy

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Blagh's still waiting for you to explain your lack of equal compassion for the living that you hold for the unborn...
    Lie #6, this is getting old. You assume too much grasshopper. But that is instrumental to the positions you take. You assume that I'm something because I support a parents right to be informed.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Patrick- perhaps you take offense because you think Blagh's lumping every anti-abortionist into one group. That would not only be stupid but incredibly, well, stupid... Blagh isn't a fan of abortion, and he's made that clear many times...but he has no moral weight by virtue of his beliefs to impose them upon others... If you're not a slavering, white-supremacist, you're not the target of the piece... If, however, you spend more time worrying about aborted fetuses than murdered Sudanese Christians, Iraqis, victims of hate crimes and the like, then you certainly ARE whom Blaghdaddy is pointing to... Life is sacred...so what about the Iraqis the U.S. is killing as we speak? Freedom? You don't free people by killing them...name one American killed by an Iraqi before the invasion...now, HOW MANY Iraqis have died in the last two years as a direct result of American military actions? If you're more concerned about abortion, Blaghdaddy maintains your priorities are misplaced... And if you still insist that Pat Buchanan is anti-abortion out of love for God, you haven't heard him CALL ABORTION "WHITE GENOCIDE..." That's all Blagh has to say on it...peace out...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Patrick: Blagh has a personal letter waiting for you here at his blogsite, and he wishes you, if you desire, to read it and let him know what you think....not to take up TL's space, he has a few things he wishes to clear up with you, should you wish... Blagh would be most appreciative...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#63)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Semantics and red herrings, uhg, you’re killing me here. You have tried to paint all of one group with the sins of another simply due to a single shared value. It is a commonly used tactic in debate but intellectually bankrupt. I think you see that; which is why you retreated from “The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy.” … to … “for many white conservatives …” Repeat after me, there are many more white folks with valid good faith objections to abortion than there are those who object based on an ideology of supremacy. Likewise there are many more non-violent folks who object to abortion than those who are willing to kill. I don’t think it helps the pro-life movement to polarize the debate by framing it in terms of murder and evil. Pro-choice folks like yourself should take note.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Piggle- Actually, it's the right that gets violent over abortions...the left will just go and harm THEMSELVES if they can't get one safely, wouldn't you agree? Don't you get it? Pro-choice means that...not pro-abortion...Blagh had a girlfriend who went and did that without even letting him know BEFOREHAND because he happened to be vacationing in Mexico when she found out and made the decision...talk about getting Bush-whacked... While she obviously didn't remain Blagh's girlfriend after that, he wouldn't have put her in jail for it or EVEN have tried to stop her...her body, her choice...and that, my friends, is not being a hypocrite...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    "not to take up TL's space"...blaghdaddy Now that's rich!

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    sarcastic, you don't know how much Blagh is actually capable of writing when his manian strikes...you haven't seen anything...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    I don't know how to take this, are you saying you're bi-polar?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Oooohhhhh yeeeaahhhhh....read Blagh's little post on why he uses "herbal medication..." And when Blagh's bp is running amock (which is usually, as he has Type 1), he'll write ten pages in fifteen minutes and it'll feel like he wrote a short note...so bear with him, please....

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    My Mom's a type 1 as well. She also trips out on booze. She has also told the doc, er, many docs, and their lithium to f-off. She's periodically homeless, and happy as a pig in sh1t on the streets to boot. Family relations are very strained. She likes burning things on occasion - like her children's cars. I wish you and your family the best with all my heart.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Blagh says many thanks, sarcastic-one... Blagh's usually cool as long as he doesn't drink...then bad things happen...Blagh's gonna blogh about that some time later....stay tuned... Wish your mother the best...

    High Court to Hear Abortion Case | 70 comments (70 topical)