Tuesday, January 22, 2008



Brought to you by "pro-choice" senators like Collins and Lieberman-- thanks NARL

I know, I know... there are some Republicans who are pro-choice and some Democrats who are anti-choice. Generally speaking, here at DWT, we treat anti-choice Democrats as Republicans and do our best to defeat them. And Republican pro-choice congressmen and senators... well if you vote to confirm extreme right wing operatives like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, who are dedicated to denying women's right to choice, are you really pro-choice? If you vote for congressional leadership that is psychotically dedicated to over-turning Roe v Wade-- think DeLay, Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Frist, Lott, Miss McConnell-- what difference does it make if you claim to stand with your constituents' wishes on the matter of choice? You're destroying it. Susan Collins is the best example of all and People for the American Way, as I mentioned last week, are making an example of her this week.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports on something new from Planned Parenthood-- a major effort to elect pro-choice candidates.
The nation's largest reproductive-health-care provider plans to spend $10 million in hopes of persuading one million people to vote for abortion-rights candidates in the 2008 election. Planned Parenthood will roll out its election plans today to mark the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.

With its "One Million Strong" campaign, Planned Parenthood becomes the latest Washington interest group to launch an independent effort to elect candidates who back its priorities. Since Congress enacted a campaign-finance-reform law banning large financial contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties, a growing number of individuals, labor unions, corporations and other interest groups have started or boosted their own campaigns to elect like-minded candidates.

Let's see if Planned Parenthood is more savvy than the clueless NARL which more often than not endorses reactionary insiders who may be technically pro-choice but who routinely vote to destroy choice by voting with the Bush Regime and with extremist Republicans on judicial confirmations, etc.
The efforts come at a time when many abortion-rights advocates feel they are under attack. Since President Bush took office, he has nominated federal judges who have chipped away at abortion rights and installed two antiabortion justices to the Supreme Court. Two of the oldest justices on the current Supreme Court are liberal. If a Republican wins the 2008 presidential election, two more conservative judges could be added to the court.

Until recently, Planned Parenthood hadn't played a role in elections. In 2004, the organization endorsed Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president, marking the first time it had endorsed a presidential candidate in its 90-year history. In 2006, Planned Parenthood lent its backing to a handful of Democratic candidates for governor.

Officials at Planned Parenthood say they decided to move into the campaign arena because they say reproductive rights are under assault by Republicans. The political effort will be led by Cecile Richards, the organization's president, who has a long history of working in Democratic politics. "To keep our doors open," Ms. Richards said, "it's clear that we need to step into the electoral arena."

Today's L.A. Times makes the point that the GOP attempt to overturn Roe v Wade is very serious-- and must be addressed strenuously. I trust PFAW to counterbalance the tremendous damage done by unwitting-- even witless-- collaborators like NARL. We'll see how Planned Parenthood handles the task.
The precedent set by Roe is more threatened now than ever. The appointments of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have reduced the presumed support for Roe to a small majority on the court. Meanwhile, the four justices in the court's liberal wing are growing old and could conceivably be replaced by the next president (John Paul Stevens will turn 88 in April). Even without a majority on the court, abortion foes have been chipping away at Roe one law at a time, and they have made alarming headway, culminating in a high court decision last April that for the first time since 1973 upheld a ban on a procedure -- controversial "partial-birth" abortions.

A return to the days when states were free to ban abortion would be disastrous and deadly. A recent review of U.S. abortion statistics backs up what pro-choice activists have long asserted: Those most likely to get an abortion tend to be those least able to afford to travel to another state to get one. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty line is almost four times higher than that among more affluent women. Statewide bans would lead to back-alley procedures by desperate women, who would die needlessly because politicians shut down clean and safe clinics.

That appalling possibility should trouble all the justices, but particularly Roberts. For him to overturn Roe would be to contradict his stated devotion to precedent and to turn his back on his mentor, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In Dickerson vs. the United States, which challenged whether suspects must be read their Miranda rights for their statements to be admissible in court, Rehnquist wrote for the majority in 2000 that regardless of whether justices supported the original Miranda decision, it had become "part of our national culture" and therefore deserving of protection. Roe, in the same way, created a now well-established right that would cause severe upheaval if it were overturned.

Kathleen Turner:

Labels: , ,


At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frankly, I don't think the court can overturn Roe outright. Even if they did, it would be come a states' issue again and it will be up to them to set their own laws. The best thing to do in order to limit abortion is to educate the public as to what it is, what it does, and what the consequenses of it are. The number of abortions over the past several years have dropped considerably which is something that both sides can agree on I would think (hope!) Meantime, I would hope that more folks made choices BEFORE abortion becomes a possiblity (whether or not to have sex and if so, whether or not to use protection) and if they do become preagnant, I would hope that they choose life or choose to adopt. Of course, its interesting to note that the original Roe V. Wade ruling said NOTHING about the 3rd trimester or whether or not restricions could be made. Frankly, while I consider myself to be pro-life, I do find myself sympathetic to situations of rape and incest and health risks. I would hope that legislators would place some kind of restrictions on certain procedures, such as the partial-birth procedure, which many Democrats would agree is a horrible procedure. Of course, my wanting to see ANY restricutions probably make me a right-wing reactionary (nut-job, Nazi, whatever) in the minds of liberals. Well...so be it. I happen to think that my view on the debate is rational.

At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blah, blah, blah. To counteract such dribble, I sent Planned Parenthood $50 today.

At 2:19 PM, Blogger Ms. Kathleen said...

As a Feminist for Life member I simply can't understand what the "choice" is? I am still puzzled. Give the mother the right to kill her offspring? Wow! How about giving the baby a right to live!? Now that is a thought.

Susan B. Anthony stated "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869).

She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights.

Alice Paul The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) opposed the later trend of linking the E.R.A. with abortion. A colleague recalls her saying:
"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

I don't know if RvW can be overturned but women like me will never stop trying to bring truth to all men and women. That life is precious, that a baby deserves the right to live just like everyone else.

At 2:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you get pregnant, the rapist was god's instrument. If not, he's just a rapist.

At 5:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Choice" is just a buzzword. I mean, hey, this is AMERICA! Right? How can choice be a bad thing in the land of the free? Problem is, this choice, like all choices, has a consequence to it. In this case, the taking of life in its development stages, which is by far the most innocent. So anyone who claimes that the pro-life movement is anti-choice, I think it would be more accurate to say that they are anti-abortion. It would be the same thing as calling the pro-choice crowd anti-life, or baby-killers, or morons. Seems to me that liberals are the ones who have abortions more times than not. As such, liberals are killing their next generation off, while conservatives are having several children and are raising them to think the same way they are. Liberals MIGHT want to reconsider their support of abortion before they are outnumbered by their political opponents. But in the liberal world of "me-first" instant gratification, I doubt they think about the long-term reprocussions of their actions and their right to choose.


Post a Comment

<< Home