Redstate

Didn't Sen. Santorum's opponent run as pro-life?

Issues2000 says Casey is for the three-exception rule, opposes embryonic stem-cell research, and favors a bill giving rights from conception.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

But I'm pretty sure that's why Santorum got creamed in the election because the Dins had been able to bamboozle enough people into thinking Casey Jr., was as pro-life as his father, who wasn't allowed to speak at the 92 convention by the Clintons for his actual pro-life views as a Democrat.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter

if they denand loyalty on this issue? Are PA pro-lifers sure the answer is "yes?" If not, they chose to accept risk.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

We'll find out the answers to both, but to claim Pennsylvania as a defeat for pro-lifers is unfounded.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

If they could have, then it was a defeat.

And, what about VA and MO, where the loss matgins were smaller?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

NRLC rates him 50% versus Specter's 17%. So much for party being all.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

to getting SCOTUS nominees approved.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Pro-lifers keep being told that control of the Senate, and the judiciary, are the end all. But I think you're going to have tow ork harder to make the case, if you want to keep them on the plantation. Prove it to them.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Withour Roe, some states could have banned abortions. Because of SCOTUS, they can't.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I think pro-lifers in a good, solid Republican state need to elect a governor and legislature who will tell the sweet mystery of life to stick it. And elect members of Congress who will pass a law to back 'em up.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

And elect members of Congress who will pass a law to back 'em up.

Especially in VA and MO, where the vote loss margins weren't that great for Talent and Allen, I ask again---if the pro-lifers could have saved these two gentlemen, why didn't they? Precisely WHO did they expect to pass the laws the pro-life community wants? Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy?

Man, you're dreaming here.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

But I think you're going to have tow ork harder to make the case, if you want to keep them on the plantation. Prove it to them.

When you say "prove it to them," what do you mean? What's the point in Congress passing a law that restricts abortions, if the 9th Circuit and other pro-choice Federal judges will determine that it conflicts with Roe and kill it?

With Roe on the books, how do you get around it? And, without new SCOTUS Justices, how do you get around Roe? And, without a majority GOP Senate, how do you get more Robertses or Scalias on the bench?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

We all agree Roe is wrong, right? If we truly, absolutely were against it 100%, we'd just tell the court to stick their worst activist rulings and ignore them.

Barring that, though, if the Republican party wants to keep a hold on pro-life voters, the party has to, through its actions, prove it is with those voters.

Starting with nominating someone friendly to them for the Presidency.

And also, as Erick has so well pointed out, DOING THINGS WITHIN ROE THAT FIGHT ABORTION.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

There's a lot of history as to why, but it's a very bad idea.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Our party was founded on it, on opposing the evil that was Dred Scott, among other things. Quoting the 1860 party platform that Lincoln was elected on:

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Sounds like a problem we have now, at least except for the armed forces part, heh.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States.

And here we get to the heart of the matter. These are the roots of the Republican Party; these are the kinds of words that unified ex-Whig and ex-Democrat alike in propelling the Republican Party to power.

If you do the right thing, the people will be with you. If you're wrong, respect for the authority of the courts, and for the Constitution, will bury you.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

In 1829, American demand for land due to population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land led to pressure on Native American lands. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act that Jackson signed into law. The act was challenged successfully by the Cherokee Nation in 1832 in the US Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia, in 1832. Despite the Supreme Court decision, Jackson took no action to uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was quoted as saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" As the court has no executive powers to enforce its decisions, Jackson's executive disregard of the court marked a time when the Judicial branch of government was very weak.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

that Roe is wrong. I agree, as do you and most people (I presume) on this site. But not enough voters agree. And, on the Earth where we all really live, it's a majority of all voters who pick the people who actually determine what government does and doesn't do.

we'd just tell the court to stick their worst activist rulings and ignore them.

Please reply with your action plan for how the Bush Administration should go about defying SCOTUS rulings, in such a way where the Congress will go along.

Barring that, though, if the Republican party wants to keep a hold on pro-life voters, the party has to, through its actions, prove it is with those voters.

Starting with nominating someone friendly to them for the Presidency.

If time and baby permit today, I'll write a diary on this. But, maybe the Republican party is starting to ask itself whether it's worth it, long-term, to hold onto the pro-life vote.

Personally, I have to question how strong the pro-life vote really is.

Seems to me that the pro-life vote would have realized the value of having a GOP-controlled Senate (and a GOP Judiciary Chair) during the last two years of President Bush's term--a president who'd proved he would nominate pro-life SCOTUS nominees. AND, with the two most liberal SCOTUS justices (Ginzburg and Stephens) also being the court's oldest and sickest members. Yet, they didn't rally to save Jim Talent and/or George Allen.

Didn't...or couldn't?

Then, there's Colorado. Home of Dobson's Focus on the Family. It has a Dem Senator, a Dem governor, and looks on the path to picking a second Dem Senator. If Dobson can't sway elections in his home state, where CAN he sway them?

And, what about VA? Home of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. One Dem Senator, two straight Dem governors, and most likely another Dem Senator in 2008.

Neil, I'm not so sure that Team Dobson is in a position to be dictating our nominee. I don't doubt that, if the pro-lifers stay home, they can keep the GOP nominee from winning the White House. But, given the examples I've listed above, I question whether pro-life support would be enough to get our guy elected.

As I see it, if someone other than Giuliani gets the nod, we should expect HRC to will all the states John Kerry did, plus Ohio. That equals victory for her. Rudy, on the other hand, can put OH, NJ, perhaps PA in play.

If the GOP gives Team Dobson what it wants, based on the 2006 election track record, I'm not so sure you can deliver the White House.

Convince us that you can.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

If you think the party should just tell pro-lifers to get lost, you can feel free to do it. But don't expect pro-lifers to come begging for scraps. That's not how the system works.

They'll just nod and vote accordingly. It's up to the party really, not up to them.

If you think you can win with out them, go ahead and try.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I guess we have a diary to look forward to on this.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I keep starting a piece on what if the AGW people are right.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If not today, then whenever he gets the chance. It'll stop this from being a mother of at hreadjack though, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

as political - it is NOT, it is a "moral" issue - and a very major one at that. The italics are for a reason.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I am passing on this debate.

And recommend that others enjoy their Sunday and take some time off from it.

The public does believe in MODIFYING Roe. They do not favor keeping all abortions legal all nine months. When Roe is fully explained, opposition to overturning it is less than half.

Seventy five percent of Americans would support a second trimester abortion ban with rare exceptions. Roe and Casey do not allow for that. Similarly, they do not buy a broad "health" exception that turns it into the rule. In that sense, they would favor overruling Doe.

In any case, there are states where Roe does not have majority support even without being explained. Only a state can defy Roe, in whole or in part, not the federal government. The court ruling was never addressed to the federal government, and it is questionable whether they have that power under section 5 of the 14th amendment.

But even if a state legislature were to defy Roe, and the new law enforced, the courts would just dismiss every attempt to prosecute the abortionists were they to get the trial all murderers are given. All sorts of chaos would ensue, and we could see moves for secession and/or Civil War II.

However, this debate does raise a key point Sandra Day O'Connor made in her Casey opinion. When she dreamt up the rules needed to have the decision overruled, one of them stated that it would be overruled if the decision were deemed to be in such error that its enforcement were "doomed." It's probably as convoluted as any of the countless tests she invented, but what I get from it is that the ruling is only being upheld because it CAN be enforced. The state's elected branches couldn't figure it out for themselves, so they have the court to do it for them.

issue on the vote

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Junior Casey cast the deciding vote against overriding the President's veto of expanded embryonic stem-cell research, and the pro-unethical research forces, including his party leadership, pushed him extremely hard on the issue.

www.republicansenate.org

I could be wrong, but I think he voted the right way on that. It was the funding of overseas organizations that refer for abortions that he supported.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

aspect of this party, Republican, changes, my vote goes away...period. I just don't know who or what I would vote for. The Republican Party does have a choice and I know it may be hard (considering the pressure from the left) but they either remain the pro-life party or they no longer exist.

This is not any kind of threat...just a common sense, true statement.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Most voters in Virginia and Pennsylvania and about half in Missouri do not identify as pro-life. You can be sure that at least some of that half in Missouri do care more about the war, which I belive in addition to the scandals and arrests, were ALONE enough to cause the Republicans to lose every single seat they lost in 2006. I don't think fiscal restraint would have saved a single seat. Casey probably only won by a bigger margin for being pro-life. His vote to fund foreign organizations that may refer for abortions (but not pay for them) was insignificant, IMO. We already do that in the US.

Obviously, we ALL know there are many pro-life voters who do not care about the issue. How do you explain that a much higher percentage of blacks are pro-life than whites when something like 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat? Arkansas is among the most pro-life states out there; they vote for liberal Democrats. Even Kentucky is trending that way with their governor. Of course a few southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi do have more pro-life Democrats.

Even not assuming that, how does one expect people to know about the judiciary and the judicial process when they don't even know what Roe says? Two thirds claim to support it, but we have about seventy percent of ALL American people who want second trimester abortions banned (with rare exceptions). (Nobody realizes that the support for partial birth abortion bans is the same for ALL second trimester abortion bans!) Half the nation disagrees with "mental health" exceptions. People just don't bother to look into the issue and instead opt to look over it. Too few people realize what an abortion is and what is and is not involved. They just react to the word, and that is why we get nothing done.

We talk about a woman's right to know, but there should also be a voter's right to know. Voters are not informed on the issue, and Planned Parenthood capitalizes on that by touting public support for "legal abortion" and "Roe" in general. Those who would ordinarily favor anti-Roe limits on abortion get too hung on the "government intrusion" and "privacy" slogans from Planned Parenthood. No one thinks about gestational limits, informed consent, and other issues apart from abortion in general. Most people on both sides are uneducated on the issue, especially as it relates to the judiciary, and they do not think to seek out this information. It is far too overgeneralized.

Ultimately, I doubt many voters in any of the states understand the stategy or need for new court appointments. Most voters are not that intelligent and informed, and a lot don't want to be.

but like you, have nothing to back it up...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

What would you like evidence for?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I said a lot about it. There are polls that confirm voters' positions and their lack of knowledge of Roe and of the abortion issue. However, I speculated on a few things as well.

being raised by liberated I don't need a man single women with wild animals playing t-ball; no virgins under the age of 14; and too many women that give themselves to men in the manner of whoremongering men carving notches on the bedpost.

men respect a women that says no
used to when their were some

and while we're at it with the diaphrams and the lie of "safe" sex, why not be extra careful and tell them that IF THEY MUST, they should just do it in mom's and her john for the week's bed, since
mom always has condoms

and lotion

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Rest assured, all the abortion centers out there offer and boldly advertise contraception. It's usually included with the cost of the abortion. There is no need to legislate it because it is already done.

In contrast, abortionists do NOT give details about abortions, especially mid and late term ones. They have to be forced by the government to do it.

that there is some kind of omerta on information on contraception?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Putting up your email like that puts you at risk of getting trawled by spambotters, which is why we changed it. If you'd like another version, reply to this email with it and we'll change it again.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I know that every child who escapes the birth canal measurably, spiritually, hurts your tribe.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I have no idea how you got from Do you have information to prove that these policies were effective? to Rawr, liberals eat newborn babies!

I never said anything about newborns.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

a count is as good a way of measuring effect as statistics. That's why the Census uses enumeration.

Why would statistics be a good tool in this case? Are you saying that an observed effect is less significant that an inferred effect?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

is that no numbers are provided for before the law went into effect. What percentage of women who went to doctors before the law was passed ended up getting actually going through with the abortion? More, less, the same? I would guess more, but there's no data here to confirm that.
Without those numbers, it's hard to draw any conclusions from this data.

The first report required under the legislation was for 2006 i.e. there is no data for previous years. Not on the DHR website, at least.

link

Due to the absence of this data, claims that the law produced these results seems perilously close to "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Even if the data were there when you'd looked, you'd say there's no proof of causation and whip out the same fancy latin.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I'd be happy to see even a correlation, since "proving" causation would be quite difficult. However, your insinuation that I was being disingenuous about my post is both offensive and ridiculous, since I am pretty sure you have no insight into my thoughts. Furthermore, if "post hoc" is considered fancy, I guess I got my money's worth in my freshmen philosophy class.

that would be a best case scenario in which you received a substantial benefit of the doubt. My assessment runs more to the dishonest end of the spectrum.

And from your understanding of the post hoc logical fallacy I think your parents should ask for their money back.

And put a leash on your injured outrage, it makes you look silly, though it does give a good laugh.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

After, therefore because - I'm pretty sure that is what Senate Majority Leader, Tommie Williams is implying.

I'm glad that some women in Georgia are choosing not to have abortions. I would like this trend to continue. In order to find the right public policies to encourage this, it is important to honestly and critically examine those policies. Tommie Williams made an honest assessment of the policy. However, I (and some other posters) believe he was not sufficiently critical, and made a claim that is hard to support with available data. No one has provided any additional data (from Georgia, or perhaps other states with similar initiatives) to support the stronger conclusion.

With the insults and unfounded accusations, only some folks in this thread look silly, and I suggest that it would be those who get upset when such a basic point is made. Furthermore, I made a good faith effort to find the data for previous years, which is more than some others in this thread did (two in particular spring to mind).

as no claims are made about previous years. They are making claims based on a count of cases after the law went into effect. This isn't rocket science or correlation. This is simply data.

Now obviously you don't like these data and are trying desperately to discount them but that doesn't change the fact that the data are there.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

What impact did this have? Not so much as to say there is no effect. But more to understand if this is the best place to expend our legislative efforts, or if there is better avenues.

I think you'd be hard pressed to support an assumption that things either remained static or got worse: intuitively one would think these measure make at least a marginal impact in reducing the number of abortions. And even a marginal impact of one - i.e. one life saved is great, especially since the cost of this legislation appears to be carried by those providing abortions.

I think if you could correlate a decrease in the number of abortions per year with the introduction of this law, you'd be well on your way. Or possibly a reduction in the rate of change of abortions in the state; i.e. if the number of abortions was growing and then after the law stayed static, or if it was shrinking and then started shrinking faster.)

What this would mean is that state law makers can have an impact on the number of abortions, without over turning Roe - and in turn - promotes a two course political agenda. Locally Pro Life advocates should seek to fill up the legislature with law makers who will take actions that put a break on things, and nationally they should seek to staff the presidency and senate with politicians that appoint and ensure confirmation of strict constructionists that would be most likely to over turn R v W.

One thing Pro Lifers should remember is that the Republican party is not full of Pro Lifers - so pushing the issue in this avenue, is important. Single handedly pushing for Pro Life orthodoxy runs the same risks for the Pro Life groups as does a course that alienates the Pro Lifers for the libertarian wing. In either case the constituency that tries to force orthodoxy will end up with a "worse" solution.

In my view HRC's negative impact on the court and socialism far outweigs anything else, for example on the war I won't be surprised to see her swing to the right from the primary that secures her the nomination forward. And once elected she'll have to govern that way - just as Guiliani and Romney will have to govern consistent with their campaigns or lose all their imperative.

Implicit in the claim that "So we saved about 11,800 babies so far" is the belief that this law has changed the behavior of people visiting abortion clinics. But without knowledge of the number of abortion clinic visitor and total abortions before the law was passed, there is no way to judge this. It could just as easily be that those 11,800 babies would not have been aborted, even without these requirements.