Redstate

One of NOW's biggest wins ever was the whole Bork thing.

Now, given Bork's interpretation of the 9th Amendment, I'm not terribly upset that he didn't make it to the bench (do not see the previous sentence as an endorsement of Kennedy)... but that's beside the point.

NOW thought it was the biggest win ever. Going through my brain, I'm not sure I can come up with a bigger one. (Roe?)

Anyway, a whole bunch of people on the left side of the aisle remember Bork and remember what it took to beat him. I'm guessing that they merely haven't yet figured out that it is no longer 1987 and the stuff that worked then will not work today (or in 2008).

In Hill's mind, she wasn't shooting herself in the foot. She was positioning herself on the (inevitable!) winning side.

I don't think you need to triple-guess this one.  With Hillary, we now have 15 years of national attention, and her status as the cleverest moonbat is clear.

Suppose a girl's father gets her pregnant. Should she have to discuss her decision to get an abortion with him? I would certainly help a girl in that situation get an abortion, in or out of state, and would gladly help her lie to her father. How does the proposed law deal with this situation?

although it is tempting, you might just be ignorant, but There is no excuse for not knowing that every single parental consent law has provisions for appearing before a judge under these circumstances.

I would hope if you knew a girl was being molested by her father, and indeed knew she got pregnant from him, that you would notify the police so the father could be thrown in jail and lose his parental rights.  Then the girl can discuss her options with her mother, grandparents, social worker, etc....

A few executions later.... incest rates will drop to near nil. Even if you don't want to go that far try this one on.

Make the defendant pay for billboards with his face on it with the title "I raped my Daughter" until his parole is over (and it violates his parole to move out of town). Any time he changes his appearance.. he has to pay for new billboards.

Sometimes you should consider punishing the perpetrator rather than the victim or the innocent.

*Or whomever the rapist is... male or female no matter the relation.

Incest is a crime the father would be arrested and the child put in the custody of the next of kin. If there is no next of kin the child would become a ward of the state in either case the abortion could take place

This legislation makes it illegal to try to circumvent state parental notification laws by taking a minor across state lines to have a procedure.

The circumstances you are posing are ones that would be relevant questions to ask during the legislative process for those state laws.

But your hypothetical reminds me of the old adage- don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. No law will ever be able to handle every circumstance. Trying to do so is an effort in futility and prevents sensical laws from ever being enacted.

But more specifically, to address your hypothetical-- in such a case the father is guilty of a felony, and the proper response would be for him to be prosecuted and to have his parental rights stripped of him. The improper response would be to enable him to remain in the picture by allowing her to get an abortion like nothing happened while stripping parents who do not rape their children of the right to be parents, including knowing when someone is going to take them out of state to have a medical procedure performed.

In fact we have so many perverts in this country we should invest in electric bleechers.

alien abduction and unearthly species implantation either.  I mean what if?

Talk about a return to common sense. If this could really be used to embarass convicted father-rapists, I like it.

Really?  "Senator Clinton cannot win the Presidency without the support of parents, and she cannot win the Presidency without carrying some red states."

This didn't change anything in your mind, did it?  As you note, this was a tiny "protest" in the middle of a busy news cycle, and the types of people who are capable of connecting the "parents' rights" issue with Hillary's contribution are the type of people who wouldn't vote for her anyway.

Please, friends and neighbors, don't be amazed or confused when Hillary is president in Jan '09.  Prepare yourself now.  It is coming.  Yikes.

... and reciprocate with it in the other direction. It is politically naive to think that such a distinction will not be made during an election campaign.

The Senator had been trying to smooth her edges on abortion so as to aid her courting of red state voters. She did so because she understood the importance of doing so to her electoral chances.

She has either decided that it was more important to sooth her base, or she simply could not help herself. Either way, she severely wounded her chances in 2008-- fatally, in my estimation.

Alf and his cohorts will have Geneva Convention rights soon, too.

any time a woman gets raped we should kill her children?

It keeps being mentioned (with respect to the '06 election proximity) that "2008 is a long time from now."

Put me firmly in the "pessimistic of group behavior" crowd.

Sure, that distinction will be made -- you'd have to be taking a dive not to bring it up as her opponent.  But as the diary said, it's the "Wascawwy Wepubwicans" who will be framed (in every sense of the word) for being anti-Choice.

...a child's right to choose sans involvement of the parents.

As the polling shows. As the filibuster-proof majority the bill got in the Senate suggests.

And Hillary's devotion to positions seen by average Americans to be extreme has always been her political weakness. She had been working to counter that perception. She slipped.

Lotta stuff could happen between now and 2008.

Just like people could swallow their pet issues to vote for Rudy, there are situations that people would say "Maybe Hillary would be the best president for 4 years or so..."

For example: Bush gets one more judge on SCotUS. It's a solid one. Janice Rogers Brown or somebody like that.

Then the South Dakota abortion law makes it to the Supreme Court.

I can see Hillary getting elected it that happens. I can see it easy.

... 2+ years out, on a site where most of the people are literate, thoughtful, and patriotic.

That's not where or how elections and campaigns are conducted, especially the big dance.

In January '09, in the few weeks before this site is made illegal, I'll make a diary pointing out where I was right and wrong about President Clinton.  It will be a bittersweet "victory."

...between you and me.

I think that most of the people are literate, thoughtful, and patriotic. From your answer, I infer that you do not.

As you said, time will tell.

...that my 'framing' of the matter was a direct response to your framing of it in another direction. Tit for tat, and all 'dat.

We have seen a gret deal of election evidence that a Significant portion of the population is not.

I'm sure they all like to Think they are, but the worst lies we tell are the ones we tell ourselves...

... is not the same as "most."

I would have thought Reagan had shown the virtue of not underestimating the collective wisdom of Americans. It seems his lessons are often too easily lost.

Best candidate for CA governor, or the one that was best able to win?

The opposing mass to the "literate, thoughtful, patriotic" public is not an illiterate, thoughtless terroist public.  It is a public too busy to read about issues, too self-interested to extrapolate their thoughts forward in time and outward onto the public good, and too comfortable to demand sacrifices of themselves, much less their leaders.

As Tommy Lee Jones said as Agent K, "A person is smart.  People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

It was around 50% of the population.  That's close enough to "Most" to bother me and worry me about Clinton...

Who both: really, really care about this issue and aren't willing or capable to put the slightest effort into understanding it are already voting for HRC or whomever the Democrat candidate happens to be. We aren't going to be winning any of those people over.

Even if Bush doesn't appoint anyone else to the Supreme Court and after his summer sojourn to Europe, Kennedy comes back eager to take a case mandating homosexual marriage as a fundamental right. That would not only doom Rudy (and Hillary for that matter), but any other GOP candidate who tried to sell out a wide swath of his/her base telling them "don't worry", I'm going to work on "important" things.

You are correct overturning Roe would create opportunities for the Dems, the same way finding a dormant homosexual marriage clause would electrify the GOP.

return rape sentences to their former severity and, to protect the innocent, make it more serious to falsely accuse someone of rape.

Getting back on topic, I thought it was illegal to take a minor across state lines for any reason.

From what I understand, the State Supreme court decisions are resulting not in calls for it to go to SCotUS, but for stuff to be done in the legislature allowing for stuff like "domestic partnership protections".

But we probably oughtn't threadjack a post about abortion into one about sodomy (though that is a good way to get absolutely everybody to post something to the thread... maybe we should add something about medical marijuana and make it a trifecta).

If proved to be false, should be punished the same way the alleged crime would've been. At this point the penalties are far too minor. Even if the other person isn't convicted on your lies, you can still ruin their lives.

I just couldn't let it go anymore.  

It's "Naivete"

I'm stunned - two people managed to post comments before the issue of incest was raised.  That may be an all-time record.

To listen to the pro-abortion people, EVERY under-age pregnancy in America is the result of rape by a father who happens to also be morally opposed to abortions, apparently with at least the knowledge and tacit approval of the mother.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - these are the same people who pretend that every OTHER pregnancy in America is the result of rape.

To answer your question: what about them?  Exactly how is a clinical procedure the scumbag father doesn't even know about going to change his behavior?  Seems to me that all it's really doing is clearing the decks for a continuing pattern of abuse, and in the scenario you've provided, you would simply be an accessory before the fact the NEXT time the slimesucking SOB crawls into her bed.  

(If it appears to you that I've just taken your high moral stance and used it to turn you into a procurrer of young girls, it's because I have!)

Here's a question for you - what about all of the girls who AREN'T pregnant by thier own fathers, but instead are pregnant because thier lives are spiraling out of control?  Which is going to be more of a help - a secret abortion in the next state over, or some parental intervention (late but better than never).  And which group do you think constitutes the larger percentage of underage abortions?

All of which is completely beside the point - the law in question simply makes it illegal to take a minor across state lines to evade the laws in effect in said minor's state of residence.  Basically, it says that the legislature in state "X" doesn't get to enact law for the next state over, which is completely reasonable.  Whether or not you agree with parental notification laws themselves is a different matter - what this law says is that owning a car doesn't give you the right to ignore them.

Personally, I think that this law should have outlawed taking a minor across state lines to evade state laws without parental consent, period.  Instead of making it specific to abortion laws and/or parental consent laws, it would also cover underage drinking, drug-use, and any other laws that the state of residence might have in effect.

Let's continue the massacre of children so that Hillary has less of a chance to win.  Yeah, that's just great.

And while I'd surely vote Rudy over HC, I can hardly concieve of "swollowing" my values to vote for him in a primary.  Though if by the time my primary comes around McCain is the only other choice... well, I don't want to think about it.

I think you guys missed my point.  I was just saying that a child should not be killed simply because his father was a rapist or his mother was a rape victim.

I was saying that I could see stuff happening that would turn Hillary's statement into something that would get the guy/gal on the fence to vote for her, rather than against her.

No moral judgment on how we ought to act, one way or another, was stated or implied.

 she means the village police.  Families mean nothing to this Weight Watchers failure, but then people in general don't matter either.

      If memory serves, she advocated childrens right to take their parents to court, giving them adult, or majority, status in this one area.  I doubt that she would allow minors to buy cigarettes but at least they could sue the pants off their parents.

      Government is everything to this maladjusted misfit and you could see some inventive legislation if her lardship becomes President.   It's almost enough th make you believe in God's wrath but why a hell on earth?

That's the formulation that PJ O'Rourke used.

It's stuck in my head ever since.

I'm not missing my front teeth and Hillary at least knows how to spell "takes", or at least her ghostwriter does.  Typos, like other unmentionable things,happen.

I don't think we are disagreeing with you. At least I'm not.

They vastly overestimate the number of people who would get all weepy and teary eyed when Roe is overturned, and, by the way, abortion for any reason is still completely legal in most states.

It just seemed you were making the "Republicans should give up on ending abortion because if they ever succeed they'll lose voters" argument.

Though to be fair, you did not say what we "should" do.

I was remembering Bork.

It was 19 years ago.

It wasn't THAT long ago.

I think a judge 'did' this to a man pretending to be a Marine when he wasn't and lied about it to commit fraud.

Made him do community service with a sandwich board "I am not a Marine. I am a liar"

Lets see what I can dig up...

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2006/07/07/news/news02.txt

many others... search 'marine liar sandwich board'

but I find it hard to believe that any northeastern liberal could win a presidential election. Especially one as left as Billary. Let us not forget her national healthcare fiasco of 1993-94. Run Billary, run!

To be aware of them is not to endorse them.

Did the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts help Republicans win elections?

Acknowledging that it did is not to say that the ruling was a good thing. Or a bad thing.

Same for what will happen if Roe gets overturned after a JRB gets nominated to replace a Ginsberg or a Souter or a Kennedy.

The media 19 years ago had much more in common with the media of 50 years ago than the media of today. And this line of thought "overturn Roe = disaster for the Republicans" is very common on the left. It is also completely wrong. As wrong as their confidence in every election since 2000 that they would storm to power in a landslide. The people who will get weepy about losing Roe are already voting for the Democrats. They aren't ours to lose.

But you didn't put all the funny accent marks on it :P :)

I suspect that one of the main reasons abortion is such a divisive issue is because there doesn't seem to be a real shot at having it overturned.

The people on the left have it as a great issue for fundraising with the base, the people on the right use it for the same.

The people in the fuzzy middle, however, don't seem to have it as an important issue because they don't see the status quo changing.

If the majority of the country looked up and saw that the status quo had a real shot at changing, I think that that would very much change the tenor of the debate.

Not among the left or right, of course... but for the fuzzy middle.

Just as the left severely misinterpreted how the elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 were going to turn out, the right ought not get cocky and see a statistical tie, an election held 14 months after the worst violence on American soil since that in the Civil War, and an election against the worst candidate since Mondale as indicators of Republican strength.

But, as I said in the subject, I don't know.

execute all convicted child molesters. I'm close to wanting executions of all child pornographers as well.  

This "what if the girl was impregnated by her father" thing is a red herring. You can play "what if" to try to invalidate every law on the books...and liberals do.

You are talking about California.  

...literate, thoughtful, patriotic... in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes is virtually mutually exclusive.

Striving not to be the messenger that is shot...

hmmm, I think you give Dukakis too much credit.

Don't forget his malfunctions during the debates. They were even worse than his usual bad programming.

 For the incest victim, an abortion obviously would not solve her bigger problem, but it might be her preferred solution to the immediate problem of her pregnancy. And, yes, I do think HER opinioin is the most important one, because decisions of this kind have life-long effects. If she doesn't want to have a baby no one should force her, and if she doesn't want to have an abortion no one should force her to do that either. (I talked to a girl who got pregnant via rape at age 13, whose parents made her get an abortion, and she's seen herself as an accomplice to murder ever since. I think she had a right to make that decision herself, even at that age, since she's the one living with the consequences.)

 You're right to point out that incest (or rape) are rare cases, but my larger point was that there are reasons, incest being a very extreme one, why it would be reasonable for a girl to want to have an abortion without discussing it with her parents. Some parents would beat her, disown her or publicly humiliate her. In other words, some parents are lousy parents. If my daughter didn't WANT to talk to me about the biggest crisis that had ever happened in her life, I would blame myself. Police are not really a good instrument for getting family members to trust or talk to each other.

  A logical question about this type of law: Is the minor herself a criminal for traveling to get an abortion without telling her parents? If not, what's the logic here? Why is assisting the commisison of an act a crime if the act itself is not a crime? It's not as though the girl involved doesn't know what she's doing.

Is you don't have a right to terminate someone else's life. That's the pro-life position. It is ironic that you entitled this "Kids have rights, too" when the unborn child in your example doesn't even have the right to avoid being dismembered and killed.

the particular Federal law in question makes no provision for hard cases of "parental notification" because the STATE laws in question take care of those issues.

The only reason for the Federal law is to keep minors from being spirited across state lines without permission from their parent, guardian or a court.  Your argument is not with the Federal law, it is with the 50 state legislatures.

a boyfriend talking his pregnant girlfriend into getting an abortion in the ajoining state without letting her parants know about it?

Nevermind.. I know the libs will be silent on this, reality based scenario.

Take your choice, federal charge based on the new law or a state charge of statuatory rape.  Or both!  I like that better.

Incest is about lust and opportunity.

Executions would do little to curb incest.

Supporters of Rudy Giuliani: pay attention.  Issues like this, where abortion and state lines interact, are the situations where a President interacts directly with abortion.

And these battles would only get more intense if the states started having greater diversity of abortion laws.

Has anyone asked him what he thinks of this law?

in that the executed can never commit the crime again. Very effective.

I figure you got about 30% of the screen real estate with that one. Totally off point, totally ignorant, and right up the middle. Great job!

Have a judicial bypass provision, so you needn't worry.  Apparently, it's in the Constitution.  Somewhere amidst the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, perhaps thrown into the shadow of the Due Process Clause--which of course begat the Substantive Due Process Clause (thank you Dred Scott), which begat the fundamental right to marriage, which begat the fundamental right to contraception, which begat the fundamental right to abortion during the first trimester, which, when consummated with the Undue Burden Test (the apparent judicial standard for abortion intended by the Republicans of the 1860s)begat the fundamental right to an abortion any time you want.

Fifty years ago, killing a cop in New York State would get you the chair inside of two weeks. Even the worst of the worst went out of their way to avoid that risk. Bad guys generally aren't rocket scientists but they're not too stupid to respond to clear disincentives, either.

(I'm not necessarily advocating death for child molesters. I am advocating swift and proper justice.)

to do that.  Or I would have...

I just keep bypassing that sort of thing around here and couldn't let this one go, you know?

but the county map doesn't matter as long as the state and federal legislative district lines are drawn in a fashion that would drive Jackson Pollard to treatment.  That plus CA is generally made up of five population centers:

• LA, SF & Sacramento.  All are hopelessly liberal, in some instances to the point of being socialist.
• San Diego.  Fairly conservative because it's a military town.
• The rest of the state.  Not enough population to matter but generally conservative.

It's the liberal parts of the state that drives the agenda for the state.  The conservative parts are, by and large, your "silent majority" types except in CA they would be the silent minority.

the ability of Democrats to totally gut the rights that we all know parents should have.  Arguing that parents shouldn't know that their 15 year-old is undergoing a surgical procedure of this magnitude is ridiculous.  We still demand parental permission slips for a field trip to the zoo.

Just a total detachment from mainstream values on this one.....

Involving extreme discomfort and shame will eliminate a lot of crime. Sure the truly insane won't care, but they are beyond help anyway.

Have you seen the guys reaction that got caught wanking off in the library SUPPOSEDLY IN THE CHILDRENS SECTION. I doubt he'll do that again. The only way he escapes that shame is by moving. If he was put on parole and kept in the neighborhood... he wouldn't be able to escape it.

Putting the Shame back into Punishment will deter future offenders. This has been taken away from punishment because of

1) Population

There are so many people living all together. Nobody knows 'everyone' anymore. The lack of the Small Town 'everyone knows your business' keeps some people from doing things they don't want everyone to see. Getting the Shame out is the solution here.

2) Transportation/Moving Flexibility

So you are _____ (insert horrible thing there). Solution... move somewhere you won't be known. Start your life (and criminal activity) over. In the past, this wasn't much of an option... now you can do it within hours. Keeping the perp wallowing in the Shame is the solution here.

3) Shunning

There was a time where people wouldn't even acknowledge a person with a terrible reputation. Now it's a way to be famous and there are people attracted to such behavior (especially in already famous people). O.J. Simpson, B.J. Clinton... the list is probably a mile long. I don't have an answer to this one... other than hold to your own moral convictions no matter what others do.