Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

The diary title freaked you out a little, didn't it? Read on to understand how that could become a reality . . .

I was in the McDonald's drive-thru this morning (grabbing some unhealthy breakfast) when an important but disturbing Nina Totenberg segment aired on NPR's Morning Edition. The story quickly reminded me of why we need a DEMOCRAT in the White House, and why we can't afford to have John McCain reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

The Supreme Court heard a major death penalty case today that tested whether capital punishment is constitutional for the rape of a child. I oppose the Death Penalty across the board, but it isn't a hot-button issue for me (that would be censorship). I know that both Democratic Presidential Candidates support some form of the Death Penalty, and I accept that they can't oppose this issue for political reasons.

I listened to Totenberg's segment, and was deeply sympathetic for the children that were victimized by this heinous crime. I have three young children, and would most likely have the same feelings as the father of a victim:

The test case before the court began on March 2, 1998, when Patrick Kennedy called 911 to report the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

"I need an ambulance," Kennedy said. "I need police. My little girl ... is 8 years old. She was off in the yard and she said two boys grabbed her and raped my child and I'm trying to find these motherf**** because I am going to kill them."

What happened next to Mr. Kennedy shocked the hell out of me:

Despite the fact that Kennedy's stepdaughter supported the story of a rape by two boys, police soon became convinced that Kennedy was the perpetrator. Months later, after the girl had been removed from her mother's home, state social workers suggested to the mother that the child's return would depend on her facing up to the stepfather's role. The child then changed her story and implicated her stepfather. He was tried and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that the current U.S. Supreme Court, with its two new Bush appointees, has not ruled on the standards for evaluating death penalty laws.

Translation: The 1977 decision applied only to the rape of an adult woman, and maybe with the court now leaning much more conservative, it would allow execution for the rape of a child.

I can understand why some Americans support executing child rapists, but I fear that these advocates and a Conservative Supreme Court will neglect to consider this disturbing fact:

. . . from 1930 to 1972, basically the last years when the death penalty was imposed for rape, nine out of 10 men executed for rape were black. Moreover, it appears that no white man has ever been executed in the U.S. for the non-homicide rape of a black woman or child.

That wasn't 55% or even 70% . . . THAT WAS 90% of executions! Louisiana also runs the risk of executing the innocent due to this procedure:

. . . all those charged with child rape are offered the chance to plead guilty and be sentenced to life in prison without parole. So the only defendants who are subject to the death penalty are those who insist they are innocent and demand a trial where . . . there are special risks of erroneous conviction.

The case above is just one of many important decisions that the Court will have to revisit this year. I expect Roe v. Wade to return before the Court in the near future.

A President serves no more than eight years, but their Supreme Court legacy can last generations. Justice Ginsburg could very well retire in the next four years. I do not want a Strict Constructionist replacing a progressive champion like Ginsburg. Please join me on MyDD in defining John McCain as an enemy to progressive ideals on the Supreme Court.

Strict Constructionist Philosophy

John McCain believes that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. When he was running for President in 1999, he promised that, in appointing judges, he would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why he strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why he would seek men and women like them as his judicial appointees.

Support Hillary or Obama now . . . but SAY NO to McCain on November 4 ! ! !

Tags: death penalty, general election, John McCain, Recommended, Supreme Court (all tags)





by FOB92 2008-04-16 02:06PM | 0 recs

Rec'd. Thanks FOB.

by McTrollop 2008-04-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Great diary and should (hopefully) be sobering to either Democratic candidate's supporters who threaten to stamp their feet and vote McCain if their favored candidate doesn't get the nod. This is about a lot more than hurt feelings.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

YEP . . . sometimes I get a little HOT at Alegre dominated rec list. FOB always brings me back to Earth.


by Veteran75 2008-04-16 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Yep... and sometimes many of us get a little HOT over the Clinton hit pieces that dominate the rec list. It's important to nominate the BEST candidate to beat McCain. For MANY of us, that candidate is Clinton.

by KnowVox 2008-04-16 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Speaking of rec list . . .THANKS to everyone that helped me crack the rec list again. Positive diaries have done well on MyDD for a few days in a row!!


by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade
They are also well written and balanced views that most everyone can agree with, FOB.
That's why they're recommended. Keep writing, please!
by skohayes 2008-04-19 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Thank you. I will try to battle this case of primary fatigue, and keep adding diaries each week.

by FOB92 2008-04-19 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Agreed that tempers sometimes get too hot between camps and accusations are leveled from both sides.  This diary reminds us that we are all on the same team however and no matter what has been said this primary we need to put it behind us and work together-- our country is too important.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Now . . . AMEN to that!


by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:25PM | 0 recs
Great diary.
This is one of the top reasons to support whichever Democrat gets the nomination. I'm against the death penalty, and I find it frustrating that neither candidate is willing to universally denounce it; however, I understand it would be a huge political liability to do so.

But Roe alone is reason enough to want to protect the Supreme Court. I'd really rather not have hundreds of back-alley abortionists performing procedures with coat hangers. Abortion is an issue even many clear-minded conservatives are conflicted on. My parents are conservatives (particularly my father), but even they agree it should be legal (though it's painful for them to admit).

by sricki 2008-04-16 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary.

Agree that this issue is a political liability we can't afford.

by Veteran75 2008-04-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
I'm not against the death penalty

I'm against the way it is administered as a tool of justice. To that end I support the death penalty for adults that rape children where DNA evidence exists.

I also heard the Nina Totenberg exposé this morning, and I don't think that particular case fits, or at least they didn't mention it if there was DNA evidence. But if there were DNA evidence, I would fully support the lethal injection of the perpetrator.

by anna belle 2008-04-16 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not against the death penalty

I don't think there was DNA in this case, but I respect your opinion.

I think our media is vigilant enough now (I hope) that we would avoid the injustice of the 90% AA travesty.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:37PM | 0 recs
This is why I love this country, Anna!

You're a leftish person who supports the death penalty, I'm a rightish person who opposes it (I don't trust governments with ending the lives of their citizens - not that some don't deserve it - the courts are always fallible).

"We are not as divided as our politics suggest."



by chrisblask 2008-04-19 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I am confused by your diary.  Is Patrick Kennedy actually guilty of raping his stepdaughter?  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-16 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I suggest reading the transcript linked above. I think it is cloudy at best, AND NOT a DEATH PENALTY case.

There was enough concern with his case that THE SUPREME COURT decided to hear it.

I don't know if he did it, but I think there is enough doubt to avoid the Death Penalty IMHO.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Ok, gotcha.  I agree but then again I am against the death penalty.  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-16 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I oppose the death penalty as well, but hearing that the wounds suffered by this 8 year old girl after this rape were the absolute WORST this doctor had EVER seen and required EXTENSIVE reconstructive surgery to her genitalia was horrific.

by KnowVox 2008-04-16 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Yeah, and I listened to the story on the radio . . . and the clip they played of the little girl getting coerced by the police was troubling . . . messed up all around!

by Veteran75 2008-04-16 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Except that there wasn't a clip of the little girl getting coerced by the police.

by KnowVox 2008-04-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule on this?

I agree with FOB that this whole thing is a travesty, but I fear that our court will uphold the sentence.


by Veteran75 2008-04-17 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I'm strongly for Obama, but I would crawl over broken glass to vote for Hillary for JUST this issue...

God bless John Paul Stevens, he has held on for 8 years of the bloody Bush reign, but he and Ruth Ginsburg won't make it through even 4 years of McCain.

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-16 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

WOW . . .  broken glass!

I have to be totally honest . . . she isn't an enthusiastic choice ( I blame Mark Penn). I will still vote for either DEM.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Our liberty really IS that tenuous, it seems.  I hope those two are eating their vitamins and exercising, we need their voice against the right wingers poised to dominate the court.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

A lot of us get caught up in the primary wars, but we have to remember there are bigger things at stake than whether Obama or Clinton gets the nomination.  We CANNOT allow McCain into the white house.  We can't take another four years of this.  We can't lose any more supreme court justices to them.

by Skaje 2008-04-16 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I wish the Obama partisans at DKOS . . . and the HRC partisans at MyDD would listen.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

To be honest, there are clear voices at DKos who point out this very issue when confronted with a "my candidate or screw you" post...  

Your vote is your vote, but the civil liberties we take for granted could very well be taken all together.  I understand the need to take a stand, to make your feelings known, but if the consequences outweigh the good, which they might in this election, I hope people reconsider....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-19 07:33AM | 0 recs
WTF ? ? ?

WOW, we had one person vote for a McCain nominee in the poll?


by FOB92 2008-04-16 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF ? ? ?

It looks like two trolls voted for McSame.

by Obamanaut 2008-04-16 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Glad to know that we'll have the support of Obama voters when Clinton wins the nomination!

Because I was worried about that. Now I can breath a sigh of relief.

by cc 2008-04-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade




by Veteran75 2008-04-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

All sarcasm aside, of course you would have our support if Hillary wins.  This country is about more than personality and preferences.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:31PM | 0 recs

Some issues are more important than whatever slings and arrows have been thrown in the primary (such as Roe-Vs-Wade)

by Student Guy 2008-04-16 02:43PM | 0 recs

The Supreme Court upholds the legality of lethal injection, ending the de facto national moratorium.

Pro-life, indeed.

by Elsinora 2008-04-16 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Meanwhile...

I read that, and am worried that Roe is next :o(

by FOB92 2008-04-16 03:14PM | 0 recs

As one of my friends once said, "They can take my right to abortion when they pry the hanger from my cold, dead hands."

by Elsinora 2008-04-16 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed.

This is one of those issues where I adamantly disagree with those on the Right (as I've said, there are others - like personal responsibility - that I agree with them on).  All this "pro-life" crap is just that - it asserts that others are "pro-death".  Bunch of hyperbole...

Abotion is a reality, and always has been.  Is it good or bad?  Different question.  Nonetheless extremists bombed Dr. Moganthaller's clinic on my street in Toronto in the 90s, risking the lives of my family in the process.

Independents and moderates tend to be pragmatists. This is why the extremes to both sides lose our support (and gain our attention, to their demise).

I'm an information security guy.  I am somewhat rare in my field because I constantly respond to statements of my kin such as "We have to rebuild the Internet to make Security a fundamental part of it!!!!" with "Sure, but since that's not going to happen we may want to think of a way to actually improve the current situation" - for which I am ritually flamed as not caring about the topic.

Similarly I have been both attacked by White Supremacists (they tracked down my physical address) and simultaneously called a racist and sexist by those proclaiming Liberal views.  Individually I have been told that my views have helped moderate people's extreme positions, but the ranks of the extremes are always replenished so "the price of liberty" remains "eternal vigilance."

Extremities are philosophical fluff, except for when they are enacted in the real world, at which point they become human tragedies...  I would think that the historical examples of this would make that point, but we seem not to have found that path yet.

My most positive thought on topic is that we need the extremes to illustrate the bounds of rationality, and that systems like the US use these limits to find the center.  I believe that to be the case, and I am here to remind those leftish moderates listening of that fact.



by chrisblask 2008-04-19 09:06AM | 0 recs
Another reason why executing for rape is bad

Tossing aside moral arguments for the moment, applying the death penalty for rape is horribly counter productive because it gives the rapist an incentive to murder the victim.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-04-16 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason why executing for rape is bad

I had not thought of that. Good point.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 03:37PM | 0 recs

I have been discussing and pontificating over this very topic for weeks!  

It is born of logic so damn airtight that you could asphyxiate yourself just by THINKING about refuting it.

If Hillary could somehow bend the laws of physics to her will and alter reality to the point where she somehow could wrest the nomination from disallusioning it would be, I'd vote for her for this reason ALONE!

How dare anyone who holds even a shred of intelligence and progressive values deny this?!!

Are bruised feelings and subjective concerns about gender/race so important that we are willing to put in place a court that will seriusly screw the rights of women?  

Would that not be the irony to end them all?  That by carrying on far beyond the dictates of logic to elect the first female, that that very candidate winds up sacrificing, or damaging the rights of ALL WOMEN?

by a gunslinger 2008-04-16 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Recc'd!!

You were worrying me at first, but nice close.

Well said!


by FOB92 2008-04-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Bettersaid..

If OBAMA could somehow bend the laws of physics to his will and alter reality to the point where he somehow could wrest the nomination from disallusioning it would be, I'd vote for him for this reason ALONE!

by KnowVox 2008-04-16 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Bettersaid..

At least you will both vote DEM!


by Veteran75 2008-04-16 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Bettersaid..

Yeppers. And you?

by KnowVox 2008-04-17 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Bettersaid..

I think my sig line is a pretty clear YES!

by Veteran75 2008-04-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

But, doesn't Hillary think McCain would be a better president than Obama, and a better Commander in Chief?

Isn't she pushing Florida and Michigan to vote Republican if they don't get their votes counted?

If I support Hillary, shouldn't I follow her advice and vote for McCain?

by Kiku 2008-04-16 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I will trust her when she answered "yes, yes, yes" to the fact that Obama will also beat McCain in the GE.

They both can/will win.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

The last two Democratic appointees were awful on the DP; Ginsberg and Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton.  The only recent Democrat to not have the party sign onto the DP as a positive wonderful campaign issue was John Kerry.  The DP was one of Bill Clinton's strong campaign points.  

Only Justice Stevens, a GOP appointee, is wholely opposed to it.  

At this point the party has a cynical and pandering stand on this issue.  I will, of course, vote Democratic whoever wins this stupid primary, but do I have a lot of hope the party will do better on this issue; nope.  

by mady 2008-04-16 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I have HOPE that the DEMS will appoint a nominee that will look out for abuses in Death Penalty administration. The stats mentioned above will be considered by the DEMS, but ignored by the GOP.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade


by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

What is the 'Amen' for?

by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade
Your conclusion:
"Support Hillary or Obama now . . . but SAY NO to McCain on November 4 ! ! !"
by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Thank you.

I am trying my best (as an Obama supporter) to build a bridge towards a Denver Kumbaya . . . on the back of John McCain.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

Heck, I'd rec you even if I was a Clinton supporter.  We all should agree that progressive principles are more important than the candidate that we ultimately nominate.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

i see "nine out of 10 men executed for rape were black." I don't believe in execution for rape, but citing racial facts is not the way to go. If someone commits a crime, they shoudl be punished regardless of skin color. If a killer is black, he should be executed, and if a killer is white, he should be executed. simple. I think it should be legal not as deterrence, because all criminals think they won't get caught, but as vengeance. Many Americans feel this way, and it is the politically expedient thing to do, and I notice Obama isn't even against getting rid of the death penalty, he just wants to "reform" it.

On everything else, I want a radical liberal on the court. Radicals belong there, because there we don't have to worry about losing votes. We MUST preserve choice I believe, and that is why we can't let MCCain at the White House. We also need freedom of speech too, along with keeping church away from state.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-16 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

9 out of 10 is such an obvious injustice . . . it MUST be pointed out.

by FOB92 2008-04-16 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade
Jay, that's because African Americans usually don't get equal representation in front of a judge.
From studies I've seen in the news, many more black defendants cannot afford to pay for a good lawyer and are forced to go with an overworked underpaid public defender. It's another bit of invisible inequality.
by skohayes 2008-04-19 05:30AM | 0 recs
This is more than a Dem issue

There are many folks like me - non-partisan Independents of either leaning - who agree with the premise of this thread.  In the view of folks like me (inasmuch as that is like trying to define the "beliefs" of non-theists), "balance" is the key to American democracy.

The worst thing about one-party Hegemony is the Supreme Court.

And to whoever put forth this point: Yes, even still, the actions of a SC Justice is in the end not very determined by which party appointed them - which is a Good Thing - but the Far right has had too much power for much too long and the trend is worrying.

You folks may not get my support next time through, and I hazard a guess that this may be even more true if we have a Clinton presidency. I spent the day yesterday with two of my very favorite people (even if they are Far Left).  The female half of that equation (and understand, I would take a bullet straight in the chest for this person) worried me with a statement: "I voted Clinton because I (1) am not missing my chance to vote for the first woman president and (2) I feel a loyalty to the Clintons since the 90s were a great period.  I also think that (3) she has a hidden Liberal Agenda I agree with that will come out once she is in office."  These are all the things that scare Independents.

1/  This reason drives me bats.  I am no more happy that black folks are often voting Obama for a similar reason (though I - bias alert - think that regardless they are making the right choice).  There has to be a better reason than simply setting precedents, however much I may agree with the sentiment.

2/  The "loyalty to the 90s" tack bears no weight with me since (a) the Bill Clinton Administration gets credit for not screwing up the period, but not for causing it, and, (b) Hillary Clinton is not her husband.  There is little indication that she would handle things in the way that Bill did.

3/  This one is the worst for Independents.  We are pretty fed-up with extremists from either side, and continuing to fling the pendulum to both extremes is a good way to wreck a perfectly good clock.  This is why folks like me never find a home in either party: because we're not going to agree with the Far Right any more than we will with the Far Left.  Reagan was much more a moderate than his Righty descendants like to believe, and Bill Clinton (and Kennedy) were much more moderate than their Lefty descendants like to believe.   Neither the Pompous Far Right nor the Condescending Far Left represent the spirit or majority of the American people, and it is time to dampen the wild gyrations before we tear the country to pieces.

So, yes, I'm voting Dem this year, regardless.  But I do so with a much happier or heavier heart and a different view to the future depending how the primaries go.  If there is a "hidden Liberal Agenda" in the White House, I will very likely feel a strong urge to moderate that by voting Republican in local elections for the next eight years.

-chris blask

by chrisblask 2008-04-19 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: This is more than a Dem issue

1) I'm not voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman, but there's certainly the added bonus of her being a woman. African Americans aren't voting for Obama simply because he's black, either.

3) Hillary is not a "centrist", as so many Obama supporters claim. She's rated more progressive than Obama on sites like Progressive Punch. Her " hidden liberal agenda" (not sure what that even means, frankly) is quite the opposite if you look at her voting record in her two terms in the US Seante and the women's and children's and health issues she's worked for most of her public life.
There is no "hidden" agenda.

by skohayes 2008-04-19 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: This is more than a Dem issue

1.  Agreed, and I did not imply that for either candidate.  Pretty sure I didn't use the word "simply" at all - I quoted the comment to me and identified three reasons.

2.  I know Hillary is not a centrist - that was my point.  I am not a Liberal, I agree with many Progressive points (assuming we are working with the same definitions of both of those terms).  I agree with my Liberal friend that there is an aspect of "Hidden Agenda" with Sen. Clinton - her recent arguments in favor of guns is not exactly a Liberal Plank - although for myself I agree with you that if you are paying attention her Liberal Agenda is not hidden, at all.

So, effectively, you are making my point for me.  A Clinton presidency can count on Liberal support but will likely lose the middle - this is the aspect of the US tripod of Administration/Legislation/Judicial error-correction that keeps this country from following the paths of so many others that brings them to the brink (or past) of totalitarian extremism.

IMHO a Clinton presidency will (just like Bush) lose the rest of the goverment as moderates react.



by chrisblask 2008-04-19 06:33AM | 0 recs
Ah, I did use "simply"

...but I did go on to state two more reasons - neither of which work for me.

On a note that got me flamed to death on DKos (god bless free speech! ;~), the Left does not hold a monopoly on caring about "children's issues and health issues".  It is my firm belief that everyone loves children, clean air etc. - the primary difference between the "sides" is how to foster those things.

This is in keeping with this comment-thread.  A Party needs to keep in mind that it's policies are not serving proprietary goals, and if the policies exclude those outside the True Believers they are likely to get shot down by those of us standing between the camps.


by chrisblask 2008-04-19 06:42AM | 0 recs
Chris, you said you would vote for McCain

Up above, you state "So, yes, I'm voting Dem this year, regardless."

But here, you state "I am an Independent voter, and I will do everything I can to get Sen. Obama elected - but I will vote McCain if the only other choice is Sen. Clinton."

So which comment are we supposed to believe?

by SluggoJD 2008-04-19 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

The trauma of rape and incest changes a persons life.  

While I would like to agree with a death penalty, I cannot.  In the Totenberg segment, the truth speaks for the victim:

"This is someone that they have loved," explains Benitez. "They may be willing to see them put in prison, but they may not be willing to run the risk of having them put to death."" The child is re victimized, regardless of the truth.

These cases need to be decided individually and victim advocates need to be heard.

However, Roe V Wade is going to go. Much has changed since inception.  Abortion is used too often for irresponsible sex and little knowledge of what choice means.I agree with Clinton; rare, safe and affordable.

This SC decision is just the beginning of the end.

by Maddie05 2008-04-19 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

I hope Roe does not get reversed, but it would be a wake-up call to action.

by FOB92 2008-04-19 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade

As far as the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned--that will probably happen no matter who wins the presidency this year, because the right wing already has a majority on the court. The Supreme Court may be a motivating force for ideologues, but ultimately it is not a winning issue--the people who think about the presidency in this way are too few. What is really needed is a candidate who motivates voters to embrace his or her vision for country, with SCt appointees being a logical consequence of that.

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-19 11:57AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads