Bush already asking SCOTUS to attack abortion

Roberts is not even on the fucking bench yet and they are already attacking abortion...

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court on Monday to reinstate the first federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure, arguing that it should be outlawed because it is gruesome and is "never medically indicated" as a safer surgical procedure.

The government's appeal asks the high court to overturn the decision of a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis, which struck down the law as unconstitutional.

It came on the same day the Senate took up the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for chief justice of the United States. If, as expected, Roberts is confirmed this week, his court could put new limits on abortion during its first term, which begins Monday.

The dispute over this type of procedure -- known medically as intact dilation and extraction and called "partial-birth abortion" by critics -- amounts to a rerun of a case heard five years ago by the high court. However, the outcome is in doubt this time because the makeup of the court is changing.

In 2000, the justices ruled 5 to 4 to strike down a Nebraska law that made it a crime for a doctor to remove much of a fetus intact during a midterm abortion. This procedure is used by some doctors who perform abortions in the fifth or sixth month of a pregnancy.

In the past, the Supreme Court had said that women could choose to end their pregnancies until the time a fetus could live on its own, which occurs after the sixth month. These later-term abortions are more complicated and only a few doctors perform them.

That's it...it is now time to call for ZERO TOLERANCE you either support a woman's right to choose or go to hell and not expect a penny or votes ... that means you Kaine, Casey , Taylor etc... this is getting beyond pathetic.

And now the weak Dems have put them selves into a corner ONCE AGAIN at protecting late term abortions... right before 2006 elections...wonder what lovely pictures the GOP will bring out AGAIN of dead babies...

... Fucking Geniuses

Tags: (all tags)



Or was this anti-choice Harry Reids plan all along
to show that abortion is draining on the Democratic party...as the Democrats for Life love to tout?

It is a perfect set up... "you see our hands are tied... we have to nominate more Kaine's and Casey's because the GOP makes us look bad when we support abortion..."

Reid is just looking for a convenient way to dump abortion without looking like he ahs dumped abortion... this foul capitualion on Roberts is now beginning to reek to high heavens.

by Parker 2005-09-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Gee Parker
Lets just have the Democrats committ political sucicide now and get it over with.  Lets see that Casey looses to Santorum because after all better a Republican than a Democrat, and lets throw away Kaine also because we do not want the Virginian Governor's mansion if it means a gasp Pro-life Democrat, and Gene Taylor cant have him either.  Oh and partial birth abortion, never mind Sen Moynihan, an foe of partial birth abortion, called the procedure infanticide.

Oh but I guess we can have to disown Sen Moynihan now those comments just will not do.

by THE MODERATE 2005-09-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
Dump them all... I'll be damed to give them one penny... at this point after this pathetic capitualion on Roberts... I am willing to "go another round" with the GOP... perhaps then enough Republicans will hurt for there to be some change...

If the elected Democrats demonstated they wanted change it would be another story but all their actions just support this administration and their backwards assed policies... I would rather save my money AND my vote.

by Parker 2005-09-27 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
Parker I think you should go third party, I an not sure the Democrats will ever be able to accomadate you.
by THE MODERATE 2005-09-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
Gee Moderate...when were you ever a Democrat...since you only like the Republican Democrats... not everyone belongs to the white male christian anti-women. anti-gay "special interest" group as you do ... some of us actually depend on the Democratic party to protect our civil rights... but you would not know anything about that... because you know that when push come to shove you will not think twice about jumping in your SUV and running over to the Republican party to "save yourself"... yeah, I sure you would donate to Operation Blessing to "help" out those lesser fortunate folks...
by Parker 2005-09-27 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
"Gee Moderate...when were you ever a Democrat"

I first Reistered to vote as a Democrat in 1984 when I turned 18 I have never changed my party affliation.

"not everyone belongs to the white male christian anti-women. anti-gay "special interest" group as you do"

Parker I guess I am a white male, God's choice if you will but that is what we are, I am also left-handed, dyslexic, and 5' 10".  I believe in the Apostle Creed but I do not force on anyone, I am married and my wife does not think I am anti-women, but she does complain that I do not clean the house as much as she does.  I do not know many gay people, at least none who say they are but there are rumors the unmarried lady living down the street is, however I am not big into gossip so I am not ever sure she is, but if she is I have no problem with her, I have a cousin who I think maybe I invite him to our wedding but someone made it clear to him not to bring any male freinds I think it was his mother.  He came did not embarrass anyone although he is a little pansy acting it caused no trouble.  

"because you know that when push come to shove you will not think twice about jumping in your SUV and running over to the Republican party to "save yourself".."

I drive Toyota Tercel my wife has a Dodge Caravan mini van, we do not own an SUV.  Never
given it serious thought about becoming a Republican.  

"yeah, I sure you would donate to Operation Blessing to "help" out those lesser fortunate folks..."

I do not know that charity but I have given my time and effort to others, my personal favority is the American Heart Assocition, but I have also donate time and money to others.

I am not sure where you are going with this but since you thought you know me I decided to help you out a bit.


by THE MODERATE 2005-09-27 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
some of us actually depend on the Democratic party to protect our civil rights... but you would not know anything about that...
by Parker 2005-09-27 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
The Democratic party will not get anywhere with the elected officials listening to whining partisans who might as well not vote for a Democrat anyways.
by KainIIIC 2005-09-27 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
No one is stopping you from funding these Republican Democats... be my guest. I won't give a penny nor a vote.
by Parker 2005-09-27 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
Democrats who have announced their support for Roberts (16):

Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Cant have these guys in the party either now can we.

by THE MODERATE 2005-09-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee Parker
I actually do find that funny... Feingold voting yes while Clinton/Bayh/Biden/Kerry voting no... an extreme political move on the Triangulator's part when none was needed. Also funny was Chris Dodd's yes versus Harry Reid's no... I remember when they were chosing a minority leader, people wanted Chris Dodd to mount a challenge to Reid because he may be too conservative. It all works out in the end... Perhaps the more left-leaning senators vote yes on roberts while the "established" do not? funny...
by KainIIIC 2005-09-27 12:46PM | 0 recs
The case was decided by the 8th Circuit in early July.  The government had 90 days to petition the Court for review.  There's nothing nefarious about this timing at all.
by Adam B 2005-09-27 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: facts
It came on the same day the Senate took up the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for chief justice of the United States.  
by Parker 2005-09-27 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: facts
It was going to be some day in the next 2-3 weeks. I don't see the big deal that it was yesterday.
by Adam B 2005-09-27 06:29PM | 0 recs
I'm certainly not a moderate
nor am I any longer a registered Democrat: I'm a Green first, a Democrat by default. I'm not entirely certain at this point that Roberts will vote to overturn Roe. Roe was an establishment decision handed down for the purpose of maintaining order on this particular question. I am convinced this is why Lewis Powell, a highly unlikely candidate to do so, provided the crucial vote on this decision.

Roberts is a quintessential establistment stealth nominee, a Wall Street Repug and a true Federalist Society hack. If his past record screams anything, dismantling federal regulatory power under the Commerse Clause is his true objective. In such, a Roberts' Court leaving Roe in tact as the law of the land would allow the Repugs to exploit the fundies at the ballot box for another generation, thus keeping the door open for the appointment of more justices who are of similar mind.

Roe has become an albatross for Democrats.
When considered in relation to the entire scope of constitutional law, Roe has occupied a substantially disproportionate influence on Democratic judicial philosophy. This in turn has lead to the entire game being played on their side of the fifty yard line with Democrats on defense every time a vacancy on the Supreme Court has become available.

I diaried this subject matter in greater detail just a few days ago. If Roe were overturned, I don't think Democrats would be the losers. Quite the contrary, it would lite the fuse in southern states, sharpen the difference between the parties and make supposed moderates who have been able to hide behind Roe choose a side. Those few states which would enact legislation criminalizing abortion in all cases would become  isolated. By returning this decision to the states, a dual purpose is served. The fundies become divided and the battle can thus be waged on more favorable grounds were they can be drawn from their caves and slain in more instances than not.

For these reasons, I believe the "one state is too much to give up" crowd is draining the Democratic Party both in terms of judical nominees as well as the ballot box. Maintaining Roe has become such a huge distraction for the Democrats that the extremely vocal minority within the party who are absolutists on this question might wish to reconsider their position if they believe building a winning coalition to be a higher priority.      

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-09-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
I'm trying to decide
whether the Reeps are better-served by leaving Roe in place or by throwing it back to the states and making it another "gay marriage" issue driving voter turnout. Because you're right about Roberts, I think he's going to decide however the Reep establishment tells him to.
by catastrophile 2005-09-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
Post-Roe: then whither the GOP?
I'm not quite as sanguine on the matter as you are, but I think you're fundamentally right... the people in the GOP who have the money, and therefore control the levers of power, aren't true wingnuts; they're intensely rational self-interested actors interested only in their own money, and I suspect many are personally pro-choice but are happy to have the wingnuts filling out the party's rank & file, constantly whipped into a froth but never actually getting what they want. It's better for them to keep the wingnuts in a constant froth than actually giving them something that they want, because if abortion were off the table, rural blue-collar types might notice that the only other consequences of Republican rule were that the rich got gigantic tax cuts, class action and bankruptcy reform, and change their allegiances back to the Dems, restoring the New Deal coalition.

Not to put too much of an old-school Marxist point on it, but the bourgeoisie needs the Lumpenproletariat to prop it up. When the lumpies achieve that mythical class consciousness, look out.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-09-27 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm certainly not a moderate
Since everyone here loves polls so much...every poll so far shows that the majority of americans want to keep abortion safe and legal

Roe has become an albatross for Democrats.

The only way it has become an albatross is the now the Democratic leadership wants to abandon is base and join in with the wingnuts.

by Parker 2005-09-27 03:31PM | 0 recs
I hear you
but at present, the only "right" women actually possess hinges upon the support of five people wearing black ropes.

I'm not immune to the argument that abortion would most likely be criminalized in states where women can least afford to travel to states where it would remain legal. This is by far the most troubling aspect for me in advocating Democrats to abandon Roe.

Nevertheless, until the impact of Roe is reduced, Democrats are always going to be behind the eight ball due to the fact that Roe occupies a significantly higher priority than it should among those who might vote otherwise in federal elections if Roe were taken off of the table.

As far as Democrats abandoning their base, Registered Democrats outnumber Repugs 3-2 in Kentucky but flock to Repugs in federal elections due in large part to their opposition to Roe; consequently, I don't necessarily agree with your argument on this one. If you took Roe off of the table in federal elections down here, a slight difference between the two corporate parties might actually take place.

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-09-27 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I hear you

Dems are being set up by anti-choicers like Reid.

by Parker 2005-09-27 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I hear you
I'm not immune to the argument that abortion would most likely be criminalized in states where women can least afford to travel to states where it would remain legal.

you forget all those little laws that they have already implemented like it is now illegal in many states to take minors over state lines to get abortions...

by Parker 2005-09-27 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm certainly not a moderate
Roe has become an albatross at the voting booth, especially in certain states.

While there may be more people who are pro-choice than pro-life, Pro-lifers are more politically active and put a greater priority whether or not a candidate agrees with their position on abortion.

Second of all, a large percentage of the few states with a bona-fide pro-life majority were once Democratic strongholds and are now trending Republican. LA, MO, TN, AR, WV, KY, and SD are all states where the Democratic Party has clearly been hurt by this issue.

Republicans have figured out how to neutralize the issue by running pro-choice Republicans in pro-choice areas. The Democrats should likewise run pro-life Democrats in pro-life areas. Abortion is such a personal issue that it should not be considered a "party" issue. (I believe this is the position of the three major parties in the U.K.) It should certainly NOT be a defining issue as to whether or not one is a good Democrat.

If Roe were overturned, it would go back to the states. Mississippi's ONE abortion clinic would probably close. "Blue staters" would have nothing to worry about. In most states the "mushy middle" would make policy, keeping abortion legal in the early weeks, but more restricted in the latter. Parental consent laws would be passed with judicial bypass.

The states that make abortion illegal would be in a situation similar to Ireland. Plenty of Irish women get abortions in the UK, even though Ireland has extremely restrictive abortion laws.

Basically, if Roe were overturned, not much would change. However, whatever decision that would be made would be made by the people and their elected representatives, and not by the courts, which isn't a bad thing.

by wayward 2005-09-27 05:10PM | 0 recs
Dubious Strategy
While a majority favors legalized abortion, polls consistently indicate about 2/3 of voters favor parental notification laws & would ban partial-birth abortions. Because the Parker/NOW wing won't accept any restriction on abortion, they are neutralizing the issue enough to actually drive weak pro-choice voters to the GOP. Great strategy.
by SLinVA 2005-09-27 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Dubious Strategy
Parker/NOW wing won't accept any restriction on abortion, they are neutralizing the issue enough to actually drive weak pro-choice voters to the GOP.

Well does YOUR WING want women to carry to term non viable births or to die in pregnancy instead of terminating a late term pregnancy which in fact happens so rarely. Perhaps if you put down the GOP propoganda and actually tried to understand the issues...the entire party would be much stronger.

Perhaps you should spend a day or an hour at an abortion clinic and see that "parental notification laws" are just promoted by the wingnuts to supposedly "slow down" teenagers getting abortion... ot that in most states the back up plan of a 15 year old girl having to go to a judge and tell him her personal history so that he can act like her Daddy... or the fact that in some states many of the judges that are to give these girls a hearing have recused themselves due to their own "personal" beliefs....

by Parker 2005-09-27 10:44PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads