She's a Latina and a Catholic, so she could be more conservative on some social issues like abortion and birth control. I don't know.

Lesson 2.4 in Obama Fu:

No litmus test for abortion.

Now, I have 100% confidence that her views on this are consistent with etablished precedent, or some other such terminology that was relayed to Obama by a surrogate so that she can deny having discussed it with Obama.

"Chessmate." (From Vlad in Horton movie)

eric

What a great joke that would be- liberals starstuck by a "wise Latina woman" are pole-axed by the revelation at her Senate hearing that Ms. Sotomayor is in fact pro-life. I can hear the squeals now!

mhr....do you really think Obama is going to nominate someone anti-choice? do you think he could explain that to his wife and daughters? That is how Obama thinks. He is pro-choice because he believes in the autonomy of women to make their own choices, to be responsible for the denial of that autonomy to his own daughters is unthinkable. Now effing way.

eric

Didn't Chief Justice Roberts state, during his confirmation, that for him Roe was stare decisis (settled law)? Does anyone believe he would actually rule that way now?

I can hear the squeals now!

I do not doubt that for a moment.

There are two paths to a knowledge of her position on Roe: rulings concerning Roe and her opinion of the weight of stare decisis. I seem to recall something on the latter but can't find the link right now.

Any chance Sotomayor might offer a similar response this summer? Any chance Republicans will be equally generous with their praise?

Hell, any chance Hatch will be equally generous with his praise, if she does? A 180 on this is perhaps expected, but will still be appalling if he does it.

On the topic of Sotomayor's possible beliefs on abortion, I hear a lot of people assuming that because she's Latina, she's a conservative Catholic. While it's true that Hispanic Catholics tend to be among the most religiously traditional of American Catholics, Sotomayor also is urban-bred and an academic -- two demographics that lean strongly pro-choice regardless of religion.

Commenter mhr exemplifies today's so-called "conservative" -- the only actual content of his fake, phony, trumped-up, scripted, teleprompted, corporate-sponsored, one-dimensional cartoon comic-book pseudo-ideology is hatred of "liberals".

Let me say up front that I am a practicing (progressive -- though it's increasinly hard) Catholic, so I don't think that Sotomayor being a Catholic is necessarily indicative of her stand on choice. But what I do fear is that should she be pro-choice as I am that my own church leaders will drag their "can't take communion" crusade to the Court as well. Although if she is confirmed there will only have been 12 Catholics ever on the court, six will be on the present court --- and that troubles me. Catholics have historically brought an important dimension to US life, but . . . . On the other hand, it certainly beats a court packed with fundie Christians (although Catholics like the others on the court, with the exception of Kennedy, probably see those wingnuts as allies).

So if Sotomayor were to say at the hearing that her judicial philosophy, based on her "empathy" for the unborn, would make her vote to overturn Roe, would liberals suddenly switch their support of her nomination and actively oppose her?

How many times will conservative critics evade the implications of A9 about unenumerated rights (the primary basis for arguments about privacy etc.), and how much will the MSM play along as Constitutionally illiterate?

So if Sotomayor were to say at the hearing that her judicial philosophy, based on her "empathy" for the unborn, would make her vote to overturn Roe, would liberals suddenly switch their support of her nomination and actively oppose her?

And will dumbass wingnuts such as yourself and mhr suddenly switch your unhinged opposition of her nomination and actively support her? Maybe you wanna ask yourself that question first.

My bet is she follows the path of Kennedy and O'Connor--some restrictions are okay, but Roe stands. She's easily confirmed and the wingnuts squeal. Just wait until Obama replaces Stevens and Ginsberg, followed by Kennedy and Scalia in his second term, then you'll hear some real wingnut squealing. They don't realize that Sotomayor is the best they're gonna get.

GTO wrote:

> She's a Latina and a Catholic, so she could be more conservative on some
> social issues like abortion and birth control.

That's entirely possible. Many people who are "liberal" on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues may hold somewhat more conservative views personally, while believing deeply that the government should keep the hell out of those decisions (see also: Schiavo, Terri). It's very clear that Judge Sotomayor is self-aware of the perspective she brings to bench based on her own experience, and her obligation as a jurist to recognize those potential biases and set them aside in her interpretation of the law.

We all see the world through the lens of our own experiences; what's scary is that some people don't seem to recognize that and make no account for it. It just simply doesn't register that other people have fundamentally different experiences than they do. Wasn't it Justice Powell, not too many years ago, who said to one of his clerks (a closeted gay man himself), "I don't think I've ever met a homosexual?"

mhr wrote: What a great joke that would be- liberals starstuck by a "wise Latina woman" are pole-axed by the revelation at her Senate hearing that Ms. Sotomayor is in fact pro-life.

If you're suggesting Sotomayor hasn't been thoroughly vetted on this point -- a point that Obama publicly indicated he'd appoint pro-choice judges -- you're even dumber than you usually sound.

...or even dumber than Chicounsel, who continues to dishonestly misrepresent Sotomayor's empathy statement.

As if her emapthy could be any worse than Anthony Kennedy's patronizing and ham-handed "empathy" for women who might regret having an abortion later...

Here's another thought:

I serve on an institutional review board, a committee at a medical institution that reviews and approves (or in some cases, doesn't) research involving human subjects. Our committee is, by design, composed of physicians, researchers and community members of all different backgrounds. In the case of the physicians, the committee very intentionally includes members from the major medical specialties (surgeons, oncologists, pharmacologists), explicitly to get as wide a range of expertise as possible in evaluating the proposals that come before us. Diversity is not just a good thing, or a valued thing; it's essential; we couldn't do our job without it.

So why on earth shouldn't we similarly value that sort of diversity in the courts?

Allan Snyder asked Chicounsel: "And will dumbass wingnuts such as yourself and mhr suddenly switch your unhinged opposition of her nomination and actively support her?"

Chicounsel and mhr are mental slaves, and will do what they are told to do, say what they are told to say, and think what they are told to think by the so-called "right wing" media. There is a reason they call themselves "Ditto-Heads".

I can hear the squeals now! -mhr

I can only imagine, pigfucker.

There is a reason they call themselves "Ditto-Heads".

Did mhr and Chicounsel call themselves dittoheads? I missed that.

Andy wrote: "I serve on an institutional review board, a committee at a medical institution that reviews and approves (or in some cases, doesn't) research involving human subjects ... Diversity is not just a good thing, or a valued thing; it's essential; we couldn't do our job without it. So why on earth shouldn't we similarly value that sort of diversity in the courts?"

Because it would undermine the basic conservative principle that the courts should protect and serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

So if Sotomayor were to say at the hearing that her judicial philosophy, based on her "empathy" for the unborn, would make her vote to overturn Roe, would liberals suddenly switch their support of her nomination and actively oppose her?

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

i would be lying if i didn't admit that this is one reason I preferred other candidates - Sotomayor does not have a strong track record on choice to determine with certainty where she stands.

on the other hand, the appeals court record she does have shows a very strong devotion to precedent. she has not been an envelope pusher at all. while it is true that being at the top of the ladder with no need to further please anyone, and no court reviewing you, changes how some justices have approached the law, all available evidence is that Sotomayor would not overturn Roe as watered down by Casey, because that framework is massively embedded into the legal and cultural fabric and it is therefore entitled to the strongest deference under stare decisis.

What Gibbs said was that Obama didn't ask her. He didn't say no one had asked. If no one asked then it's a serious bet I won't be donating to the next Obama campaign because he isn't nearly as smart as I was led to believe.

In the event that no one asked, then I would hope, at a minimum, that Feingold or some other committed progressive in the Senate would ask. Indeed, I understand that she is meeting with senators this week, and I assume some of them ARE asking and might even be giving her suggestions about how she might want to respond to questions in Senate hearings.

I hope that Sotomayor follows Ginsburg's lead on the issue, which is to give more robust constitutional backing to all kinds of rights that are integral to personal freedom.

The Constitution says nothing, for instance, about the rights of parents in their children, and yet the Supreme Court including its most conservative justices are all in accord that those rights are among the most compelling under the Constitution.

And just to follow the above lead:

"So if Sotomayor were to say at the hearing that her judicial philosophy, based on her "empathy" for the unborn, would make her vote to overturn Roe, would liberals suddenly switch their support of her nomination and actively oppose her?"

Yes, definitely -- because whatever her judicial philosophy is, it is not one that gives the benefit of the doubt to personal autonomy and human freedom.

Sorry, I have to worry. Obama has not been a strong liberal on many issues. I do have trouble trusting him.

So... nonody cares that the Chamber of Commerce thinks Sotomayer will be awesome...

But go near abortion, and you throw a fit.

I understand that different people have different priorities, but don't you think making abortion the end-all, be-all of the Democratic party might be a bit counter-productive?

I seriously doubt Abortion rights activists are in any danger of jumping ship, long term or short. There's a very real possibility that four years of bank bail louts and capitulation on labor issues might actually lose us some votes.

um, soullite, not everything is an electoral calculation. for many of us posting i get the distinct impression that we actually, you know, care about the choice issue personally, not just in a political consultant sort of way.

Barbara: "The Constitution says nothing, for instance, about the rights of ..."
Sure, but that's where appeal to A9 comes in. The trouble for conservatives using A9 is their frequent complaints over "that 'right' isn't in the Constitution!" etc. But that's a consistency issue, A9 means that we can't actually blow off an alleged right for not being "in the Constitution." We (through our Judges) have to divine those rights, and so strict construction is not possible.

Soullite, I am concerned that Sotomayor is liked by the Chamber of Commerce! More scoop?

Orrin Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton. As I recall, Clinton never heard of her, looked into it and said OK.

It would have been pretty hard (though not impossible for a weasel like Hatch) to vote against Ginsburg.

I do not anticipate Hatch will have as much largess towards Sotomayor. He voted for her before, but is already laying down the groundwork for opposing her (along the lines of "scotus is much more important we really have to look into this...")

The latest revelation about Sotomayor: She is listed as a member of National Council of La Raza (how close to plain, supposedly radical "La Raza" I'm not sure.)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

I understand that different people have different priorities, but don't you think making abortion the end-all, be-all of the Democratic party might be a bit counter-productive?

Silly wimmens, all worried about their health and their privacy when there are more important things to be concerned about. Why won't they give up their right to abortion in exchange for better banking rules?

Oh, and regarding the Chamber of Commerce, here's the nominees they supported:

The Chamber has previously endorsed justices Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Thomas, in addition to Souter.

I guess we'd better start calling for Ginsburg's resignation now that we know she was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. Good thing Souter's retiring since we now know he was just a corporate shill, as demonstrated by his endorsement from the Chamber of Commerce.

i would be lying if i didn't admit that this is one reason I preferred other candidates - Sotomayor does not have a strong track record on choice to determine with certainty where she stands.

And I would be lying if I didn't admit that one of the reasons I preferred Sotomayor as Obama's pick was the possibility -- however remote -- that she might be a dream justice for a pro-life liberal. Not that I think there's a snowball's chance you-know-where Sotomayor is some kind of Opus Dei fundie who favors an out and out ban on abortion. But perhaps -- just perhaps -- there exists the possibility she harbors pro-life tendencies that enable her to be less enslaved to the Roe-uber-alles litmus test mentality of the left. Maybe, in other words, she's a solid progressive (that seems certain) who just happens to harbor doubts about the wisdom of Roe. Yes, I know, y'all think the world will end if Idaho is allowed to have stricter abortion regulations than New York. But I think a multiplicity of legal frameworks on this incredibly decisive issue would be healthy for the country -- and very healthy indeed for progressive politics.

Yes, I know, y'all think the world will end if Idaho is allowed to have stricter abortion regulations than New York. But I think a multiplicity of legal frameworks on this incredibly decisive issue would be healthy for the country -- and very healthy indeed for progressive politics.

And hell, if it ain't healthy for way too many women, that's just the price we have to pay for a robust intraparty discourse!

It's not most of us here who think the world will end. That below-poverty-level mother of two in a red state -- yeah, a huge percentage of abortions go to married women and/or mothers -- who has to find child care and take a possibly unpaid leave of absence from work and come up with the money to travel four states away and stay in a hotel room for several nights because the "legal framework" of that state says she's too dim or self-obsessed to make the decision to have an abortion without a mandatory waiting period...well, it's funny how her world looks different from yours.

is there a list of judges that the Chamber of Commerce opposed for Circuit Court positions?

Any chance Republicans will be equally generous with their praise?

Remember, this is a group that will fault you for being pro-dijon.

How many times will conservative critics evade the implications of A9 about unenumerated rights (the primary basis for arguments about privacy etc.), and how much will the MSM play along as Constitutionally illiterate?
Posted by: Neil B â—™ on May 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I suspect, if Americans learned to count by awareness of amendments to your constitution, it would go 1,TWO,4,5,14. are there any other numbers?

Glad to see that some progressives other than myself are beginning to take a critical look at Sotomayor, who as far as can be discerned from her opinions will decide cases no differently than the conservative white guy she is set to replace.

That's not the change I voted for.

I guess we'd better start calling for Ginsburg's resignation now that we know she was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Well, as a matter of fact, Breyer has been especially anti-labor and anti-enviro (read: pro- chamber of commerce) on the court.

Remember that Breyer and Ginsburg were centrist appointments. They only look liberal compared the rest of the court. And it's truly sad that Obama is following in WJC's footsteps.

Neil B: I'm totally on board with you. I'm just turning the right's favorite argument against itself in an area that they care deeply about and don't seem to have thought about with anything approaching the analytical rigor that they have supposedly applied to the topic of abortion.

"Sorry, I have to worry. Obama has not been a strong liberal on many issues. I do have trouble trusting him."
Posted by: gttim

Gttim, Obama is the first American president I have trusted, and I go back as far as LBJ.

Obama can count- he recognizes how many votes he needs to get things done. He governs from the center. If the congressional center moves left so will he.

why would it make sense for any president to take "strong liberal positions"? they wouldn't get anything done

"Sotomayor, who as far as can be discerned from her opinions will decide cases no differently than the conservative white guy she is set to replace.
That's not the change I voted for."
Posted by: Disputo on May 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Disputo, It will come as a surprise to at least half the population to learn that Souter was a conservative.

what change did you vote for? A radical left President who can't get the votes to get anything done? confirmation hearings that drag on for years?
Disputo, time to be realistic. And grateful that Obama is more astute than any President in a century.

Dorothy Day wrote: "Yes, I know, y'all think the world will end if Idaho is allowed to have stricter abortion regulations than New York."

Wow. Now I realize that the Civil War was fought over nothing. The South should just have been allowed to have different regulations regarding owning human beings as property than the North. It's not like the world would have ended.

How many times will conservative critics evade the implications of A9 about unenumerated rights (the primary basis for arguments about privacy etc.), and how much will the MSM play along as Constitutionally illiterate?

I'm pretty sure that SCOTUS has never elaborated on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment in a majority opinion, and in the Griswold decision (ie, privacy) it is merely quoted, and certainly does not form the basis for the majority opinion.

Wow. Now I realize that the Civil War was fought over nothing. The South should just have been allowed to have different regulations regarding owning human beings as property than the North.

Secular: If a planter's interest in owning slaves were comparable, ethically, to a fetus's interest in not being killed, you'd have a logical point.

And hell, if it ain't healthy for way too many women, that's just the price we have to pay for a robust intraparty discourse!

shortstop: where I differ from you is perception of balance. In other words, I think it's possible to accommodate the legitimate interests and rights of women without the use of a legal standard that wholly denies them to fetuses. I think compromise on abortion law is both possible and desirable. Most hard core pro-lifers and pro-choicers seem to disagree.

Disputo, It will come as a surprise to at least half the population to learn that Souter was a conservative.

He was and is a conservative, as an examination of his decisions will reveal. That the MSM has helped brainwash the public (apparently including you) into thinking otherwise is no surprise. Most people remain sheep.

Disputo, time to be realistic.

That's the same crap I heard from all you pseudo progressives after 9/11 when you were rallying around GWB and all us uncool chaps were protesting the build-up to to two wars. Good to know that I'm still uncool.

What's truly *realistic* is that if actual progressives don't push Obama to the left, he will continue to drift right. I'm not ok with that; if you are, you are part of the problem.

In other words, I think it's possible to accommodate the legitimate interests and rights of women without the use of a legal standard that wholly denies them to fetuses.

Oh, I know you think it's possible. I just don't think you're particularly honest about -- or perhaps just not interested in exploring -- what this "healthy" balance will mean to other people besides you and possibly the people in your immediate circle. It's still all on paper to you.

Disputo, you're really not as much as an iconoclast as you for some reason have begun constantly, chest-thumpingly styling yourself. But all is not lost in the Department of Uniqueness: you've picked up a rather singular style of expressing your criticisms during the last 12-15 months or so. Is it winning any converts, though?

"...human beings as property.." Apply that to viewpoints on abortion. That's a double-edged sword you have there. From an pro-life perspective that's exactly what abortion proponents advocate.

Dorothy Day wrote: "If a planter's interest in owning slaves were comparable, ethically, to a fetus's interest in not being killed, you'd have a logical point."

A woman's interest in not being forced by the State to give birth to an offspring that she doesn't want, is ethically comparable to a slave's interest in not being forced by the State into the status of chattel property.

The slave-owner at least has going for him the fact that he is sentient, and therefore has interests.

A human blastocyst consisting of a few dozen cells has no brain, no nervous system, and is not sentient. It has no biological capacity to experience anything.

So what is your basis for asserting that it has "interests" -- particularly that it has "interests" that outweigh the woman's interest in not being forced by the State to give birth to an offspring that she doesn't want?

You do, I hope, realize that the law of the land, Roe v. Wade, already recognizes differences between fetuses at different stages of development?

Dorothy Day wrote: "In other words, I think it's possible to accommodate the legitimate interests and rights of women without the use of a legal standard that wholly denies them to fetuses."

I see you already answered the question in my previous comment: you are, indeed, ignorant about the law of the land, Roe v. Wade, which in fact does not "wholly deny" the interests and rights of human fetuses.

Obama can count- he recognizes how many votes he needs to get things done. He governs from the center. If the congressional center moves left so will he.

You know this is just how the GOP gets things through! The stake out centrist positions, because they have to count votes, and then proceed. Oh wait...

You ever wonder why the US government has shifted so far to the right? Could it be because Democrats do not have the spine to fight for what they believe in, and instead keep compromising on the middle?

Is it winning any converts, though? -shortstop

No.

Between the unwavering belief in their own infallibility and persistent childish criticisms of the topics Steve and Hilzoy choose to cover, the party in question has only distinguished themselves as one who should be ignored by commenters with more than two neurons to rub together.

impartial wrote: "... '...human beings as property..' Apply that to viewpoints on abortion."

OK.

Those who propose banning abortion regard pregnant women as the property of the State.

Dorothy Day wrote: "I think compromise on abortion law is both possible and desirable."

Certainly it is "possible" since such a compromise has already been established as the law of the land -- namely, Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps you don't find Roe v. Wade to be a "desirable" compromise.

But that's the nature of all compromises. Some one will always find any given compromise to be "undesirable".

The overwhelming majority of the American people accept the compromise set forth in Roe v. Wade.

Yes, I know, y'all think the world will end if Idaho is allowed to have stricter abortion regulations than New York.

Uh, Idaho already has stricter regulations than New York. Look it up.

Since you're lying about just wanting "stricter regulations" since those regulations already exist, what you really mean is that some states should be allowed to ban abortion entirely, correct?

Mnemosyne wrote: "Since you're lying about just wanting 'stricter regulations' since those regulations already exist, what you really mean is that some states should be allowed to ban abortion entirely, correct?"

While I often snipe at Steve Benen for calling Republicans "crazy" or "delusional" or "out of touch" when it's quite clear that they are simply deliberate manipulative liars, in the case of commenter Dorothy Day, based on her comments I see no reason not to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is simply ignorant of existing abortion law, including both Roe v. Wade and state laws, and is not deliberately lying.

She wouldn't be alone. A lot of people don't seem to know that Roe v. Wade is already a compromise between the rights and interests of a pregnant woman on one hand, and the rights and interests of her developing fetus on the other.

While I often snipe at Steve Benen for calling Republicans "crazy" or "delusional" or "out of touch" when it's quite clear that they are simply deliberate manipulative liars, in the case of commenter Dorothy Day, based on her comments I see no reason not to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is simply ignorant of existing abortion law, including both Roe v. Wade and state laws, and is not deliberately lying.

Actually, she's using a code word: "stricter regulations," among the forced birth crowd, means "ban." So, for example, they want "stricter regulations" on birth control that would eliminate access to most forms of the Pill because they claim it causes abortions since there's a maybe possible theoretical chance that an egg could get fertilized and not implant. "Stricter regulations" means going back to the days when a panel of doctors got to decide who deserved an abortion and who didn't.

If she's really unaware of how the "pro-life" crowd uses the phrase and is just parroting back what she's heard, hopefully that website I directed her to will enlighten her.

Actually, she's using a code word: "stricter regulations," among the forced birth crowd, means "ban."

Correct. Which is why, in my 1:05 post, I went directly to the wholly-banned-in-many-states scenario: because this is what Dorothy means when he/she calls for a "healthy multiplicity of legal frameworks." If this is not the case, he or she is free to correct Mnemosyne and me.

Yes, I know, y'all think the world will end if Idaho is allowed to have stricter abortion regulations than New York.

Different states already have "stricter abortion regulations," jackass. So pardon me for inferring that the kind you have in mind for Idaho is more like the kind they had in North Dakota.

I think compromise on abortion law is both possible and desirable.

Okay, let's presume this argument is made in good faith -- pardon me, I just laughed uncontrollably. I'm back.

Given that there are already many legal restictions on the right of a woman to control her reproductive system and no state, so far as I'm aware, in which unrestricted "abortion on demand" occurs, and that the anti-choice forces even banned the procedure they dubbed with the entriely bogus yet emotionally-charged name "partial birth abortion" ...

...what compromises do you suggest the anti-choice side should make?

The real Dorothy Day had an abortion. Like a lot of Catholic women she indulged in the cheap and self-indulgent grace of regret but I'm sure she was grateful that she was able to terminate when she felt she needed to.

in the case of commenter Dorothy Day, based on her comments I see no reason not to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is simply ignorant of existing abortion law, including both Roe v. Wade and state laws, and is not deliberately lying.

Point well taken. Then again, her ignorance, not unlike that expressed repeatedly by the proponents of Terry Schiavo's parents back when that sad case was a hot topic of debate, is the result of having been deliberately lied to by figures of authority.

Funnily enough, many of those liars probably call themselves Christians. Yet I seem to recall the Bible had something to say about bearing false witness. Certainly tradition is clear as to who is the Father of Lies.

Mnemosyne wrote: "Actually, she's using a code word ..."

Well, if you call someone "Rumpelstiltskin" and they go away, then maybe they really are a troll.

So, we'll see if Ms. Day rejoins the discussion, or if, with her code words now decrypted, she vanishes into the Troll Realm.

Certainly it is "possible" since such a compromise has already been established as the law of the land -- namely, Roe v. Wade.

I believe the Casey decision also allowed for further restrictions and "compromise", so to speak. Didn't it allow the parental notification requirement?
What wingnuts really want, and what justices Roberts and Alito are doing, in fact, is allowing for more and more restrictions, to the point that a woman's freedom of choice is effectively "compromised" out of existence. Wingnuts won't have the visceral thrill of seeing Roe overturned in one decision, but it will slowly happen if another Roberts or Alito is appointed. It might even happen if Kennedy remains.

What wingnuts really want, and what justices Roberts and Alito are doing, in fact, is allowing for more and more restrictions, to the point that a woman's freedom of choice is effectively "compromised" out of existence.

Which is the basis for my question above. If the anti-choice forces truly believe abortion is murder, what "compromise" can there be? Certainly as the American public has become accustomed to the concept of a right to abortion, with restrictions, the anti-choice crowd hasn't seen fit to "compromise." For Ford's sake, potential SCOTUS appointees' attitude toward Roe v Wade was an issue in the Presidential election!

Thus I disagree with the premise of the statement that there should be some "compromise" between the pro- and anti-choice forces. I contend that the anti-choice forces have no intention of compromising, and that therefore any attempt to do so would entail compromise wholly on the pro-choice side. (Again, the whole Terri Schaivo mess was illustrative of the lengths these people will go to get their way, facts and law be damned.) It's a mug's game.

...what compromises do you suggest the anti-choice side should make?

Banning abortion in all cases, in every state, would be a start. Then they'll know we're serious about working together.

Sorry, I can't stop laughing along with you, G.

Banning abortion in all cases, in every state, would be a start.

And the next step, of course, is banning the Pill.

And the next step, of course, is banning the Pill. -Gregory

I had heard the next step was banning vaginas.

And the next step, of course, is banning the Pill.

You're right! My failure to mention that just shows how unbending the left is on this issue! This party really needs some fresh thinking on this.

I had heard the next step was banning vaginas.

Never! You'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead...ohwaitaminnit.

I had heard the next step was banning vaginas.

Nah. The anti-choice crowd doesn't want 'em banned.

They want 'em controlled, is all.

I guess Dorothy Day was a troll after all.

My faith in humanity is crushed. Crushed, I say.

Don't let this step on your spirit, SecAn. Someday you're going to find the right non-troll...a non-troll who's worthy of you. One who won't abuse your trust and throw away your good will. You just gotta believe.

Different states already have "stricter abortion regulations," jackass. So pardon me for inferring that the kind you have in mind for Idaho is more like the kind they had in North Dakota.

Gregory: It is virtually impossible under US law for any political unit to protect fetal life. For a variety of reasons, I think the killing of fetuses ought to be legal under the law in many/most cases; I view this as a necessary evil, because the prohibition of abortion would not only be unenforceable (and so would not attain its goal), it would create massive negative side effects in terms of civil liberties, health care, etc. I just don't think abortion should be legal under the law in nearly all cases as it is now. As far as I know, the only substantive restriction on the killing of fetuses that have survived the scrutiny of the courts since Roe involve minors.

Which is why, in my 1:05 post, I went directly to the wholly-banned-in-many-states scenario: because this is what Dorothy means when he/she calls for a "healthy multiplicity of legal frameworks." If this is not the case, he or she is free to correct Mnemosyne and me.

shortstop: I think a national ban on abortion would be disastrous public policy and virtually unimaginable. I think a ban on abortion by an individual state would be disastrous policy and virtually unimaginable. No federal court -- even were Roe overturned -- would allow a state (or federal) level ban on the procedure if by ban we mean "prohibited in all cases." I simply don't see how the courts would allow a legislature (or Congress) to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that threatens her life or health. But you don't need the overreaching disaster that is Roe to achieve this (not to mention the fact that you don't need Roe at all -- not even to protect the vast number of so-called "birth control abortions" -- in the majority of states where the vast majority of the US population resides; opinion polls are crystal clear on this: most Americans want first trimester abortion to remain legal and accessible).

Now, I do think it is possible a culturally conservative state might severely restrict the procedure -- but would almost certainly have to allow exemptions for health/life threatening pregnancies (or else would be forced to by the courts). So, this is what I mean by "multiplicity of legal frameworks": abortion widely available in the first trimester, restricted in a few conservative states (with a concomitant lessening of the corrosive political spillover of this hot button social issue into the national scene), and less availability in general after the first trimester.

Dorothy Day, what additional abortions do you want to see restricted? 90% of abortions occur within the first trimester. A tiny, tiny fraction occur after viability -- maybe less than 1/2 of one percent, and most of those are almost certainly related to health of either fetus or mother.

Of the ones that occur early, and a few that occur after that, the optimal solution is for the pregnancy never to have occurred, and the steps to do that are almost always opposed by one or more pro-life factions (like the Catholic Church or the abstinence only crowd).

Abortion IS regulated. Maybe if you've never tried to get one you don't appreciate this, but anyone who has or known someone who has has figured this out.

So I mean this when I say I really don't get what else you think needs to be done, and no, I am not going to "compromise" just for the sake of showing solidarity with pro-lifers.

I think the killing of fetuses

What is this "killing of fetuses" of which you speak? We're discussing abortion.

Yup, it's a troll.

It is virtually impossible under US law for any political unit to protect fetal life.

I don't know about that. Fortunately, though, we've managed to prevent the State from controlling women's bodies.

And in any cas, as already pointed out to you, Roe v Wade was already a compromise explicitly crafted to, as you put it, "protect fetal life" in many cases.

I just don't think abortion should be legal under the law in nearly all cases as it is now.

As Smaug said to Bilbo, your information is antiquated.

As far as I know, the only substantive restriction on the killing of fetuses that have survived the scrutiny of the courts since Roe involve minors.

I already mentioned so-called "partial birth abortion," jackass.

I think a ban on abortion by an individual state would be disastrous policy and virtually unimaginable.

Why do you say it's unimaginable when, and again as I already pointed out to you, North Dakota not only imagined it but went ahead and enacted it?

I simply don't see how the courts would allow a legislature (or Congress) to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that threatens her life or health.

Of course, that didn't stop North Dakota from passing just such a law, and moreover one what would force a woman to carry her rapist's child, even if it was her own father. Nice side you've aligned yourself with with your "killing of fetuses" bullshit.

but you don't need the overreaching disaster that is Roe to

As a compromise decision, Roe has protected both women's rights and fetal life for decades, and stood for keeping the government from controlling women's bodies into the bargain. How is it then an "overreaching disaster"?

opinion polls are crystal clear on this: most Americans want first trimester abortion to remain legal and accessible).

Which, again, didn't stop North Dakota from banning them outright. I don't need to mention the harm that occurs to women who lose legal control of their own bodies while such bullshit legislation is litigated, even if it is overturned, do I?

I do think it is possible a culturally conservative state might severely restrict the procedure -- but would almost certainly have to allow exemptions for health/life threatening pregnancies

Again, we already know this statement is false, from, you know, actual events.

What color is the sky in your world? It's blue in ours.

this is what I mean by "multiplicity of legal frameworks": abortion widely available in the first trimester, restricted in a few conservative states (with a concomitant lessening of the corrosive political spillover of this hot button social issue into the national scene), and less availability in general after the first trimester.

Which is, by an extraordinary coincidence, precisely the system we have under Roe -- unless, of course, again, by "less availability in general" you mean "a total ban."

As for the "corrosive political spillover of this hot button social issue into the national scene," you might want to talk to your anti-choice buddies about that. Apart from the need to stay vigilant over you lunatics, the vast majority that favors choice already has what it wants. As I pointed out early, it's the Senior Anti-Sex League that won't compromise.

Which reminds me -- I notice (quelle suprise!) you didn't answer my question: Regardless of whatever moderate stance you pretend to, what compromise do you think the anti-choice crowd should make?

"Restricted" in a "few conservative states"? A couple dozen of them are ready to ban it outright if Roe goes down, either through Republican legislatures that are ready to move legislation in a New York minute or old laws still on the books. Most Americans wanting to retain first-trimester abortion rights does not translate into "most Americans have control of their state legislatures and can rely on them to uphold what most Americans want." Indeed, the fact that American rights and civil liberties don't rely on the whims of the majority is why we have constitutional protections for individuals.

You're woefully uninformed or deliberately dishonest about the reality of what will happen state by state if Roe is overturned. The transparently manipulative construction of your arguments and the euphemisms you choose convince me it's the latter.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization on sexual and reproductive health issues, state and federal tax dollars paid $89 million for 177,404 abortions in 2006.

“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”

She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”

Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.

A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.

Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.

An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.

Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.

With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
(Did he suggest cap and trade?)

Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.

If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.

According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?

Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.

The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.

If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”

A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”