Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Chretien says Bush tells him the contract policy will NOT affect Canada.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Chretien says Bush tells him the contract policy will NOT affect Canada.

Cite please.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
A specific Version 1.0 of his dooms-day scen-ar-i-o.

Going three times here.

Jesus Christ. Pay my hourly rate if you want things on a timeframe.
[list=1][*]O'Connor or Stevens die during Bush II presidency. Anti-Roe ideologue appointed to Supreme Court.[*]Some state (doesn't matter which) immediately enacts law that places substantial burden on woman's ability to obtain abortion.[*]Law is struck down in district court and circuit court of appeals as contrary to Roe and Planned Parenthood cases.[*]Supreme Court accepts cert; says Roe was wrongly decided in 1973 and at all later times thereafter. Departs from current stare decisis law by overturning law notwithstanding its recent reaffirmation and substantial body of law below further developing and relying on that precedent; just says we've changed our minds.[*]With no constitutional issue raised by abortion controls, about 15 states (I'm making this up) ban abortion outright without exception for rape and incest. Another ten or so enact severe controls that basically substitute statutory standards and permit abortions to be performed only upon showing before court of some set standard.[*]States with constitutional provisions guaranteeing personal privacy continue to permit abortion solely upon request by pregnant woman. I imagine this will be somewhere around sixteen to twenty states.[*]Nation is now split in three: states allowing abortion "on demand"; states allowing abortion to be performed with court order; and states allowing no provision whatsoever for termination of pregnancy.[*]Politicians in states allowing no abortions rail against the Sodoms and Gomorrahs allowing abortions; candidates for President are asked whether fetus is a person in all future presidential debates (because candidates will no longer be allowed to use Roe federalism as a euphemism for the moral issue).[*]Congress stages weekly debates on whether there is a national policy to "favor" carrying a fetus to term. Findings are entered into the legislative record about birth rates and fetal development stages and all the same shit that came in during the partial birth abortion ban.[*]The states banning abortion elect single-issue House reps who will be the Dana Rohrbachers and Bob Dornans of abortion policy, repeatedly introducing legislation to end the holocausts of abortions being performed in NY, CA, MA and elsewhere.[*]It will begin to be seen as a legitimate policy goal at the federal level to "encourage" birth, and it will be seen as a legitimate means of achieving that goal to employ coercive funding conditions (like what federalized drinking age and basic speed law) to coax states to standardize "personhood" law.[*]States banning abortion will enact anti-travel provisions, which will be struck down in the courts, further inflaming the voter base. State legislatures there will instead do things like revise medical profession regulations to ban doctors from informing patients of their right to travel across state lines. States will also be free to enact laws banning insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive-related medical care, which affect even the provision of out-of-state abortions. States free to enact laws that require insurance companies to report and publish names of covered women who've obtained abortions. Congress is asked to step in, but no idea how this plays out.[*]With no constitutional right to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship, Congress enacts federal controls on interstate travel for the purpose of procuring abortion. Maybe favoring; maybe restricting --- depends on how the elections go.[/list=1]

In short, I think the people who think it's simply going to be a matter of the states making up their own minds once, and the nation becoming comfortable that American babies are put to death depending solely upon which side of a state border the mother resides, is hopelessly naive. I must say I'm a little surprised that the conservatives on this board all think abortion is a states' rights issue. I surmise that those people have never lived in a Southern state. It's a matter of morality, and it will not stop with ending abortions in a 100, 200, or 500 mile radius. Hell, Bilmore can say it's a state's rights issue at the same time he's describing how anguished his friends are to think of babies being slaughtered. You think it's just Minnesota babies that keep them up at night?

I'm sure a much smarter person with more time on a Thursday night can think of other messy little open issues that will arise once there's no constitutional limit to what State A can do to State A residents.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite please.

Uh, Chretien.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Uh, Chretien.

No, silly. Show me where you read that he said that. TIA.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I must say I'm a little surprised that the conservatives on this board all think abortion is a states' rights issue.

I must say I'm a little surprised you would make such a sweeping (and demonstrably untrue) statement. This has to be a federal decision, somehow, for the exact reasons you give.

(Edit) OK, that's too slim to be fair.

It has to be a federal legislative compromise, arrived at only after we can find some way to tone down the rhetoric and re-introduce the 60% of the voters who really don't live and die by this issue to the concept that they need to participate in order to give rationality and a mandate to whatever compromise can be made. I anticipate/desire a legislative structure much like RvW.

(And, NM, it was PBS Nighttime News.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I anticipate/desire a legislative structure much like RvW.

So do I, in the sense that a man who fears the North Wind blowing across his unmentionables wants a belt and suspenders.

But how can Congress occupy the field? If there is no constitutional right to privacy, what's the enumerated power?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
But how can Congress occupy the field? If there is no constitutional right to privacy, what's the enumerated power?

I am sure there is some way someone can twist the Commerce Clause into covering abortion.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So do I, in the sense that a man who fears the North Wind blowing across his unmentionables wants a belt and suspenders.

It's four degrees below zero here right now. This was a personally hurtful statement, and I deplore it.

But how can Congress occupy the field? If there is no constitutional right to privacy, what's the enumerated power?

I don't know. I'm thinking some civil rights theory - hell, you can always shoehorn something in under equal protection - but this is far outside of my expertise.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am sure there is some way someone can twist the Commerce Clause into covering abortion.

So it turns into a political football. Right now, it's only a football in the sense that it's behind glass, so the Stanford fans can gaze wistfully upon it and say that the third lateral was actually an illegal pass forward of the line of scrimmage, and the Cal fans can say it wasn't, and each can solemnly tell their own children about how The Play was the greatest moment in college football, or the greatest injustice ever visited upon mankind, YMMV. Overturning RvW will break the glass and have us replay the Big Game 1982 every two years, forever.

American abortion policy changes every two years --- this is somehow less divisive than RvW in perpetuity?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's four degrees below zero here right now. This was a personally hurtful statement, and I deplore it.

Move now, before Stevens dies and the travel restrictions are enacted.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
American abortion policy changes every two years --- this is somehow less divisive than RvW in perpetuity?

If, as I said, the 60% could be re-engaged with the tales of impending horror should they not serve as the buffer solution in the polar soup, then, yes, I think some stability could be achieved, and, as an added benefit, I can see this serving as a rallying cry for a whole new crop of honest-to-goodness centrist politicians who are willing and able to abandon the fringes because the vast muddle . . er, middle . . comes back into the process. Imagine, being able to appeal to the apathetic, bestowing honor upon them for their very apathy! Telling people that they need to take the issue back from the zealots by showing up at the caucuses and primaries - it's a sure winner.

But it only has a chance, like I said, if we can tone down the hatred. As long as one side holds up pics of ripped-up feti and screams oaths, and the other holds up pics of ripped-up lives and screams oaths, and the crowd in the middle never tells them to sit down and shut up and discuss this rationally, there's no hope. I'll work on the Baptists. You handle NOW.

Point is, at least then, you have people fighting for a political cause in a democratic system rather than raging at the unelected tyrant. It may vary back and forth with elections, but that's what democracies do, and I bet a workable solution would be more long-lived than you think. It's not perfect, but it's a good trade.

(Edited to add) And now I have to go scrape the dog off of the porch. Man's best friend, sure, but how stupid do you have to be to lay down in a wet spot at five below?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What was the perception problem in regards to Beirut?

We were doing some peace-keeping /peace-enforcement action in Lebanon in the early to mid-1980s under your sainted RR. Suicide bombers drove a truck full of explosives into the barracks compound where U.S. Marines were staying -- about 200 people died. The U.S. quickly bugged out. Popular decision, because most Americans didn't care about Lebanon.

That was a huge "paper-tiger" moment, club, right in the Middle East. Hey, OBL was a rich young Saudi who partied in Lebanon back then. I think when combined with our military action in Grenada under Reagan, Lebanon helped to contribute to precisely the perception you talk about -- i.e. the U.S. is big, and talks tough, but is unwilling to do the hard stuff, and unwilling to take casualties. You know -- the "rich people are soft" thesis.

Also -- Bombing of the U.S. embassy in Lebanon -- response was to shoot artillery barrages from a WWII destroyer into various villages/positions occupied by the ethnic militias who opposed our presence. It was very impressive to see, but did little.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think the people of South Florida would beg to differ with you on that one.

You misunderstand the scope of the "vast wave" I'm discussing.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You misunderstand the scope of the "vast wave" I'm discussing.

S_A_M

I think the vast wave you are talking about was a hysterical over-estimation. Things in Haiti are still bad from an economic standpoint and people still try to get out and get here. The problem is that they are so poor, few can even make the rickety boats to risk the trip. That is no different than in the past.