| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2007 09:13:37 PM |
| Object: |
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions
April 20, 2007
By KIRK JOHNSON
DENVER, April 19 Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new
push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest
the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a
federal ban on a type of abortion.
But such legislation could face headwinds in states where voters in
the last election sent large numbers of Democrats many of them
abortion rights advocates into office for the first time.
Seventeen houses or senates in the states shifted position on
abortion after the November elections 15 toward more abortion
rights and 2 toward greater restrictions according to an analysis
by Naral Pro-Choice America. The group says six new governors
supporting abortion rights were elected, compared with one who had
voiced strong views against abortion.
³Something this drastic is going to energize both sides,² said
Katherine Grainger, the director of the state program at the Center
for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights legal advocacy group
based in New York. The organization represented some of the doctors
involved in the Supreme Court case decided Wednesday.
The reasoning of both the courtıs majority opinion upholding the
restrictions and the dissent gave encouragement to opponents of
abortion. The ruling, they said, will bolster their argument that the
issues raised by abortion among them defining fully informed
consent by women who want to end pregnancies and the question of when
a fetus feels pain are legitimate topics for state legislation.
³The case does not give us a new issue, it reinforces the issue and
gives us an opportunity to use it,² said Mary S. Balch, the director
of for state legislation at the National Right to Life Committee.
Ms. Balch and other legislative experts said that North Dakota,
Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Alabama, where
legislators are still meeting and anti-abortion legislation is on the
table, were probably the places to watch for now.
Only hours after the Supreme Courtıs ruling, a lawmaker in Alabama
introduced a measure that would ban almost all abortions in the
state. Most states have adjourned their legislatures for the year or
passed the deadline for introducing new bills.
Some scholars of the abortion debate say that all the tilting and
jousting of politics and the technical legal issues raised by the
Supreme Court in upholding, by a 5-to-4 vote, the federal
Partial-Birth Abortion Act are beside the point.
What the court really did, said Anne Hendershott, a professor of
sociology at the University of San Diego, was reframe the debate
about how abortion should be discussed.
The court did not talk about big concepts and issues like privacy,
but about the small, gripping details of how abortion works, said
Professor Hendershott, author of ³The Politics of Abortion²
(Encounter, 2006).
Focusing on such details, she said, is how so-called
³incrementalists² are trying to chip away at the availability of
abortion. These opponents try to make women, doctors and other health
professionals talk more, in some cases a lot more, about the actual
consequences and mechanics of abortion.
With the courtıs ruling and the new fuel it gives to the strategy of
encouraging those discussions, Professor Hendershott said, the
incrementalists have won the debate if not over abortion, then at
least over how to fight it.
³This case changes the conversation,² she said. ³The battle between
the incrementalists and those who wanted a constitutional amendment
was won by the incrementalists.²
Some lawmakers who are backing anti-abortion bills in their states
said the ruling helped them by declaring that some specific
restrictions are constitutional. The Supreme Court has never before
upheld a ban on a specific kind of abortion.
The emphasis in the courtıs ruling was also much less on the health
or well-being of the pregnant woman, but on the risks and
consequences of an abortion to her and her fetus. This makes
discussion of an abortionıs potentially negative consequences easier,
the lawmakers said.
³It certainly doesnıt hurt,² said James Mills, a Republican state
representative from Gainesville, Ga. Mr. Mills is the chief sponsor
of a bill in the Legislature that would require doctors to offer
patients seeking abortions the choice of viewing an ultrasound image
of the fetus.
In South Carolina, lawmakers are also debating a law involving
ultrasound. One approach would have required a woman to view the
ultrasound image of her fetus before the abortion could be performed.
The other says the option must be offered to the woman by her doctor.
State Senator Kevin Bryant, a Republican from Anderson and a sponsor
of one of the bills, said abortions of the sort addressed by the
Supreme Court were already illegal in South Carolina. But Mr. Bryant
said the ruling could provide some momentum to other restrictions.
³We may also look down the road and end up seeing some other
procedures that should be restricted too,² he said. ³We donıt want to
do too much at one time.²
Legislators in North Dakota are looking at legislation that would
immediately ban abortion statewide if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme
Court case that made abortion legal, is overturned.
The Mississippi Legislature passed just such a bill earlier this
year, banning nearly all abortions if the ruling is overturned. The
law was signed Thursday by Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican.
But some winds are blowing the other way.
In Oklahoma, the Democratic governor, Brad Henry, vetoed legislation
Wednesday that would ban state facilities and workers from performing
abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman. Mr. Henry,
who has supported some restrictions on abortion in the past, said the
bill went too far. Supporters of the bill, which passed
overwhelmingly in both houses, hope to override the veto.
Last month, Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, a Democrat, vetoed a
bill that would have created a new category of homicide if a pregnant
woman was murdered and her unborn fetus died. Mr. Freudenthal said in
his veto message that he thought the bill was probably
unconstitutional.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York, a Democrat, told an abortion rights
group Thursday that he would fight to keep abortion legal in his
state.
Some opponents of abortion said that, until the Supreme Courtıs
ruling, this had not been a particularly good year for their cause.
In part this may have been because of the changed composition in
state legislatures and in part because of what many politicians saw
as a backlash when South Dakota tried to ban most abortions last
year. The Legislature passed a sweeping ban, only to see the public
repeal it in a statewide referendum.
³This particular legislative session was a tough year for us,² said
Ms. Balch of the National Right to Life Committee. ³We had some
victories, but we would have liked more.²
She said lawmakers in South Dakota seemed to be taking a year off
after last yearıs defeat. Virginia, often a hotbed of anti-abortion
discussion, has been quiet too, she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20states.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref
=slogin
.
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
20 Apr 2007 09:55:35 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions
April 20, 2007
By KIRK JOHNSON
DENVER, April 19 =E2=80=B9 Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new
push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest
the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding
a federal ban on a type of abortion.
You know who I'm most angry at about this? Not the Supreme Court,
although they used the most tortured "logic" imaginable to support
their decision. Not the anti-choicers - their days as a viable
political force in this country are numbered.
NARAL. They rolled over when the Senate voted for cloture on the
Alito confirmation, and they endorsed Bush's BFF Joe Lieberman. What
is the point of this organization, if they don't actually go out and
advocate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
20 Apr 2007 10:01:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1177124135.180785.270860@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions
April 20, 2007
By KIRK JOHNSON
DENVER, April 19 âı Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new
push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest
the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding
a federal ban on a type of abortion.
You know who I'm most angry at about this? Not the Supreme Court,
although they used the most tortured "logic" imaginable to support
their decision. Not the anti-choicers - their days as a viable
political force in this country are numbered.
NARAL. They rolled over when the Senate voted for cloture on the
Alito confirmation, and they endorsed Bush's BFF Joe Lieberman. What
is the point of this organization, if they don't actually go out and
advocate?
i don't blame it on naral any more than i blame it on us, all of us.
we let bush steal the presidency not once, but twice.
then we let him start a needless was based on his administration's
lies and crimes.
then we let him steal our rights, not one by one, but in batches.
by the time he began to load the supreme court, it was pretty late in
the game.
impeaching chaney and bush is one way to begin to start the long road
to undoing some of bush's damages.
what do you think of a new business transporting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
21 Apr 2007 03:36:17 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0Spartakus<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions
April 20, 2007
By KIRK JOHNSON
DENVER, April 19 =E2=80=B9 Both sides of the abortion debate expect a=
new
push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest
the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding
a federal ban on a type of abortion.
You know who I'm most angry at about this? =C2=A0Not the Supreme Court,
although they used the most tortured "logic" imaginable to support
their decision. =C2=A0Not the anti-choicers - their days as a viable
political force in this country are numbered.
NARAL. =C2=A0They rolled over when the Senate voted for cloture on the
Alito confirmation, and they endorsed Bush's BFF Joe Lieberman. =C2=A0W=
hat
is the point of this organization, if they don't actually go out and
advocate?
i don't blame it on naral any more than i blame it on us, all of us.
we let bush steal the presidency not once, but twice.
then we let him start a needless was based on his administration's
lies and crimes.
then we let him steal our rights, not one by one, but in batches.
by the time he began to load the supreme court, it was pretty late in
the game.
You are entirely correct, James. We were way too passive from 2000 to
2005, and by the last election, much of the damage was already done.
impeaching chaney and bush is one way to begin to start the long road
to undoing some of bush's damages.
Ten state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for
impeachment.
what do you think of a new business transporting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions?
I have a feeling that the companies who take seniors to Canada for
drug purchases might be looking into that. Montreal, Vancouver and
Winnipeg are all beautiful places to visit. Toronto, not so much (or
so I hear).
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
21 Apr 2007 06:28:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1177187777.693909.205450@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
 Spartakus<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions
April 20, 2007
By KIRK JOHNSON
DENVER, April 19 âı Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new
push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest
the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding
a federal ban on a type of abortion.
You know who I'm most angry at about this? Â Not the Supreme Court,
although they used the most tortured "logic" imaginable to support
their decision. Â Not the anti-choicers - their days as a viable
political force in this country are numbered.
NARAL. Â They rolled over when the Senate voted for cloture on the
Alito confirmation, and they endorsed Bush's BFF Joe Lieberman. Â What
is the point of this organization, if they don't actually go out and
advocate?
i don't blame it on naral any more than i blame it on us, all of us.
we let bush steal the presidency not once, but twice.
then we let him start a needless was based on his administration's
lies and crimes.
then we let him steal our rights, not one by one, but in batches.
by the time he began to load the supreme court, it was pretty late in
the game.
You are entirely correct, James. We were way too passive from 2000 to
2005, and by the last election, much of the damage was already done.
impeaching chaney and bush is one way to begin to start the long road
to undoing some of bush's damages.
Ten state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for
impeachment.
dennis kucinich will introduce legislation to impeach chaney very
soon. i'm not sure if i respect congress sufficiently to believe that
they will actually impeach him, but a few years of hearings will
certainly help all voters gain a clear idea about how bad the
scumballs in office really are.
what do you think of a new business transporting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions?
I have a feeling that the companies who take seniors to Canada for
drug purchases might be looking into that. Montreal, Vancouver and
Winnipeg are all beautiful places to visit. Toronto, not so much (or
so I hear).
oh my!! toronto is one of the world's top five cities and one of my
personal favorites. It is diverse, clean, open and, like all the
other biggies, suffers horrid traffic problems. you're right about
the infrastructure being in place to start carting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
22 Apr 2007 09:34:59 AM |
|
|
On Apr 21, 4:28 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1177187777.693909.205...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
impeaching chaney and bush is one way to begin to start the long road
to undoing some of bush's damages.
Ten state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for
impeachment.
dennis kucinich will introduce legislation to impeach chaney very
soon. i'm not sure if i respect congress sufficiently to believe that
they will actually impeach him, but a few years of hearings will
certainly help all voters gain a clear idea about how bad the
scumballs in office really are.
Outside the beltway, the reaction will be mostly "Yesss! 'Bout time
we nailed the *****".
Inside the beltway, the pundits and what-have-you will be clutching
their hankerchiefs and having fainting spells, bemoaning the
"criminalization of politics" and "partisan attacks", etc.
And while poll after poll will show that Kucinich's initiative
reflects the will of the American people, these pundits and what-have-
you will talk about how this deeply unpopular move is dooming the
Democrats in 2008.
what do you think of a new business transporting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions?
I have a feeling that the companies who take seniors to Canada for
drug purchases might be looking into that. Montreal, Vancouver and
Winnipeg are all beautiful places to visit. Toronto, not so much (or
so I hear).
oh my!! toronto is one of the world's top five cities and one of my
personal favorites. It is diverse, clean, open and, like all the
other biggies, suffers horrid traffic problems. you're right about
the infrastructure being in place to start carting pregnant women
to canada for safe abortions.
I'm a city boy, but I have mixed feelings about BIG cities like
Toronto or New York. I just moved to the Bay Area, and while I'd love
being closer to the cultural amenities in San Francisco, the cost of
living and TRAFFIC in that town are horrible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions |
22 Apr 2007 11:19:20 AM |
|
|
In article <1177252499.031827.325420@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:28 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1177187777.693909.205...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Ten state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for
impeachment.
dennis kucinich will introduce legislation to impeach chaney very
soon. i'm not sure if i respect congress sufficiently to believe that
they will actually impeach him, but a few years of hearings will
certainly help all voters gain a clear idea about how bad the
scumballs in office really are.
Outside the beltway, the reaction will be mostly "Yesss! 'Bout time
we nailed the *****".
i believe that is accurate.
Inside the beltway, the pundits and what-have-you will be clutching
their hankerchiefs and having fainting spells, bemoaning the
"criminalization of politics" and "partisan attacks", etc.
And while poll after poll will show that Kucinich's initiative
reflects the will of the American people, these pundits and what-have-
you will talk about how this deeply unpopular move is dooming the
Democrats in 2008.
i believe that is accurate too.
nonetheless, impeaching chaney first overcomes the most significant
objection to impeaching bush, according to mail i received from my
congressperson.
impeachment hearings will be a delight to watch each day.
what do you think of a new business transporting pregnant women to
canada for safe abortions?
I have a feeling that the companies who take seniors to Canada for
drug purchases might be looking into that. Montreal, Vancouver and
Winnipeg are all beautiful places to visit. Toronto, not so much (or
so I hear).
oh my!! toronto is one of the world's top five cities and one of my
personal favorites. It is diverse, clean, open and, like all the
other biggies, suffers horrid traffic problems. you're right about
the infrastructure being in place to start carting pregnant women
to canada for safe abortions.
I'm a city boy, but I have mixed feelings about BIG cities like
Toronto or New York. I just moved to the Bay Area, and while I'd love
being closer to the cultural amenities in San Francisco, the cost of
living and TRAFFIC in that town are horrible.
having lived in both large and small cities in a couple of countries,
i'm not sure if i have a preference. i found things to like, and
dislike, in both. i only regret i don't know how to drive a
motorcycle which would have made the asian cities more more
convenient ..... and dangerous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
