Blanco is a democrat simply because her parents were democrat.

She also knows that the dumb Fs in this state are part of the whole superstitious social conservative movement.

I'd make the distinction that it's more critical to be hardlined about supporting pro-choice pols when it comes to governorships than for the Senate or House. Battles are being won and lost based on state legislatures and how governors respond to them.

I'd also say that this makes the opposition of allegedly pro-choice Republicans even more crucial. Yes, we want Dems. Yes, we want pro-choice pols. But we have to push for both - it's pure folly to think a pro-choice Republican will do more for abortion rights than a pro-life Democrat, at least in the federal government. Blanco has cleared fucked women on this one, but don't expect Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe to do any better. Expect more from Dems, but don't abandon them...

but what choice do we have, those of us in louisiana? it's not like there's a real democrat still down here who'll stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning for dogcatcher. our choice for governor was blanco or jindal. who's worse? who's better? does it even matter? to anybody down here, having their "democratic" elected official act like a republican on any social issue is par for the course.

i don't know what i'm going to do next gubernatorial election. i sure the hell won't vote for jindal or vitter should they run. vitter's a crook & a hypocrate whose name is in the canal street madam's black book. jindal is a woman-hating religious kook. i'll vote for whatever dem is running even if they suck on all the issues related to me. although i'm thinking of voting for a green if they run one. it's not like my vote'll matter. (i'm getting more & more cynical in my old age.)

what really sucks isn't eve the lack of choice on choice. i was discussing this with my wife this morning in the car.

this is a blatantly unconstitutional amendment. i'm almost sure it won't hold up past even the new, conservative supreme court. *but* it will take lots of louisiana money to defend it. lots of lawyers will get paid.

money for defending unconstitutional amendments? yep! money for wetlands & levees? nope! in the first full term session of the state government post-k, THIS is what we're arguing about? abortion? how about saving the living? making sure your baby doesn't fall off the roof into the water next time? making sure nana isn't drowning in a home somewhere?

god, i am so pissed off at people.

let's everyone on the gulf coast just stick our fingers in our ears and sing a rousing chorus of "rain rain go away." maybe that'll work.

we are just so unbelievably screwed!

ptsh, here in Idaho our state legislature owes $350 million to Planned Parenthood because of the unconstitutional parental consent law they made into law. Oh, oh, and the guy whose pet project it was is running for the US House of Representatives. State politicians don't always stay that way.

D'oh. I meant $350 thousand and not million. Still quite a chunk of change in this state.

wow. i gave blanco a pass for coming across as a moron during katrina. i take it back.

Proud to Swim speaks the Big Truth. A pro-choice candidate of any stripe wouldn't survive ten seconds down here in Louisiana, politically and perhaps literally as well.

I swear, why is it whenever my state makes the news, it's always because of some ridiculous politician behaving unethically! I really can't be surprised about this but I am upset.

The reality is that no Democrat who behaves like one will get elected to any state positions here in Louisiana. Ideally, Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu would run for governor this time around but I don't know if he will.

Blanco didn't look after our interests during Katrina and she still isn't doing anything to help us by going along with this nonsense. Even a principled Republican can determine that bills like this (that don't even make exceptions for rape and incest) should never be passed.

Living in Louisiana means that if you're not voting for someone who holds pseudo-conservative ideals, then you should expect that going out to vote will accomplish little more than wasting the gas it took to get there.

Actually, pro-choice Republicans are better than "pro-life" Democrats--and New York and California stand as cases in point.

There is a "my party, right or wrong" attitude on the left wing in this country that I don't like a bit. If Blanco is a right-winger, she does not deserve support of liberals just because she happens to be a Democrat.

Q: Who was the first member of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

A: Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-MS). I voted for him just because he was a Democrat. Never again.

Cheers,

TH

The whole state of LA is part of the patriarchy.

Yeah, and look at Harry Reid, a "pro-life" Democrat--compared to Blanco now, he's Eleanor Smeal. Blanco is a case in point of just how the "big tent" idea fails when it comes to certain issues. A bad Democrat is not good enough. We need good candidates who actually stand for the platform and can be counted on to vote for it.

I'm gonna join the chorus here -- there were simply no pro-choice candidates to pick from in the governor's race. Between Jindal and Blanco, Blanco seemed like the lesser of two evils. It's my hope she's only signing this because she thinks Roe won't be overturned and it won't go into effect. Fat chance of that, but...

Everyone who said it is right -- there is no way an avowed pro-life candidate, Dem OR Rep, would get elected in the majority of this state. Sure, they can get elected in New Orleans. Maybe Baton Rouge. But, contrary to popular belief, those two cities are a very small slice of the state. No pro-choice candidate is going to carry the rural parishes, where most of our population lives. There are a number of factors for this, but the end result is the same -- no pro-choice candidate is going to win any office where they have the power to actually DO something.

Tom & Myrna - I'm not arguing for a big tent party. I think the idea sucks. But I think Harry Reid will do more for reproductive rights as a pro-lifer than any pro-choice Republican, simply by virtue of the company he keeps.

Blanco screwed women over. I think her statement is reprehensible and I would not support her reelection.

If you think your vote isn't well served supporting a Dem, that's fine - in many cases you're right. But the alternative can't be voting Republican. Where were the pro-choice GOP senators on the Alito and Roberts confirmations? That's what you can expect in general from the GOP - party loyalty. If you want to vote for a pro-choice candidate, use it on a third party one.

Tom Head:

Do you have any politicians in particular you are thinking of, or any particular bills? I honestly don't recall ever seeing "pro-choice" Republicans casting a vote in that direction on a bill when it mattered (i.e. when it might have actually changed the outcome).

I actually went searching through the roll calls last year when trying to fact-check for something I was writing in relation to NARAL and didn't find a single case of it, so if you know of some, please point me at them.

Uhhh dont forget that Blanco has a Bushesque approval rating and has had ever since the hurricane. She faces a TOUGH race in 2007. The lower Mississippi region is THE most anti-choice region of the country, even more anti-choice than South Dakota.

Actually Blanco would not even be governor if not for the sliver of "David Duke" Republicans defecting to her side in 2003. Sad but true. That is how things are down there.

There certainly is a good reason for voting for a pro-life Democrat congress(wo)man: because even if s/he is personally pro-life, s/he would cast a vote for a Democratic majority leader, and a Democratic majority in a house of Congress would inevitably be dominated by the pro-choice constituency. This makes a _very_ big difference in what agenda is publicized and pursued in Congress.

So it isn't necessarily dumb for a pro-choice voter to swallow hard and vote for a pro-life Democrat, even over a pro-choice Republican.

is there some kind of implicit assumption here that pro-choice = democrat?

let's not forget that (imo) and ime, the repubs are more "tolerant" of pro-choicers than the dems are tolerant of pro-lifers. it was the repubs who had several pro-choice speakers at their convention - Arnold, Guiliani, for instance. i don't recall the dems ever having one of note.

iirc, the republican party of hawaii also has an officially pro-choice stance. could be wrong, but that's what i heard from a hawaii dem

as for the part about pro-choice repubs shouldn't support roberts and alito?

hey, i'm pro-choice. i support(ed) roberts and alito. because they are good judges. im sorry but i don't go along with the judges must be pro-choice litmus test. that is not constitutionall defensible. considering their ABA rating, their records, and even their colleagues comments (many liberal colleagues were extremely supportive of these judges)

there are also two completely different issues

1) being pro-choice
2) being pro roe v. wade

the former is a question of legal policy. the latter is a question of constitutional law

two totally different things

I don't know much about Louisiana politics, but this explains A LOT. I couldn't figure out exactly why, after Katrina, the democratic governor was on tv looking so starry-eyed at George Bush, and stood by his side like some hag wife. She assisted him in his little speech, she helped him, she beemed...I didn't get it at the time. But now I do. The bitch is a republican.

I'd rather it be a one-party state instead of electing republican's to democratic seats, I'm sorry. Better to choose your battles and spend democratic money on other fronts.

How can she sign a bill which is illegal and unconstitutional? When even Roberts said that Roe vs Wade is "settled law?" These governors think they can bypass all that by signing away women's rights in their little state legislatures?

I guess that means we can go back in time, state by state, backwater by backwater, and sign bills which reverse women's right to vote, or black people's right to vote. Let's bring back the separate water fountains and bathrooms. Can we go to the states and do this? If the answer is no, I say why not???

Jeez,...there's couples in China who have their own ultrasound machines in their bedrooms so they can abort the female fetuses,...and we can't even get contraception in this country without haggling with a racist, fundamentalist pharmacist in Walmart or Target.

I wonder what Casey will do in Philly?

Anyone have the roll call vote from the State's Legislature?

And it doesn't surprise me that a predominately Catholic state would oppose abortion.

This is in response to the post by "jt" I think it is?

Yes, being a Democrat means not overturning Roe vs Wade for God's sake. The majority of the country is in favor of keeping it, and it's settled law. Since the Democratic Party is the more progressive party anyway (which means a responsibility to move the country forward), then why would be go backwards?? So I say no, any person who wants to run in a Democrat's seat, and accept my money better know what their responsibility is, not just to me but to the country, and to women in this country more specifically.

You stated this:

"there are two completely different issues
1) being pro-choice
2) being pro roe v. wade

the former is a question of legal policy. the latter is a question of constitutional law."

What are you saying?? Being pro-choice is not a question of legal policy, it is a personal belief. You can be pro-choice personally, not believing in abortion for yourself, but understanding that Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and continues to get consistant public support.

If any politician feels he doesn't want his wife or daughter to have an abortion, that's a conversation he ought to have with them, not with the nation.

Similarly, if any politician feels uncomfortable his daughter would marry a black man and doesn't believe in race-mixing, it DOES NOT EQUATE to imposing those personal views on the nation and banning it. Same goes for gay marriage and civil unions. You don't like it, fine, just don't do it. And certainly it's not your right or your place to legislate it.

Sorry, I mispoke, I meant pro-life in my statement. Either is a personal belief..anti or pro. Not a policy.

Roe Vs. Wade isn't "the law of the land" it was a landmark Constitutional Law court case.

The decision in that case and the opinion given to back that decision has become "legal precedent".

Likewise, the ruling is not infallable, as there is a minority opinion in the case which opens it up to scrutiny.

Many constitutional lawyers and scholars maintain that the "right to privacy" which is implied by the constitution but is not by any means explicitally granted by the constitution does not actually cover a persons right to seek out a non-necessary medical procedure, if the states decide that the medical procedure is immoral.

Other scholars maintain that that is "hogwash", of course the right of privacy protects a womans right to seek out medical care when she needs it.

I'm of the opinion that neither one of these points of view is correct. I don't think the constitution deals with abortion one way or the other. It was one of many things that the authors did not expect would become a large issue.

Since it's not covered in the constitution, unless a constitutional amendment is passed, I think the states should be able to pass any law they would like involving this issue.

Perhaps if more states begin restricting our rights, and the younger generations become outraged and interested in our governmental procedure, as opposed to being spoiled, drunk and lackadaisical...then the temporary restriction of our rights might be beneficial.

I don't agree with Louisiana's government...but I haven't seen or heard about any formal protests... or even outraged lobbyists.

In PA, I'll still take Casey over Santorum; even with Casey's flaws, he's much better than the current guy...

I'm going to take what has become the hard-left position these days (although it really is the conservative position) and defend the status quo.

It behooves one to look at history and the last time the states' rights mantra was raised loudly pertaining to the civil rights issue. To put it succinctly, and to quote a great man whose kind no longer seems to exist in politics today: it is time "to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

Under states' rights devolution, if you are pro-choice, there will always be somewhere where a womans' fundamental rights are violated, in America. That is unacceptable. If you are pro-life, there will always be somewhere where "innocent unborn children" are being slaughtered. That is equally unacceptable. States' rights devolution of the abortion issue will increase polarization, not decrease it. It will heighten the hysteria and further distract politicians, not free them to work on more pressing matters. It will deepen the problem, not ameliorate it. No matter if you agree nor disagree with a womans' abortion rights, or if you simply want the debate to go away, the states' rights solution will bring no relief nor application of justice.

I could write a whole nother couple paragraphs on why Roe v Wade should be upheld, but I've written enough for now.

Those might be good political reasons...but there isn't really a good LEGAL reason to defend it.

Perhaps in the 33 years since the decision, us feminists should have persuaded our politicians to fight for an amendment to the constitution legalizing abortion. And I fail to see the option of abortion to be a civil right...it's a luxury that we have been afforded at this time...and like all luxuries it is not beyond being lost.

Perhaps the same people so upset over the anti-gay marriage amendment will wake up and demand an amendment legalizing gay marriage...the idiot in the white house just gave us a perfect excuse to request it.!.

As the infamous Zendik bumper sticker states...

"Stop bitching and start a revolution".

TT,

I love how you say "Those might be good political reasons...but there isn't really a good LEGAL reason.." and then go on to make political, not legal arguments. As I've said, I've purposely omitted a length legal examination for the sake of brevity. As for an amendment banning gay marriage, I can't say I support it, but I can't blame gay marriage opponents for wanting to push one through, because denial of equal protection is unconstitutional as it is.

I've already made a legal argument. Up there^

And as far as this being a "civil rights issue"...

Under anti-abortion laws...noone is discriminated against. Men are blocked from getting an abortion just like women are.

And it's not just certain women who are barred from abortions...it's all women.

Abortion laws are not discriminatory.

Hello? It doesn't have to be a matter of anti-discrimination for it to be a civil rights issue. The first amendment is a civil rights issue, no?

Your legal "argument" is worse than pathetic. Try arguing against 65 years of constitutional jurisdiction.

What I'm arguing against is a singular argument made in one decision 33 years ago...a decision that was argued against by 3 of the justices on the supreme court at the time.

That is all. I think the Roe V. Wade decision (while an interesting one) just doesn't really float. I think the justices wanted to legalize abortion, so they found an argument that would support their case. As opposed to finding an argument with the constitutionality of the law and then basing the case they would support on that argument.

The argument they posited is akin to saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun because the Moon revolves around the Earth (when in fact there are a number of scenarios possible where the Moon could revolve around the Earth while the Earth didn't revolve around the Sun)...

Sure the conclusions are the same, but the way they got to the conclusion was kind of suspect.

Wrong, the decision was 7-2. Given that you're ignorant of such basic facts, I can see now why Samhita gave you some friendly advice to get some education. I seem to remember another thread not too long ago where you claimed that constitutional amendments had to be approved by 2/3rds of states, not 3/4, and generally made some incredibly absurd claims about the amendment process. You seem to be a troll-- a polite, mild mannered troll, but a troll nonetheless. Simply off the cuff, Roe v. Wade is based on the protection of personal privacy necessary to preserve the right of individual liberty and personal property guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.

But really, it would do you good to read a book (you know a BOOK?) or two rather than wasting everyone's time posting here.

I used the terms "if I remember correctly".

And what did I say ignorantly about the Constitutional process?

I said that a potential ammendment goes to the states...then 2/3 (ok I was wrong, a larger number 3/4 is the correct number or 38 of the states) of the states assemblies have to ratify it...and then it goes before the house and senate. Where was the absurd claims that I made (that I made a caveat that I could be completely incorrect about them...I already admitted my ignorance)? It was certainly not more absurd than the comment I was responding to that suggested that after a 2/3 vote in the senate, an amendment is added to the constitution.

As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, would you argue that the 14th Amendment protects an Americans right to smoke pot, do cocaine and do heroin?

Because all of these drugs could be argued to be used for medicinal uses...and since the 14th Amendment protects the right to an abortion...obviously it protects our right to do drugs as well...

pumps - Harry Reid spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention - both pro-life and a high ranking person in the party. (For those playing the home game, Bob Casey didn't speak in 1992 because he refused to endorse the party's candidate.)

In general, I think you're confusing tolerance with tokenism. The Republican national convention as seen on TV (with the exception of Zig-Zag Zell Miller) was pretty far from what the Republican party actually practices.

Alito was a bad choice for a supreme court justice because during his initial confirmation hearings as a federal judge, he promised Congress that he would recuse himself in three circumstances. He later broke all three promises in a few short years.

fungi, good point. i had forgotten that Harry Reid had spoken at the 2004 convention.

personally, i do think it is tolerance more than tokenism. that is because i *am* a pro-choice republican, and was once a pro-life democrat. i know that sounds bizarre, but it's true. in my personal experience, as well as the debates i have seen in both dem related and repub related blogs and personal discussions, i have simply seen less "litmus test-ism" among repubs vis a vis abortion than i have sen with dems.

i am not aware of these specific recusals you are speaking of (Alito), so I can't comment on that

despite the fact that i am prochoice, i have serious issues with much of the logic and rhetoric on both sides of this debate. i frankly find myself disagreeing with much of the pro-choice rhetoric, despite the fact that *i* am pro-choice

so, it's a weird issue

like i get tired of hearing people say that abortion is just between a woman and her doctor. it's not. there is a third party - the fetus. i don't think the fetus has a "right to life", but it's certainly not merely a question of a woman's body, since the fetus is a dependant organism

i also have issues with people who say they support so called medical privacy, but do not support

1) legalized prostitution
2) legalized drug use
3) and plastic surgery at will of all sorts

since all 3 necessarily follow from the idea that all decisions about a womans (or mans) body should be free from govt. interference

Quote:
"As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, would you argue that the 14th Amendment protects an Americans right to smoke pot, do cocaine and do heroin? / Since the 14th Amendment protects the right to an abortion obviously it protects our right to do drugs as well."
Posted by: TheTruth

This is flawed logic, and it's the same kind of argument people use when they say,.."well, if you let gay people have the right to marry then you have to let people marry animals and children, too."

Women are more than half of the citizens of this country, and they have a fundamental right to control their own bodies and lives. They are unique in that they produce children and men cannot, but it is a complicated process, a physical condition fraught with various risk, and the birthing process may even result in the death of the mother. In all of the animal kingdom, including primates, not every conception results in a successful birth or rearing of young. Survival rates and various physical factors as well as environment and familial support or lack of it, are factored in the DNA. In other words, nature provides that a certain percentage of conceptions result in increasing the population, and a certain percentage results in failed pregancy or infant mortality. The female's season and rate of fertility is adjusted for that. That is natural law.

Christian Fundamentalists have twisted this natural law to attempt to have every conception from every fertile female in the world result in the production of another human being. That means no condoms, no contraception pills, no morning after pills, and no abortion.

We are not rabbits. We are not cats in heat. Women are not "hosts" to a fetus. We are human beings with rights, and we have the right to control our own bodies.

I would propose, that if anyone disagrees with that, if they think that it is against god, or against the patriarchy, then let them go back to a pre-modern age where half of all fetuses and children were claimed by miscarriage, accidents, ignorance & superstition, disease, neglect and starvation, and never made it to adulthood anyway.

In regards to your response to my earlier post which stated Roe vs Wade was the law of the land: Technically you are correct. But being correct and right are not the same. Even conservative Judge Roberts stated Roe vs Wade is "settled law."

i am pro-choice, but i get very tired of people blaming the other side's position on "christian fundamentalists". of those who are in the pro-life camps, there are a LOT who are not even christian, let alone fundamentalist christian. there are jews, atheist, agnostic, muslims, and buddhist.

and there is a valid argument that *if* there is some kind of sacrosanct right for a woman to do whatever she wants with her body w/o govt. interference, then that same right should apply to prostitution and legalization of drugs.

i think that is consistent in the libertarian sense

As far as I am concerned, it is not so much a matter as a person's right to do whatever he or she wants with her body, as it is a question of nobody having the right to make use of another person's body without her permission. Men can't use my body without my permission: if one does, that's rape. Fetuses can't use my body without my permission. I can't think of a situation in which a man is forced to let somebody else make use of his body against his will legally.

So a man has never been raped?

*sigh*

EG, under your logic, abortion should be available on demand up until the moment of birth.

is that your position?

i am pro-choice. i do not support abortion on demand up until the moment of birth (full disclosure)

If you read my post, TT, you'll note that I said "legally." Unless you know something that I don't, raping men is not legal.

Pamps, I consider that pseudo-issue to be so specious as not to merit consideration. It supposes that there's a significant number of women who get 8 and a half months through pregnancy and think, for no reason whatsoever "Hey, y'know what? Never mind. I was gonna have a baby, but now I think I'd rather go to a movie." I see no reason to legislate about things that do not, with very, very, very few exceptions, happen. It's a red herring non-issue that's part and parcel of the whole "those wicked homicidal mothers are out to get babies" rhetoric that the right uses to demonize women. In the real world, late-term abortions are performed exceedingly rarely, and always for reasons of serious danger to the mother and/or birth defect.

But, your hypothetical woman who reaches 8 and half months and doesn't want to carry on any further can schedule a caesarian, thus removing the baby from her body, and give the resulting infant up for adoption.

EG, i see your response as evasion at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst. like i said, i am open about my position. regardless of the frequency (lack thereof), i do not think it should be a legal right for a woman to get abortion on demand in the third trimester.

you told me why u support the right to abortion, but completely fail to answer the question

even if it has only happened once in 50 years, it's a fair question

do you or do you not think that abortion on demand should be a legal right up to the moment of birth?

that is a perfectly legitimate question. debates are often framed by the extremes. i can be honest and say i do not support that, as a matter of policy, nor do i think it is a legal right that exists.

can u simply answer the question?

I disagree with you. I think that very question is an evasion--an evasion of what it means for real women to have reproductive rights in the real world. Your hypothetical is not an "extreme," because it simply doesn't happen. It's a specious canard. I will not agree to let the terms of the debate be set on bases with which I do not agree, and which I do not think are based in reality. As I said, the right has a whole mentality set up in which women are considered to be the biggest possible dangers to their children, and that simply doesn't reflect reality. I'm not interested in purely hypothetical questions--laws are only relevant if they reflect human behavior. I don't see the need for a law that would, say, ban people from roller-skating down the street blindfolded, even though indisputably disastrous results could occur if people do that, because the fact is that people simply do not do tha