OBJECT TO ANTI-CHOICE JUDGES!

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jody Barsch*
Lifehead
Posts: 1166
Joined: Jun 30th 2003, 1:30 pm
Location: Los Angeles

OBJECT TO ANTI-CHOICE JUDGES!

Post by Jody Barsch* » Jul 3rd 2004, 1:28 pm

I am posting my most recient email from PPLA:



"Please be sure to take action on this important and time-sensitive issue. What better way to celebrate our country’s independence than doing exactly what our forefathers fought for—speaking out and getting heard!

OBJECT TO ANTI-CHOICE JUDGES!

The Senate is expected to vote on the nomination of J. Leon Holmes to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas next Tuesday, July 6th. All signs point to a close vote on Holmes. Planned Parenthood Los Angeles strongly opposes his nomination.

Join us in urging your Senators to block his confirmation today.

Holmes has worked throughout his career to eliminate a woman’s right to choose. During his career, he has

·Served as the President of the Arkansas Right to Life and as Secretary of the Unborn Child Amendment Committee in Arkansas;

·Supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion;

·Dismissed concerns that such an amendment would prohibit abortion in cases of rape because, according to Holmes, the “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

•Has twice compared abortion to the Holocaust in his writings


Since taking office, President Bush has nominated numerous judges to the federal judiciary who like J. Leon Holmes have demonstrated that they do not support a constitutional right to choose. Because lower federal courts exercise enormous power in deciding cases involving women's rights, the right to privacy, reproductive freedoms, and other basic civil rights, it is essential that judges appointed to these courts demonstrate a commitment to safeguarding these fundamental rights. J. Leon Holmes has not demonstrated this commitment.

Given the importance of the lower federal courts, we must hold our Senators accountable for their “advice and consent” role on judicial nominees. It is vital for the future of reproductive and civil rights that Holmes not be confirmed.

Contact your Senators by clicking https://secure2.convio.net/ppla/site/Ad ... lay&id=148
and urge them to vote “NO” on the nomination of J. Leon Holmes."
Kickstart The Riches movie!

User avatar
Jody Barsch*
Lifehead
Posts: 1166
Joined: Jun 30th 2003, 1:30 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Jody Barsch* » Jul 8th 2004, 7:46 pm

In efforts to be more neutral, here is the revised post:
Holmes was appointed :evil: :cry: NOT by CALIFORNIA though!!! :!:
Last edited by Jody Barsch* on Jul 9th 2004, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kickstart The Riches movie!

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Jul 9th 2004, 10:19 am

OK I don't want to start a flame war here and I should really just let it go, but this irks me on several levels.

"Holmes has worked throughout his career to eliminate a woman’s right to choose."

He is not fighting against "a woman's right to choose", he's fighting against what he sees as a legal form of murder.

If a doctor was to take a newborn and throw in on the floor after delivery he would be arrested, charged and convicted of murder. But if a woman chooses to let him stick a shopvac up there and suck the kids brains out, well then its just her choice then.... :hammer1:

"... who like J. Leon Holmes have demonstrated that they do not support a constitutional right to choose."

Please site this right in the constitution? I've never seen this right to choose anywhere in the constitution that I've read....

Its funny how the practice of religion is offensive to some people and should be stopped and yet the fact that abortion offends many people because they feel its murder should be allowed. But hey theres nothing like a good double standard.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
Jody Barsch*
Lifehead
Posts: 1166
Joined: Jun 30th 2003, 1:30 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Jody Barsch* » Jul 9th 2004, 4:44 pm

mglenn wrote:OK I don't want to start a flame war here
Not at all, I'm totally open to other's opinions. I apologize for my use of language in my last post.
Its funny how the practice of religion is offensive to some people and should be stopped
Not quite sure what you mean here... are you talking about religious objections to abortion, or religion in general, or school prayer, what? I don't find any religion offensive, I disagree with some (especially ones that strongly discourage the use of birth control), but it's ok for me to disagree; I certainly don't think any religion should be "stopped". I am interested in hearing what exactly you are referring to here. (Maybe it I should point out that being religious and being pro-choice are NOT mutually-exclusive).
and yet the fact that abortion offends many people because they feel its murder should be allowed. But hey theres nothing like a good double standard.
I know that abortion is controversial, and I apologize if my posts have offended you. I believe that abortion should be, and needs to remain, legal, and that a woman's right to choose whether or not she will give birth needs to be protected. I don't, however, think that those rights should be protected or "allowed" because it offends people who are against it (this is what it seems you were saying, although probably it just came out that way). As I'm not quite sure in what respect you are referring to religion, I fail to see an actual double-standard at work (although I fully acknowledge that some double-standards do come into play in the abortion rights debate -- for instance being pro-choice but against the death penalty), although, I don't agree that this is automatically wrong.
"Holmes has worked throughout his career to eliminate a woman’s right to choose."
He is not fighting against "a woman's right to choose", he's fighting against what he sees as a legal form of murder.
It's the same thing -- forcing a woman to carry a child she is either unable or unwilling to.
If a doctor was to take a newborn and throw in on the floor after delivery he would be arrested, charged and convicted of murder. But if a woman chooses to let him stick a shopvac up there and suck the kids brains out, well then its just her choice then...
Yes, abortion procedures are brutal, no one is saying they are pleasant. And I don't know anyone who is championing abortion as the new birth control -- it isn't and never should be. But I do feel strongly that there are circumstances when it is the course of action to take among last resort-poor choices. I think you'll find that pro-choice supporters participate and take action in efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies -- promoting abstinence, Sex Education, family planning, BIRTH CONTROL; and they we encourage and enable alternatives -- adoption, family counseling... While ideally people who do not want to get pregnant would be responsible enough to take the actions necessary to see that it didn't happen, we all know that this does not always happen, and I do not feel that the government, or anyone, should force a woman to give birth. It seems that many people on the anti-choice side of the debate imagine this being a choice that is lightly made, I have not found this to be true.
"... who like J. Leon Holmes have demonstrated that they do not support a constitutional right to choose."

Please site this right in the constitution? I've never seen this right to choose anywhere in the constitution that I've read....
You’re right in that the Constitution does not actually say “women have the right to terminate a pregnancy” but the job of our Supreme Courts is to interpret the Constitution: In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. In doing so, the Court recognized, for the first time, that the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should reside with the woman, not politicians or the government.

Roe claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,"

In JUSTICE STEWART’s concurring remarks he wrote:
“"In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of `liberty' must be broad indeed." … The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." … In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, "Great concepts like . . . `liberty' . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged."

“Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541. As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right [p170] necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923)." Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).

Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The other concurring justices in that decision make similar arguments.

No hard feelings I hope mglenn. Please feel free to continue the discussion.
Kickstart The Riches movie!

User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 25th 2005, 12:30 am

Today is the anniversary of the ruling Roe vs. Wade. I just saw on the news that there were demonstrations in DC today. I feel very scared that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned with the appointment of an anti-abortion judge in the supreme justice by George W. Bush.

I don't want to say pro-life, because in my opinion, I am pro-life: I believe that if a pregnant woman isn't in the right place in her life to have a baby, she should have the right to send that little life back, so it can choose a different & better situation, or come back to that woman later when the time is right. I think that is being pro-life. But that's getting into the afterlife and religion and all that stuff, which anti-abortion supporters generally are very narrow-minded about...

Does anyone have any more information on this? When will George W. Bush appoint a judge?
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 26th 2005, 9:42 pm

Kristin wrote:Today is the anniversary of the ruling Roe vs. Wade. I just saw on the news that there were demonstrations in DC today. I feel very scared that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned with the appointment of an anti-abortion judge in the supreme justice by George W. Bush.

I don't want to say pro-life, because in my opinion, I am pro-life: I believe that if a pregnant woman isn't in the right place in her life to have a baby, she should have the right to send that little life back, so it can choose a different & better situation, or come back to that woman later when the time is right. I think that is being pro-life. But that's getting into the afterlife and religion and all that stuff, which anti-abortion supporters generally are very narrow-minded about...

Does anyone have any more information on this? When will George W. Bush appoint a judge?
Bush has already had 120 federal judges approved during his first term, 5 were filibustered. They will have a lasting effect on all ranges of social issues for years to come.

Among the Supremes the Chief Justice is ill with cancer. According to PBS Washington Week in Review (can't remember the date right now) it was said that Rehnquist will not retire he will be carried out feet first. Apparently Bush and Co fired his daughter from a post in the Administration, don't know which one and this has understandable left Rehnquist a bit piqued.

Again I point to the irony with the Supremes. Throughout the Clinton years O'Connor and Rehnquist made all sorts of noises about retiring when a Republican came back into office. While George has been in now for over four years, and guess what:

no retirements. :shock:

Might be that they have changed their minds and will wait for the "right" Republican to be sworn in 2009.

The conventional wisdom is that if Rhenquist dies or retires there won't be much of a fight: Bush will be replacing a conservative justice with a conservative justice. The Big fight will be on if O'Connor, Breyer or Souter retires: a moderate or liberal being replaced by a conservative.

I have heard it whispered that Karl Rove doesn't want Roe repealed: it would arise a Blue State tide, maybe. He just wants it restricted to death (ala Mississippi- shudder) which keeps the conservative base fired up.

As for myself: I was orignally pro-life growing up. When I was pro-life I found that most (not all) of the pro-life crowd fundamentally disagreed with me on practically every issue that I held dear. The problem I have with some of the pro-life rhetoric is that they want to save the unborn, but don't give a flying fig as to what happens to the mother and the child afterward. Who is going to provide the mother with daycare since she will have to work? Who is going to provide the mother and child with heatlhcare?

I stumbled across another staggering statistic. Forgive me If I am repeating myself here. Recently the Federal Goverment issued its rape guidelines to hospitals (what you should do to help the victim). Absent from the guidelines for the first time was advising the rape victim with advise about contraceptions.

you can read more here:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1369

and here:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... /OPINION01

"According to Planned Parenthood, about 25,000 of the more than 300,000 women who are raped in the United States each year become pregnant as a result the assault and as many as 90 percent of those pregnancies could be prevented if the victims gain prompt access to emergency contraception."

So my question is where are the pro life legions who are dying to raise these 25,000 children that nobody wants? Who is going to pay for all the health care costs, counseling, education for these kids? Again, I don't hear anything.

Meanwhile in December 2003 the Florida Supreme Court said that a gay man couldn't adopt children. This despite the fact that he is the foster guardian of 9, NINE, troubled teens. So a gay man can raise these kids that few want but he can't adopt them. :roll: Yeah that makes sense to me.

(Shakes head)

-LanceMan

User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 26th 2005, 10:08 pm

Thanks for the info lance. I agree that it is so odd that people can feel so strongly about things that are illogical, or at least they don't think about the consequences. I certainly believe that abortion should be very-very much a last resort, but sometimes it is necessary - like in the case of rape. I'm sorry I don't have much information myself to back up my opinions. This is why I'm terrible in debates!
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 27th 2005, 12:34 am

Kristin wrote:Thanks for the info lance. I agree that it is so odd that people can feel so strongly about things that are illogical, or at least they don't think about the consequences. I certainly believe that abortion should be very-very much a last resort, but sometimes it is necessary - like in the case of rape. I'm sorry I don't have much information myself to back up my opinions. This is why I'm terrible in debates!
Your welcome. Again, I don't have a problem with all people who are pro-life. I have actually met a few who are prolife all the way, cradle to grave. While I might not agree with everything that they believe in, I do respect them for those beliefs.

On interesting thing to note. Prominent Democrats like Hillary are tailoring their language more suited to your point of view, which also was Bill Cllinton's point of view as well. Abortions should be no be illegal, rather they should be avenues of last resort.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests