The Right Wing also believes they have an ally in Ginsberg, too.
But, to realize the House Floor was a demonstration equivalent to an emotional revival is a disappointment. The demonstration had no real facts. There was no compelling testimony presented that demanded such a law. There was no balance in the comments and it sure as heck didn't look like a Congressional proceedings.
Much of what the House actually accomplishes these days are ceremonial votes. Naming Post Offices, bringing recognition for bravery. While that is important, it should not be their most dominant achievements.
Real leadership would not only bring about an appreciation for the unborn, it would bring about an appreciation for the entire country. Women for the most part are treated as chattel by the Right Wing. Their bodies are property and they need to have respect for the demands on their bodies for reproductive capacity. Women seeking abortions are characterized with defaming and depersonalizing descriptions that have become iconic to the arguments.
Somehow women that seek abortions hate children and our national interests hang in the balance. ??????????????
There are crimes that occur across the spectrum of our democracy and the deaths of live fetus at the hand of a physician that preyed on the impoverished is such a thing. There are not a rash number of these clinics. To date it would appear to be a singular clinic. So, of course, today there were exaggerations and instillation of fear as if this clinic was the norm. It the poverty that is the problem, not the clinic. The clinic was a symptom of the poverty. But, of course that is just an excuse for making an argument, the Right Wing is not serious about legislation that could change the rights of all women, not just those at the Gosnell clinic.
If women legislators seriously want to carry out this debate; there are reasonable ways of doing it and it is not passing around pictures of aborted fetuses as with the Late Term Abortion Ban. That is less than dignified and while it has an emotional reaction, it is a contrived reality and AGAIN it is not epidemic in the country.
To date, the USA has a growing population and to the joy of Jeb Bush there are many minority babies, too.
The seriousness of the brevity of any of these topics deserves dignity and an intelligent debate. The babies the Right Wing is rallying about will grow up. They will need food and education and health care. For to have children born to poverty, misery and suffering that lasts a lifetime is not the responsibility of a government. The responsibility of any government is to relieve the suffering of it's people and provide purpose to their lives. A purpose beyond that of a military assignment and wars to fight.
Based on today, the Right Wing isn't close to being prepared for the debate. Until they are, if they ever are, they will rally and raise monies for political power and the mess will go on. But, for Judge Ginsberg to entertain the idea Roe v Wade was too much is not correct. She has compassion for both sides I am sure and she worries about the health and well being of women, but, let's face it; either there is a right to have an abortion or there isn't. It is a yes or no issue and if that is extreme then she is sitting on the wrong court.
By Emily Bazelon
Posted Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 3:08 PM
But, to realize the House Floor was a demonstration equivalent to an emotional revival is a disappointment. The demonstration had no real facts. There was no compelling testimony presented that demanded such a law. There was no balance in the comments and it sure as heck didn't look like a Congressional proceedings.
Much of what the House actually accomplishes these days are ceremonial votes. Naming Post Offices, bringing recognition for bravery. While that is important, it should not be their most dominant achievements.
Real leadership would not only bring about an appreciation for the unborn, it would bring about an appreciation for the entire country. Women for the most part are treated as chattel by the Right Wing. Their bodies are property and they need to have respect for the demands on their bodies for reproductive capacity. Women seeking abortions are characterized with defaming and depersonalizing descriptions that have become iconic to the arguments.
Somehow women that seek abortions hate children and our national interests hang in the balance. ??????????????
There are crimes that occur across the spectrum of our democracy and the deaths of live fetus at the hand of a physician that preyed on the impoverished is such a thing. There are not a rash number of these clinics. To date it would appear to be a singular clinic. So, of course, today there were exaggerations and instillation of fear as if this clinic was the norm. It the poverty that is the problem, not the clinic. The clinic was a symptom of the poverty. But, of course that is just an excuse for making an argument, the Right Wing is not serious about legislation that could change the rights of all women, not just those at the Gosnell clinic.
If women legislators seriously want to carry out this debate; there are reasonable ways of doing it and it is not passing around pictures of aborted fetuses as with the Late Term Abortion Ban. That is less than dignified and while it has an emotional reaction, it is a contrived reality and AGAIN it is not epidemic in the country.
To date, the USA has a growing population and to the joy of Jeb Bush there are many minority babies, too.
The seriousness of the brevity of any of these topics deserves dignity and an intelligent debate. The babies the Right Wing is rallying about will grow up. They will need food and education and health care. For to have children born to poverty, misery and suffering that lasts a lifetime is not the responsibility of a government. The responsibility of any government is to relieve the suffering of it's people and provide purpose to their lives. A purpose beyond that of a military assignment and wars to fight.
Based on today, the Right Wing isn't close to being prepared for the debate. Until they are, if they ever are, they will rally and raise monies for political power and the mess will go on. But, for Judge Ginsberg to entertain the idea Roe v Wade was too much is not correct. She has compassion for both sides I am sure and she worries about the health and well being of women, but, let's face it; either there is a right to have an abortion or there isn't. It is a yes or no issue and if that is extreme then she is sitting on the wrong court.
By Emily Bazelon
Posted Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 3:08 PM
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (click here) doubled down over the weekend on her ongoing criticism of Roe v. Wade.
Ginsburg’s concern is about backlash: She says that by issuing the
ruling that legalized abortion across the country in 1973, a group of
“unelected old men” stopped the momentum that was building among the
states. "That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of
access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she said at the
University of Chicago Law School. "My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."
Ginsburg posed an alternative: “judicial restraint.” As she put it,
“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let
that change develop in the political process." This may have
implications for the court’s twin cases this term about gay marriage: There will be no majority on the court for a sweeping “50 state solution”—a ruling that would strike down state bans on gay marriage, given the constitution’s promise of equality, and allow same-sex couples to marry everywhere in the country. Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a similar signal in March
when he answered a question about whether the court decides too many
issues that could be left for the legislature. "I think it's a serious
problem,” Kennedy said. “A democracy should not be dependent for its
major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal
background have to say."...
