Where y'all at?

[jenergy]

Why aren't more people cruising the CSS threads? That Sup Ct decision on the abortion ban last week has had me so riled up I can't think about anything else. US = theocracy. :mad:

[Toto]

What is there to say? Some of us spent the last 8 years or so watching a train wreck in slow motion, as the religious right took over the courts. The abortion decision was not couched in religious terms, so there's not much to be done from the First Amendment religion clauses.

[inmeitrust]

I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.

[crazyfingers]

Why aren't more people cruising the CSS threads? That Sup Ct decision on the abortion ban last week has had me so riled up I can't think about anything else. US = theocracy. :mad:

Well I recall arguing over in the PD forum that those saw no difference between Bush and Kerry were ignoring the impact on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, some people didn't agree.

[dettus]

I've become more interested in faith vs. reason than politics. For me, it's the larger issue and if debated most other secondary issues will fall into place. Now that doesn't mean I am disinterested in politics or CSS issues but rather that they are secondary aims that rely on the big picture.

[Dana]

Maybe I'm just feeling optimistic, but I did not see the late-term abortion ban as the first pebble in an avalanche that would bury Roe v. Wade that the mainstream news media tried to make it into. It was very limited in its reach. As Toto said, the decision was not wrapped in religious terms.

[Toto]

It was not wrapped in religous terms, but it clearly had a religious dogmatic basis. It was discouraging to see SCOTUS picking up some of the phony arguments that the religious right has concocted against abortions.

[Majestyk]

I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs. I'd suggest reading both opinions (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf). Consider Justice Ginsburg's reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on constitutional law, not morality.

[Vampyroteuthis]

Maybe I'm just feeling optimistic, but I did not see the late-term abortion ban as the first pebble in an avalanche that would bury Roe v. Wade....

Then you're living in dream land. This was just their first step to their goal. Visit any of the anti-choice sites to see what they are saying.

[Hazy Daisy]

If you think CSS gets little traffic, take a peek at the News Wire forum. Most topics have 0 replies. I can't understand the lack of interest in atheist-relevant news. I *always* check that forum, and usually check this one.

(Actually, it just occurred to me that it could be the format of the News Wire forum that turns people off. The OPs are usually just one sentence, often a not very informative one, and a link. And members can't start threads, only mods/administrators/staff/whovever-it-is can.)

[jenergy]

You can't look at the decision in terms of "it doesn't make that big of an impact on abortion rights" or "if you haven't decided in the first 3 months, then..." Who's right is it to legislate when anyone decides such a thing? Either the fetus is a person - making abortion "murder," or it is a fetus - making such arbitrary lines in the gestational sand meaningless.

Would not "keeping the government out of personal affairs" imply that they don't even get to make decisions on such things? Regardless of what the decision is?

The past 7 years has just been one attempt to tell people what to do after another. It's insulting.

[Vampyroteuthis]

The past 7 years has just been one attempt to tell people what to do after another. It's insulting.

I completely agree!

Bush....stay out of my bush! Damn!

[jenergy]

Yeah, stay outta my bush, and outta my veins and outta my lungs and outta my hair and outta my fucken right to die when i want and outta my right to educate my kids (if I had em) how i want, and my right to vote, live, sleep, learn, fast, meditate, run, drive, not drive, bike, neuter my dog, and live w/ my gay-ass roommate how, when and where i want. *gasp* That felt good... :)

[spamandham]

Part of the decision rests on the claim that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary, not that that should have any basis in law, but it often does when combined with 'community standard' concepts.

For example, there is no known medical reason that hardcore porn should be prohibited from the airwaves, but it is. There is no medical reason I should not be allowed to sit nude in my front yard, or have sex on my front lawn, but that's illegal as well (and probably untasteful as well in my case!). If my dog is old and decrepit, I'm allowed to bring it to the vet and have it killed, but I can't have a 'dog hanging' in my front yard to kill it, followed by a dog barbecue. That would be considered cruel, even though from the dog's perspective, it wouldn't be much different.

So there is already precedent for imposing 'that bothers me for some reason' laws on everyone. I'm not saying I think that's a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't something new.

Does anyone here know whether or not it's true that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary as the decision claims? It seems to me that's crucial to the decision.

[Toto]

The medical profession does not recognize the term partial birth abortion. Later term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and when they are, the intact dilation and extraction (which is the correct term) is sometimes the best hope for preserving the health and future childbearing possibilities for the woman.

This law will not prevent any woman from getting an abortion at any point in her pregnancy. It will just prevent her from getting the best care to preserve her health.

[Worldtraveller]

This thread has little, if anything to do with CSS issues, and is more PD material. There is already a thread in PD about this vote, so I am going to lock this.

Lane, CSS moderator.