Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Never Thought I'd Write About Vaginas and Politics

by: nancycronk

Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 19:37:54 PM MDT


(This is something of an overlooked gem, featuring respectful exchanges between some of our most thoughtful polsters, such as Barron X and nancycronk.  Let's bring it out where it can get the attention it deserves and hope it doesn't deteriorate into the "so's your old man" exchanges that overtake so many diaries. - promoted by Voyageur)

But then again, I never thought I'd be seeing something like Amendment 62 on the ballot in CO --an initiative so "out there", it gives full personhood rights to a fertilized egg before it even takes up residence inside a woman's uterus.

Amendment 62 is an attempt by Personhood Colorado to give legal rights to a fertilized egg, without regard to the consequences. It would ban medical abortion in all circumstances, even in the cases of rape and incest. It would prohibit the use of common forms of birth control (the kind that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall before becoming an embryo). It raises serious questions about enforcement. It's similar to Amendment 48, which CO voted down 3-1 in 2008 in Colorado, but it goes even farther.

If the law passed:

A woman could potentially be accused of manslaughter if something she eats or drinks is thought of as contributing to a miscarriage. In theory, anyone interfering in the health of the pregnant woman could be complicit. Would doctors stop prescribing medication to the woman for other medical conditions to avoid side effects? Who knows?
nancycronk :: Never Thought I'd Write About Vaginas and Politics
The bill is so general it gives personhood rights even to fertilized eggs in test tubes in fertility clinics. A clinic worker could potentially be accused of murder and prosecuted for throwing out a non-viable embryo.

If pregnant women miscarry, there could potentially be "official investigations".

If women get cancer and need chemotherapy, they  could potentially be prevented to get it if they are sexually active. Which doctors would give powerful drugs to women who may be in the early stages of an unplanned pregnancy?

Life-saving medical research using stem cells could potentially come to a screeching halt.

No one knows for sure just how crazy things could get if this bill was passed. We can't assume no one would vote for something this extreme. We must not take the chance. We must spread the word.

Pro-choice and pro-life men and women are standing together against this bill.

VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 62. It's just crazy.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wik...

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wik...
Tags: (All Tags)

Share this post:
Never Thought I'd Write About Vaginas and Politics | 61 comments
BJ thinks we all have to be concerned with your vagina.
So does Ken Buck, Sarah Palin and oh so many others. Seems the more you worry about religion then the more concerned you are with vaginas.
I never made this personal.
I think we're all grown-up enough to say the word "vagina" in academic terms, aren't we?  

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
[ Parent ]
You are not mature enough Cronk
you shouldn't even be thinking about such things.

Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.
[ Parent ]
absolutley not.
Seriously.  It just can't be done.
The c word would stand a better chance in a political discussion. EIther of them.

[ Parent ]
Check out this site -- very informative arguments.
http://elroy.com/ehr/abortiona...

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
interesting arguments, but not all that informative.
.
Elroy says that what makes a human entity a person is "self-awareness" and "physical independence."  
Do you really find such argument persuasive ?
.  
[ Parent ]
If "self-awareness" and "physical independence" are key
They'll be a lot more MFers getting the needle down the road.
[ Parent ]
You pro-death people
can always find excuses to justify the dirty stuff for which you advocate.

Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.
[ Parent ]
posting a link to the actual text shows that you want to present a serious argument,
.
rather than just making up and knocking down strawman arguments.  Kudos.

But much of what you have written about is speculation, not clearly tied to that text.  There are other, less controversial guesses that might just as well flow from that text.

I agree that this would end embryonic stem cell research.  I think that's a very good outcome and you do not.
Official investigations into miscarriages ?  I don't see it, not from the text.

I understand why you think this initiative is about a religious faction imposing a code of morality on the entire community.  
We would agree to that being appropriate in matters of violent crimes like murder and kidnapping, and you and I would also agree that such an imposition would not be appropriate regarding private consensual sexual relations between adults that do not harm others.  
The idea that we are free to choose how we behave is fundamental to Catholic theology, and in matters of conscience that do not involve harm to others, I do not think that the law enforcement arm of the state should get involved.  
But here's where we disagree: I think that an abortion causes harm to a person.  

Do you think a fetus becomes a person at birth ?  Was it not a person 5 minutes before birth ?  (I'm trying to entice you onto a slippery slope, and trust that you recognize the implications.)

.

p.s.: I think you can delete that second link.
.  

Barron X
I've stated publicly that I have made my own personal journey from being anti-abortion to pro-choice. (I have always been "pro-life" in its broader definition.)

Unlike you, if you are male and I do not know for sure if you are, I have also carried three children in my body for a full gestation, and lost another to miscarriage. That does not make me an expert, but it does give me a special insight into what it feels like to be the protector of life within my own body. There is nothing more profound, nor more all-encompassing, than that experience, in my mind. It is greatly underestimated, in my opinion.

In my experience as one who carried babies, there was a huge difference between how I felt in the days following conception about my role as a pregnant woman, and how I felt in the weeks before delivery. I remember I felt differently (I am not speaking about a physiological difference, but an intuitive and spiritual one) after knowing the fetus had a heartbeat. I felt very differently knowing when we passed the stage of viability. At the very end, I had a strong relationship with the baby who was kicking in response to my posture, sleep, and environmental noise.

I do not have a telephone line to G-d, and I certainly do not have PhDs in science. From my own limited view on the world, which included participating in the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth directly three times, I strongly believe my children were not babies five minutes after conception, and they were five minutes before birth.  Where that line was crossed is not something I want to say for sure, but I venture to guess it was somewhere long after the heart beating and just before viabilty.

In my own experience, I think it has more to do with brain development and the ability to feel sensations and interpret them as pain. That happens much later than in your argument. Again, for me it is a question of being a "sentient" being. Sentiency is not restricted to human development, by the way. All animals are sentient beings, as well.

The conversation we do not have, which tells me how sexist our society really is, is, "What about the OTHER life -- the life of the mother?" Until a baby is born, they are completely dependent upon the body of another human being to survive. Why is that other human being's life at least as important? Why do we not put more emphasis on the life that is completely known, completely understood -- the one that is a human being without question? Why isn't her life of supreme importance?

Who's to say when life begins? It is one arrogant person's opinion versus another, or one arrogant religion's point of view, versus another. No one knows for sure. Each of us is guessing. What I do know for sure, and you do, too, is that the mother is a living, breathing, feeling, functioning human being with legal rights and priveleges -- with rent or a mortgage to pay, sometimes with other mouths to feed, and always with her own physical, spiritual and psychological needs.

To me, that means something.


Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  

Cronk is confused
By her own admission, Cronk is not pro-life.  The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Apparently, Cronk has some sort of "faith community."  Maybe her "faith community" can talk to God for her because she says she doesn't have a line to him.

I see Cronk is still advocating that we kill them if another mouth to feed is a problem.

Cronk, every time you advocate for taking human life, you have more human death on your conscience (assuming you have a conscience).  Not only would I not let you near my children, I would never let you near my dead dog.

Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.

[ Parent ]
Actually, the opposite of pro-life is pro choice
And the opposite of pro-choice is Stalinism--big government making your most intimate decisions.
[ Parent ]
Slow night in Whoville?
Thus the need to be mean, angry and uncouth?  

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

[ Parent ]
Really, Club
would you let her near your dead dog?  

Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.
[ Parent ]
Slow night in Whoville?


"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

[ Parent ]
I am pro-life in the broadest sense of thw word, Marilou.
I consider the life of the fetus or zygote or embryo, as well as the life of the living, breathing, thinking woman, and her family, if she has one. It is not black and white to me, like it is to you. I think I made my take on it pretty clear here: http://www.coloradopols.com/di...

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
[ Parent ]
And yes, Barron X, I do respect your personal faith.
I also ask you to respect mine. Mine is a combination of what I read and how I am advised by my faith community, as well as  logic and reason from all over, tempered a great deal with looking within my own heart and conscience. I suspect yours may be as well, and I respect that.

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
You said "vagina"

Beavis, Butthead and BJ

[ Parent ]
How about Beejus & Butthead?

[ Parent ]
I'm curious how this would effect other laws with age limits
Would teens be able to get their drivers license at 15 yrs and 3 months?
Could people buy alcohol at 20 yrs and 3 months?
Would "Birthdate" be changed to "Conception Date" on IDs and other documents?

It's a sad day when our politicians are comical and I have to take our comedians seriously.
would conceptions that occur on vacation in Colorado
create "anchor babies" ?

Would conceptions that spontaneously abort after a night of heavy drinking be criminal?

Would frozen embryos in Colorado be entitled to counsel?  Can you imagine the lawyer who certified the class action and sued on their behalf?

Could embryo's sue their host mother?
...if she went to another jurisdiction where abortion remained legal and terminated the pregnancy?
... if she didn't eat a medically sound diet?
... if the dad was a jerk?
... if she allowed herself to be raped?
... if was raped and didn't sue the rapist in a civil action?

[ Parent ]
I already brought up the "Anchor Fetus" arguement
and no one bit.

But a more serious question:

Why do conservatives want to use our tax dollars to force unwanted pregnancies onto women creating unwanted children, resulting in low quality of life for said children (I guarantee most of these children will be had in single parent homes or to teens) and yet want to yank those tax dollars away from the welfare and medicade programs that these kids will most desperately need?

Just remember.. when the government can force you be pregnant, they can force you to have an abortion (think China)

"Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." -Eric Cartman

Once again, we here at Pols are our own little world, not to be confused with normal people. -B.C.

[ Parent ]
Because they care about us?

[ Parent ]
Someone sent me this.
If this bill weren't so scary, it would be funny.



Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  

I wish it didn't mention a specific religion....
but the general idea is pretty funny. By the way, I grew up in a family of nine kids. Dad's family had 14, Mom's seven. The town I grew up had many huge families. I wouldn't trade the way I grew up for anything in the world. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Stephen Colbert is one of eleven. Dane Cook is one of seven, I think. It's important to have a sense of humor...

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  

[ Parent ]
Republicans trying to motivate the base
A women's right to choose should stand.

The idea of forcing rape and incest victims to carry the pregnancy is barbaric.



judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric

Exactly, Ray.
forcing rape and incest victims to carry the pregnancy is barbaric.


Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
[ Parent ]
Not barbaric so much as what Rubachev,
in Koestler's classic "Darkness at Noon" described as the end result of a remorseless logic.  If human life -- and an immortal soul -- is created the moment a sperm enters an egg, then the source of that sperm and the horror of the conception is less important than saving that life/soul.
  Personally, I don't buy it.  I've seen miscarriages in my family and I don't think the women intended to kill anyone.  When does human life begin?  Any line is inherently arbitrary, but the line drawn in Roe v. Wade, the third trimester, has rough logic to it, the time when the fetus could, conceivably, live outside the mother's body.  
  Thus, I oppose late (third trimester) abortion unless the life of the mother is truly at stake and only then if less drastic measures (such as a Ceasarian in the case of a very late pregnancy) aren't available.  
   Does the horror of forcing rape/incest victims to carry their fetuses to term give a free pass to women who just got a little drunk and said yes a bit too quickly?  Sure, it does.  But as long as that abortion is in the first trimester, it's none of my business, or of the state's.  Second trimester can be a bit more regulated, thus sprake Roe, because of some of the health risks involved.  As to the third, the fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and you can't deprive him/her of life without due process of law, save only when you must balance the life of the mother against the life of the fetus.
   
[ Parent ]
Voyageur, You are making stuff up.
Your quote here is total fabrication. Roe says nothing of the kind.

As to the third, the fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and you can't deprive him/her of life without due process of law, save only when you must balance the life of the mother against the life of the fetus.

Colorado has no law restricting abortion. PERIOD.


 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
Dwyer, I suggest you actually read Roe before orating about it.
You clearly have not done so.
 Blackmun was attorney for hte Mayo Clinic before going on the bench.  That experience let him divise the three trimester test.  The third is when it is possible for the fetus to exist independent of his mother's body.
[ Parent ]
From the wiki
   
* In the first trimester, the state's two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way.
   * In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health" (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
   * In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").
 

  so, yes, in the third trimester, states can outlaw (which is what "proscribe" means)except when the life or )serious) health of the mother is involved.  And that's exactly what I would do.  I'd outlaw all third trimester abortions except for that narrow window, rigorously policed.   And, again, I suggest you do some research before accusing other people of "total fabrication."  You embarrass yourself.
  and colorado does have laws restricting state funding of abortion, btw
[ Parent ]
Quote Roe, Voyageur,
This is your quote in which you claim that the fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment.  Roe says nothing of the kind.  I  repeat your statement is a fabrication.

As to the third, the fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and you can't deprive him/her of life without due process of law, save only when you must balance the life of the mother against the life of the fetus.

I am not disputing the trimester division at all.  But it is based on the state's interest in developing life, it is not based on the justices finding that the fetus is a person according to the 14th amendment.  That is not true. Wikipedia does not say that the fetus is a person.  

Colorado has no law restricting abortion. Restricting the funding of abortion is different than restricting or regulating the medical procedure.

The fetus may exist outside the mother if it is born in the third trimester, but there is no viability test required BEFORE an abortion is performed in that trimester.

Now here is my challenge:  If you can find in the text of Roe v. Wade, where the majority opinion states that in the third trimester, the fetus is a person according to the 14th amendment, print it here and give the appropriate citation, and I, whose only enjoyment at this state in my old life is blogging here, will cease posting.  You as editor can just block me for all time.

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
Be careful what you wish for.
(I think I had this conversation on here before.)

Let's lighten this up.

When asked when does "life" begin?

The Priest explains that Catholicism teaches life begins at the very moment of conception.

The Minister says that in his Church they are taught that life begins as soon as there is a heartbeat.

The Rabbi, shrugs and answers that among the Jews the belief is widely held that life begins when the dog dies and the kids go off to college !  *

*Lifted from Rabbi Rooks Sermon - http://templeaibs.org/rabbi_rooks

I was asked by several pro-life, pro-choice (I dislike those labels) and a catholic priest how I stood on this, issue.

I reply, "That only God establishes when human life begins or is taken away."

My greatest fear is when science and technology advances far beyond our laws and our laws can not keep up with our ethics.

If we look at the example of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) we soon discover that maybe eating things that has no biodiversity can be a bad thing, those "unintended consequences."

So, pick up a copy of "Boys from Brazil," and start asking is it by nature or nurture?

The scientist says "life begins when we can genetically engineer these cells, get an exclusive patent on our new and improved cell growth, and kick back in the zillions we will profit from it."

I am voting "NO" on this one.

"So, whose brain did you get?"

"Abbies."

"Abbies?"

"Yes, Master, Abby Normal's"



Charley Miller

Unaffiliated

charleymiller2010

This is crazy stuff, nancycronk

Amendment 62 is an attempt by Personhood Colorado to give legal rights to a fertilized egg, without regard to the consequences. It would ban medical abortion in all circumstances, even in the cases of rape and incest. It would prohibit the use of common forms of birth control (the kind that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall before becoming an embryo). It raises serious questions about enforcemen
t

Are you aware that the federal constitution of the United States takes priority over any state law?  The passage of Amendment 62 will have NO effect, NONE, on reproductive choice in Colorado.  Who, my dear, is scaring you so much?  Where did you get this idea?

Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned before Amendment 62 would have any impact. So don't worry your pretty little head about the passage of Amendment 62.  Unless, of course, you see some kind of path from this amendment to overturning Roe.  I don't.  But, if you do, you need to outline it.  

Also, how does your vagina figure into this? It is a passage UP for sperm and a passage OUT for the "products of conception" but conception, implantation, and gestation does not happen anywhere near the vagina....you really do not have to mention your vagina...at least not in mixed company or outside the privacy of your bedroom.

I don't find most women hysterical.  However, reading this reminds me that hysterical does derive from the greek word for womb.

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

Dwyer
Don't dismiss so quickly. The fact of the matter is that the republican senatorial and two of three  gov. candidates have endorsed this amendment, among others who I am forgetting. That means to me that there are people out there who are comfortable with a woman who has been raped carrying the pregnancy to term, or a woman who has serious complications during pregnancy not being allowed access to life saving medical care. But we already knew this from 2008.

It doesn't matter to me if this wont have any real impact because of Roe v. Wade as you say. What does matter to me is that this amendment is beyond extreme. All it would take is one overzealous DA or AG to go after a doctor or a woman to test the legality of the case. That woman or doctor or other medical professional would have to legally fight this costing them time, money, and who knows what else. Would that DA or AG be successful? Probably not, but the law is being used as a vehicle to terrorize medical professionals and women for practicing and accessing legal, and sometimes lifesaving, healthcare.

What really bothers me is that they will keep coming back year after year after year. And it will keep getting voted down year after year, but any uptick in support they receive at the ballot box will be seen as vindication for fertilized eggs are people crowd.

If coarse language from Nancy forces people to think about this issue in a way they hadn't before and they vote no, great! If they see it as a somewhat sardonic title coupled with the craziness that this amendment would spew and then they vote no, great! The bottom line is that regardless of what impediments may exist in federal law that would prevent this amendment from ever taking practical effect, the bottom line is that if this law were to be voted in it would be a nightmare for an unsuspecting woman (or women) and medical practitioner(s) until it is fully dismissed. That is why I am voting "NO" and one of the many reasons why it still goes too far.  

[ Parent ]
Thank you for a thoughtful reply.
You acknowledge that the amendment itself would have no impact in Colorado, absent the overturning of Roe. v. Wade.
You offer a rationale for making it a campaign issue.

Disclaimer:  I believe that this is nothing more than a way to activate the extreme right base to vote.  I believe that the response from the so-called "progressive" is hysterical and a scare tactic and could backfire.  I believe that the fabrication and distortion practiced by the so-called "progressives" is insulting to intelligent men and women.  I also think that this may have been  the original intent of the so-called personhood people.

Policy:  I don't see any policy. The catholic church, which has been instrumental in causing the defeat of pro-choice and pro-gay rights candidates (IMHO) has a doctrine, based in the belief that life begins at conception,and therefore  forbids abortion, all forms of artificial contraception, IV fertilization, and research using embryos. So catholics have been dealing with these issues forever.  Now, most IMHO simply ignore the teachings of their church. However, every time the "left" calls such policies "extreme," catholics are reminded that their religion is being attacked, even if not named.

Strategy:
Again, I think that the left is using a scare tactic which could backfire.
The personhood people have done a strange thing and that is to use the term "biological processes."  That is so vague it could mean anything along the reproduction pipeline....the manufacture of sperm, ovulation, puberty, for god's sake.  As I have said before, I believe that the so-called pro-life forces always have an out in their legislation, amendments, etc.  I don't believe that they want these laws enacted. REmember neither the catholic church, its bishops, or the republican party supported the last personhood amendment.  

Question:
I am not sure how the amendment would be enforced. Would it take enabling legislation?  Here would be a legitimate question for Ken Buck.

"If the personhood amendment were to pass, would you support the arrest of personnel in an abortion clinic?" As DA, could you secure a warrant and then arrest personnel in any facility suspected of performing abortions?

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
Dwyer
1. I never made this personal. I suspect the discomfort some of the people have on this ring with the academic use of the word "vagina" is telling about them. If this blog was about prostate cancer and was written by any of the men on this ring, would everyone say they were talking about their prostate? I don't think so. Let's grow up here a little, shall we?

2. I deliberately used the word "vagina" rather than "uterus" for a few reasons. One, I have some experience with counseling as a former crisis center paraprofessional (note, I don't claim to be a professional). Women tend to deny their sexuality (there are entire books on that subject -- more than the scope of this blog diary). Some women  tend to think of the uterus as only relevant to pregnancy, and if they aren't pregnant at the moment, it doesn't resonate as much. (Most women are not aware the uterus also plays an important role in their hormonal well-being over their entire lifespan.)

Using a word more often associated with sexuality than reproductive function is jolting and unusual for this topic. I am hoping both men and women alike will see it and think, "Wow. I am sexually active. This law could pertain to me and my partner!".

Second, "Hands off my uterus" is a reproductive rights battle-cry, and a tad bit overused. I want to shake things up. By the looks of the responses here, I have.

Third, the vagina, the fallopian tubes, the uterus and the cervix are all anatomically close together and operate in one holistic system during reproduction. It's not like I was talking about an eardrum or a clavicle.

In a culture that has "erectile dysfunction" commercials every five minutes on television, if the word "vagina" when speaking of unplanned pregnancies makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should ask yourself, "Why?"


Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  

Oh, and
Your argument about federal pre-emption is yet another reason to be against Amendment 62. Thanks! Lots of reasons!

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
[ Parent ]
@nc
You are extraordinarily patronizing towards women. I believe that your arguments are insulting to intelligent men and women. I have no idea what your real agenda is.

BYW, it does concern me that you are not a professional and yet choose to counsel women by imposing your own perspective.

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
I never said I was counseling anyone now.
That was in a previous role as long-time volunteer. You really need to pay closer attention to what you read, Dwyer.

Tell me about your personal experience with the subject. Are you a man or a woman? Done much volunteering in the community? Been through a difficult situation yourself? With a loved one or family member? What, beyond merely judging others, motivates you to speak on this issue?

Would love to hear it.

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  

[ Parent ]
I am really not interested in pursuing a personal dialogue with you.


 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT
[ Parent ]
Do you counsel
people before you perform "ceremonies" like weddings or whatever you call them?

Code Pink stands for really, really radically ignorant babes.
[ Parent ]
Women are not the property of the state or of any religion.

Too inconvenient?
Hasn't anyone heard of a condom?
Ask the rapists and pedophiles.


Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
[ Parent ]
To be kind, Dwyer
you obviously misread my quote.  Obviously, the question of when the fetus becomes viable is interwoven with the 14th Amendment. It relates back to the state interest, etc.

  You also misunderstand the powers of an FPE.  I can't block your posts.  Nor would I want to do so.  
  I would, however, request that you sometimes do two minutes research before blowing an opinion out of your ass.  If you can tear yourself away from listening to Peter Boyles.

Good try, Voyageur.
I am delighted that you are not going to block my posts.  How did I misread this quote:

As to the third, the fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and you can't deprive him/her of life without due process of law, save only when you must balance the life of the mother against the life of the fetus.

You are making an assertion which is not founded in the law.

This comment makes no sense:

Obviously, the question of when the fetus becomes viable is interwoven with the 14th Amendment. It relates back to the state interest, etc.

Is it possible that you are confusing being viable with being a person?  I could understand that kind of confusion.  To be a person is to attain a legal status given to an human entity when that entity is born.  The legal status derives from the language of the 14th amendment.  

Viability is a medical term which describes the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb and breathe on his or her own.  There are various ways to determine if in medical judgement a fetus could survive outside the mother.  They have to do with the age of the fetus and the status of the lungs.  However, viability is not demonstrated until the fetus has actually been born and therefore is not only viable, but a person.

Could you be making a leap that if a fetus appears to be viable, while still inside the mother, that that means that the fetus is also a person??   I can understand the logic.  You could certainly hold that opinion.  BUT the Supreme Court did NOT. That is my point.

Suspected viability does NOT confer person status.  ONLY being born confers the legal status of being a person, according to the interpretation of the 14th amendment in the decision Roe v. Wade.

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
To be less kind, Dwyer
Of course, that first quote was my personal position, that I would outlaw abortion in the third trimester except for cases involving the life of the mother, a position fully in accord with Roe -- which permits states to do that in the 3rd trimester (that "proscribe" thing, which you seem unable to understand.)  It doesn't require it, since this is an area of state jurisdiction, not federal, subject to that 14th Amendment which so utterly baffles you.   As to the 14th amendment, it is apparently beyond your ability to grasp it.
Go back to listening to Peter Boyles and stop trying to grapple with Constitutional Law.
 Or go have an abortion, if that's what makes you happy.  Or go bug BJ, he deserves it.  
[ Parent ]
You are getting better, but you still appear confused about what the law says.
Okay, you are just asserting your personal opinion, not any law.  I am glad that we are clear on that.  I don't know why you keep talking about the 14th amendment if you are just offering your personal opinion.  For example, this quote:

It doesn't require it, since this is an area of state jurisdiction, not federal, subject to that 14th Amendment which so utterly baffles you.   As to the 14th amendment, it is apparently beyond your ability to grasp it.

What about the 14th amendment applies here? Roe v. Wade allows the states to regulate/prohibit abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. Roe v. Wade does not cede absolute authority to the state.  It allows them to act in this area, but the federal judiciary reserves the right to review any restriction/prohibition established by the individual state to make sure that such restrictions/prohibitions are in accord with the guidelines established by the federal court, specifically to allow abortion to preserve the life and health of the mother, regardless of the trimester.


 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
Dwyer, you are almost BJian in your stupidity.
Hard to do, I know.  Constitutional law is not really your forte and I have waste far too much time on you already.
[ Parent ]
Sorry to snap at you, Dwyer.
Your adamant refusal to do any research before offering your opinions does wear me down at times.  Again, from the wiki:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.


   Simply put, abortion law, and much else, notably the right to use birth control and for homosexuals to have consensual sex in private (lawrence v. Texas) all stem from the 14th Amendment.  There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and certainly no "right to sodomy" as J. Rehnquist grumped in Bowers v. Hardwick.
  There is, debatbly, a "right to privacy."  It's not enumerated but may be in those "penumbra" and "emanation" thingies.  Certainly, that's what the court ruled in Griswold, which underpins Roe, Lawrence and most of the rest.  
 Personally, I'm, with Goldberg, I'd rather go with the 9th than search those "{penumbras."  But I ain't on the court.  Those who are find privacy in the 14th, as well as due process.  And yes, it cuts both ways.  If a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, then abortion is murder -- taking its life without due process of law.  But if it's not a person, then the mother also has due process rights.  As always, it's a balancing act.  Roe in essence does allow states to treat the fetus as a person in the 3rd trimester and thus outlaw "proscribe" abortion, but it must be balanced against a risk to the mother's life and a serious -- emphasis serious -- risk to her health.
  Other cases, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, have modified Roe, but Roe still rests primarily on the 14th amendment, as much as I, and Goldberg, would have preferred the ninth, which simply says the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have other ones, such as privacy, from which abortion and the right to have sex with someone of your own gender spring.
[ Parent ]
Voyageur, Name calling??
Let's bring it out where it can get the attention it deserves and hope it doesn't deteriorate into the "so's your old man" exchanges that overtake so many diaries. - promoted by Voyageur)

All of Constitutional law is not  my forte. However,  it just so happens that I do know the particular case Roe v. Wade very well.  I also am increasingly concerned about how the 14th Amendment is under attack by the republicans.  You have failed to show where I am incorrect in my analysis of the law.   Instead, you have done the "so's your old man exchange."  I am very disappointed in you.

Let me summarize what I have learned from this particular diary.

Nancy C. believes that Amendment #62 should be voted down because it would outlaw all abortion and many forms of birth control in Colorado.  The second reason she believes it should be voted down is because the federal law takes priority and Amendment #62 could not be enforced, anyway.

Voyageur does not agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. He does not agree that a fetus is not a person until she/he is born.  He does not agree that a women's health should be a consideration in allowing abortions in the third trimester. His personal opinion is that the fetus is a person in the third trimester and that because of his belief he would like to see a legal procedure which would balance the life of the mother against the life of the fetus before an abortion could be performed in the third trimester.

It  is not clear to me how far Voyageur want to go,  whether he would like the 14th amendment voided so that the determination of who is a person and who is not would be left up to the states, as it was before the 14th amendment was passed.  See: Dred Scott decision.  

Voyageur also did not address the equal protection of the law clause in the 14th amendment.  It is not clear to me if he thinks that women in one state should be treated differently in regards to their legal right to abortion than women in another state.

Disclaimer:  I think the abortion issue is a distraction. I do not think it helps democrats to win.  I think it is a scare tactic. I do not like the 14th amendment to be distorted.  That really concerns me because I don't know if this is ignorance or if there is some grand strategy to really destroy one of the pillars of our rights as US citizens.

Finally,  However convoluted the thread here, I do think that one question did arise which should be asked of Ken Buck:

If Amendment #62 were to pass in Colorado, would you, as a DA, seek a warrant to arrest medical personnel suspected of performing abortions?

Match. Set. Game.
 

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

You are an idiot, of bjwilsonian dimensions.
And that is match, set, game.  Try reading the 14th amendment and some of the case law, like Griswold, before orating.
[ Parent ]
Name calling, Voyageur. I am older than you and I don't have to resort to that.

Again, you set a lousy example:

Let's bring it out where it can get the attention it deserves and hope it doesn't deteriorate into the "so's your old man" exchanges that overtake so many diaries. - promoted by Voyageur)

Are you going to be asserting your personal opinion or presenting a constitutional argument?  Or are you going to call something a constitutional argument and then when challenged to prove your point, just claim it is your personal opinion?  

Again, I am disappointed in your inability to carry forward an argument to support your statements.   Griswold held that there was a fundamental civil right to privacy which allowed the use of birth control and which extended to all  in the US, via the equal protection of the law provisions of the 14th amendment even tho the original case only involved Connecticut.

Now then, did I misstate your position on abortion?  If so, how?  Feel free to go back and look at what you posted.

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
That's not my position,
it's the court holding.  And you consistently argue that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to abortion except, apparently, when it does.
 Unfortunately, your bashing of nancy and your utter off-the-point attitude damaged what was a fine thread.  Now, please, next time do two minutes research before blowing an opinion out of your ass.  Your knowledge of the abortion debate is about equal to BJ's understanding of the theory of evolution.,  
  As to age, I'm on Medicare so don't try pulling the I'm older than you card on me.  What the hell does that have to do with anything?  Unless you're making the senior moment defense, which I concede I sometimes ought to do.
[ Parent ]
No, Voyageur, it is not the court's holding. You refuse to print what you claim is the court's ruling., because it is not. So you resort to name calling.
This is now circular reasoning.  We are back where we began..you refusing to publish the text from Roe which would support your personal opinion.  The reason you won't do that is because the text does not support your personal assertion.  

I will be seventy next birthday.  I have trouble sometimes seeing small print and when I make that kind of mistake, people on this blog have been very kind in correcting that kind of mistake.  When I make a mistake, I admit it.



 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
Here is the court's decision on "person."
K. Blackmun, in the Opinion of the court on Roe v. Wade

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Citation:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

 For politics, geezers are golden.
by: BlueCat @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 19:19:14 PM MDT

[ Parent ]
We are back to you being a complete idiot.
No, that's not name calling.  It's fact.,
I have wasted far too much time on you.
Your insults may be unintentional, but they are quite galling, nonetheless.  If you don't understand the right of privacy enunciated in Griswold, and its roots in the so-called penumbra of the 14th amendment, your claim to be an expert on Roe is ludicrous.
[ Parent ]
We are back to you being a complete idiot.
No, that's not name calling.  It's fact.,
I have wasted far too much time on you.
Your insults may be unintentional, but they are quite galling, nonetheless.  If you don't understand the right of privacy enunciated in Griswold, and its roots in the so-called penumbra of the 14th amendment, your claim to be an expert on Roe is ludicrous.
[ Parent ]
Hug to Voyageur
Who puts a lot of time and effort (and patience) into this blog. I wish you both peace. Gotta run.

Mike Coffman represents the best interest of Aurorans like: Michael Vick represents the best interests of dogs and Tom Tancredo represents the best interests of immigrants.  
Never Thought I'd Write About Vaginas and Politics | 61 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?






Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 5 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
Summers, Kerr to Host Joint Town Hall on Saturday
Jeffco Pols
Joe Coors Announcing CD-7 Run Today
Jeffco Pols
Roybal Fined for Wiechman Loan
Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
Poll: Who Will Win the HD-1 Primary?
Denver Pols
Hancock Rolls Out Economic Development Plan
Denver Pols
Michael Hancock Wades into ASSET Debate
Denver Pols
  More >













RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols Penalty Box



Yard Signs!



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Business Word

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate Dems

Colorado Senate GOP

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

eleXn

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat


 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by Colorado Pols, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com

Powered by: SoapBlox