President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 15, 2007 08:31 PM UTC

Ritter to Sign "First In a Decade" Bill

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Remember when Democrats were wringing their hands over Bill Ritter as a candidate for governor because of his pro-life beliefs?

That was then, this is now. Take a look at this press release:

Protect Families, Protect Choice (PFPC), a statewide coalition of pro-choice organizations, will mark the enactment of the first pro-choice measure in nearly a decade when Governor Bill Ritter signs SB 60 into law. SB 60 (Boyd, McGihon), “Emergency Contraception Information for Sexual Assault Survivors,” requires hospital emergency rooms to provide information about emergency contraception (EC) to sexual assault survivors as a basic standard of care. It also requires pharmacies that don’t stock Plan B®, the brand name of an emergency contraception regimen sold in the United States, to notify consumers via a conspicuously placed sign that the medication is unavailable.

Click below for the full press release…

Protect Families, Protect Choice (PFPC), a statewide coalition of pro-choice organizations, will mark the enactment of the first pro-choice measure in nearly a decade when Governor Bill Ritter signs SB 60 into law. SB 60 (Boyd, McGihon), “Emergency Contraception Information for Sexual Assault Survivors,” requires hospital emergency rooms to provide information about emergency contraception (EC) to sexual assault survivors as a basic standard of care. It also requires pharmacies that don’t stock Plan B®, the brand name of an emergency contraception regimen sold in the United States, to notify consumers via a conspicuously placed sign that the medication is unavailable.

EVENT DETAILS

What: SB 60 Signing Ceremony
When: Thursday, March 15 @ Noon
Where: Capitol Building, Office of the Governor (Rm. 136)
Photo Opportunities:
• Colorado Governor Bill Ritter
• State Senator Betty Boyd, SB 60 sponsor
• State Representative Anne McGihon, SB 60 sponsor
• SB 60 witnesses supporting the measure

Protect Families, Protect Choice Coalition: ACLU of Colorado, The Colorado AAUW, Colorado League of Women Voters, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA), Colorado NOW, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR), Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, Colorado Women’s Agenda, Denver Women’s Commission, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Rocky Mountain Riveters, The White House Project, Women’s Health (Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center), and Women’s Lobby of Colorado

Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “Ritter to Sign “First In a Decade” Bill”

      1. If I recall correctly, Catholic hospitals testified last session that they already provide information on emergency contraception.  The legislative arm of the Catholic Church specifically chose not to oppose this bill.  The substance of the bill was never anything they were opposed to anyway; there was some concern last session that doctors at Catholic hospitals would be forced to give formal referrals to clinics that provide abortions.  My understanding was that the bill was modified to relieve that concern, and the opposition is satisfied that the problem was solved.

        At this point, the bill is opposed mainly by those who take a position based on whether it sounds “conservative” or not; and NOT by people who have thought through the moral issues and made a rational decision.

        This definitely shouldn’t be a problem for Chaput.

          1. is that contraception is a sin in the context of a Christian marriage.  The Church has no such moral position on contraception outside of Christian marriage, and certainly does not condemn emergency contraception.  The Church also does not teach that civil government has any responsibility at all to prevent contraception in its immoral uses.

            1. ……so long as they’re not married?

              Seriously though, I appreciate your input because I don’t claim to know well the Catholic positions anymore, ever since I strayed from the straight and narrow path ordered by my Confirmation.

              1. I’d say it is not directly contrary to the teachings of the Church.  Whether it’s a good idea is, of course, a different question, and I’m sure that many — almost surely most — church leaders would express the strong opinion that it’s a bad idea.  They would see it as encouraging premarital sex, which is of course contrary to Catholic (and most other) moral teachings.  That would be a rational judgement that they can make, weighing the positive and negative consequences of the plan.  It remains true, though, that there is absolutely no Catholic moral teaching that premarital sex with contraception is worse than premarital sex without contraception.

                That’s straying a bit far from the topic, though.  The same argument doesn’t apply with emergency contraception.  There, the problems are: first, that emergency contraception may force Catholic hospitals to make referrals to organizations that perform abortions; and second, that there is apparently no consensus answer as to whether and how often emergency contraception is abortifacient.  My understanding is that it was primarily the first of these concerns that led local Catholic leaders to oppose this bill last session, and that their concerns are resolved with the present bill and they chose to remain neutral.

                  1. No, of course that would not be a sin in the eyes of the Church.  The Catholic position on contraception is that the intentional use of contraception by married couples is subverting God’s intent for marriage.  God’s intent for marriage doesn’t involve rape.

                    1. Martial rape is brand new. Legally it was held that a marriage contract gave a husband the right to sexual intercourse and that a woman gave implied constant when she married.  It took a state law, Oregon, I think, to create the concept of rape within marriage and to make that illegal.

                      I am neither a catholic, a lawyer or a theologian…time was, and very recently, that a catholic woman could not deny her husband sexual intercourse.  I think that is still doctrine.  ….a lot of blah blah stuff about respect and consideration, but bottom line is that catholic women still can’t say no.

                    2. I don’t even know what to say, except to agree that you are clearly have no basis for knowledge about the subject matter.

                    3. Cite a source.  My information was based  on some of the catholic material printed on natural family planning, which did carry a proviso that sex could not be denied by the wife.

                      Could be dated. 

                      Would certainly stand to be corrected, but would apprecite a source or citation. Should not be too hard to find, since you appear to be very knowlegeable about the subject…an approved book which states a catholic wife may refuse sex…..that’s all…just a source.

                    4. Sorry for the delayed reply.  I have been trying to figure out if you really can’t tell the difference between moral teaching and rape, or if you’re just stirring up trouble.

                      In case you really don’t understand, here’s the situation: the Catholic Church teaches that spouses have an obligation to live out their marital vocation, which includes sex and openness to the possibility of children.  If a woman intentionally, knowingly, and culpably violates this teaching, and if one believes in Catholic moral teachings, then one would say that she has sinned.  This doesn’t make it okay for her husband to rape her, and the Church doesn’t say it does.

                      I can’t imagine what would cause anyone to confuse the two questions.  Most people learn this kind of moral reasoning in elementary school, when teachers explain that even if it was wrong for someone to cut in front of you in line, that doesn’t make it okay to deck them.

                      If you need sources, check the CCC and Canon law, both of which are available online in several languages at http://www.vatican.va, or in English at http://www.usccb.org.  The sections on the marital vocation and chastity are pretty easy to locate, and very short.  They don’t expressly answer the patently ridiculous question you asked, but they do explain that sexual acts in marriage should be mutual acts of giving, that rape is bad (hopefully no one needed to look that one up!), and that if a woman IS in danger from her husband such as because of rape or attempted rape, she has every right to take reasonable actions — including physical separation — to protect herself.

                      Frankly, I can’t believe this conversation is happening.  Some people’s prejudices are stronger than common sense, I suppose.

                    5. Let me recount.  A catholic woman in a catholic marriage commits a sin if she refuses relations with her husband; she is not in a situation where she has the moral right to refuse. That, however, does not give her husband the right to physically force relations. 

                      I think that is convuluted.  It would seem to me that a catholic woman has sacrificed a right to exercise her conscience, according to your reasoning.  That is very sad. But it is consistent with my statement that a catholic wife does not have the right to refuse relations.  I guess it depends on how you define  marial rape.  Emotional and financial coercion is okay, physical, no.

                      BTW, I always thought that Clinton’s defense that he hadn’t lied because it all depended on your definition of what “is” was and that a BJ was not the same as sexual relations was legitimate, given that he had been educated by Jesuits at Georgetown, whose talent is making such inane distinctions.  Such as: you can’t say no, but if you do, I can’t deck you. 

                      The insitutional church inserts itself in the public sector on many issues related to sex.  Your assertion  that the church is neutral about “what other people do” is not true.  That is precisely why everyone should be knowledgeable about what this church teaches and practices.

                    6. You obviously have something against my church.  I’m sorry about that, but I am speechless that you should feel it’s okay to mislead others and insult me about my religion, and then pretend it’s just inexplicable that I should be anything but polite.  Bull!

                      First of all, Catholic spouses have obligations to God.  Your insistence on phrasing the matter as saying that a Catholic woman can’t refuse sex to her husband is a lie, pure and simple.  It is simply not true that Catholic moral teaching ever requires a woman to submit to sex because her husband wants it.  The moral obligation is to accept the procreative aspect of marriage in general, over a period of the years of marriage, and requires no one to have sex whenever the other spouse wants it.  Exactly the same responsibility, incidentally, exists in the other direction — but you haven’t said anything like “a Catholic husband can’t refuse relations with his wife”, apparently because that would contradict your obvious desire to paint the moral teachings of the Catholic Church as misogynistic.  Why should you let truth get in the way, right?

                      You say: “It would seem to me that a catholic woman has sacrificed a right to exercise her conscience, according to your reasoning.”  Of course not.  A Catholic woman (or man) belongs to an entirely voluntary organization that provides guidance on moral questions.  No one is forced to be Catholic; and even if they are, the Church has no canonical penalties for private moral matters such as we’re discussing here.  The Catholic Church seeks to inform the conscience of Catholics.  They may disagree with any given part of it; and most of them do disagree with parts.  Perhaps you are confusing the teaching office of the Catholic Church with public law, where such strictures would indeed be completely out of place.

                    7. You used the analogy from a grade school teacher; i.e. It is wrong to break into line but that doesn’t give you the right to deck the person who did it. You used that to explain a wife’s position in a catholic marriage vis a vi consent to sexual relations.  That was your example, not mine. I was simply trying to understand.  I don’t.  And, I don’t have to. and the subject is not something I want to pursue…unles it is used as some kind of excuse for the church to opt out of compliance with some kind of public law…and at this point, I don’t see that.

                      I don’t like  your characterizations of my motivation and I am tired of being attacked.  I don’t know if you have any official position within the church to speak to their teacing or not.  If you do, you ought to make that clear. For example, if you are a member of a lobbying firm contracting with the official church, I think we have a right to know that.

                      Let me be clear.  I support the First Amenment of the Constitution of the United States. I support the right of anyone to the free exercise of their religion. I am  sensitive to religious prejudice and I feel that we have an obligation to speak out against it.  On this blog, when someone talked about a conservative takeover in 2008 and called it an Orange Victory and then listed all the elements which claim orange…the Broncos…and then he went on to say something about “Protestant Orange.”  I called him on it.  I think that was wrong.  I also think it is wrong when Bill Donohue of the Catholic League attacks Jews in Hollywood.  I don’t like the questions about Romey being a Mormon. I stand with the Constitution of the United States that there should be no religious test for public office.  I respect Kennedy’s position where he said that  if there were ever a conflict between his conscience and his oath of office, he would resign the office. Although I understand some of  your bishops are now denouncing Kennedy.  I think that religious prejudice is alive and well in this country and we should all be on guard against it.

                      Now, understand this about your church.  It does not speak for me. I grant it no moral authority.  I find the institutional reaction to the long history of  ordained ministers sexually exploiting children repugnant and immoral.  I think any position your church takes in the public sectior needs to be scruntilized, in light of its history.  It certainly is free to bind its members anyway it chooses. 

            2. I recall big issues in Ireland a few years back, because of the illegality of contraceptives, in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Also, I believe that orthodox Jews consider any “wasted” sperm to be a sin, including the use of contraceptives, and I suspect that the Jewish and Catholic doctrines on that matter would be the same. But, I don’t really know. Does anyone know the precise Catholic doctrine on the matter?

              2. I am no expert in Irish law, culture, or history.  I suspect, though, that the situation was that legalizing birth control was seen as being a bad idea by encouraging immoral behavior.  As I mentioned elsewhere, there’s a distinction between something that is itself immoral according to Catholic doctrine, and something that is unwise because it may (or may not) encourage immoral behavior.

                For at many centuries now, the moral teaching of the Church has recognized a distinction between private and public morality.  Birth control is a matter of private morality, and the state therefore has no direct moral obligation to prevent it.  (Nothing in Catholic moral doctrine requires that it be available, either; this is a political — in the broad sense of “policy” — question, rather than a moral one.)

        1. There may be a slight sematic difference between this bill and the one Owen’s vetoed…but I don’t know what it is.  This bill is about providing information.

  3. I feel a little like we’re rejoicing that the size of stones permitted at public stonings will be required to be smaller than before. I mean, of course sexual assault victims should be advised of emergency contraception options, but it leaves me feeling a bit depressed that we have to celebrate victories so far into the twilight zone. What kind of a society do we live in that this is even a battle to be won? Ugh!

    2. Because I do agree with your sentiment, but for some reason that’s the state of Colorado (and, to an extent, US) politics. Time will tell if we can get more victories like this, but I’m happy with first steps like this.

  4. As referred to in another post above… this is a partial victory (at best) for
    pro-choice groups.

    1.) The Dems have been trying to pass laws that require all pharmacies to stock Plan B, this bill does not accomplish that.
    2.) The Dems have been trying to pass legislation that requires any private or public hospital to perform/provide contraceptive/pregnancy termination services – this bill doesn’t do that either.

    This bill is toothless in practicality but WILL provide ammo for conservative groups going after Ritter next election cycle.

    And just to make my personal position clear – I am pro-life but certainly understand the very difficult position of circumstances such as incest and rape. I used to hold an “exception” position in circumstances like these but have shifted from that perspective because I find it contradictory to my fundemental belief that life before birth is sacred.

    1. I think Coloradoans aren’t so concerned as fundamentalists are… but if this is as toothless as you say it is, it’s not going to matter to anyone who won’t already vote for the GOP over any Dem, even if the Dem were Ronald Reagan reincarnated and the Repub were Idi Amin.

    2. As the legislative session moves along I’m gaining confidence in our ability to keep Colorado red.  The Democrat agenda is the sort you would see in blue states like Oregon or Minnesota.  But Colorado is markedly more conservative than those states and our Democrat Party.  Most party activists know that, of course, but nobody bothered telling the voters who were easily led astray by conservative, but empty rhetoric by the Dems in ’06.  With Dick Wadhams in charge that’s just not going to happen again.  It’s still very early and we’re still busy recruiting candidates, but the early returns show an energized base, a great presidential race, and a red state reasserting itself against liberal leadership.

    3. Colorado Constitution forbids any state funds going to support abortion services in any way. So the dems would have to get the constitution changed if they were going to require public hospitals to perform abortions…I think that you are misinformed about the agenda.

      Nationally, the dems have been trying to get legislation passed to require all pharmacies to stock Plan B and birth control…it is a rough go for them…there are legtimate legal issues……may wind up in federal court.

      I congratulate you on the consistency of your position. But this is not a “toothless bill.”  Time was when women (and doctors) could go to jail for talking about contraception….in my life time.  Making this a “standard of care” for rape victims is an advance forward; it is just decent.

      The fundamentalists are not going to go after Ritter for this…if they are smart…this is a good bill.  The real test is if Ritter can find a way to fund Planned Parenthood’s non abortion service….then watch the capital steps.

        1. I am not lawyer, took the LSAT but didn’t make into law school…and you didn’t stay….but let me take a shot…

          1)  The primary concern is the “conscience clause”. Some states allow medical and administrative personnel to opt out of being involved with the provision of abortion services for reasons of conscience.  Extend that provision to pharmacies, either individual staff or owners and ask if the federal government could compell individuals to sell items which violate their religious convictions. That is a legtimate first amendment issue.  Arguments could be made on both sides.

          2) Federal government, throught the FDA, can regulate what is sold, to whom (not to minors, for example) and how items are labeled.  The question is can the federal government force private business to sell certain items? That would be all over the constitution…

          3) On the other hand, if a pharmacy or a hospital accepts federal funding in any guise (Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, building funds) must it then serve the  needs of the entire public, including the need for contraception/abortion…..Again, First Amendment vs. Equal protection…

          1. I heard it used to have math and a whole different set up that it does today.

            I figured that conscience clause would be in there, but the other two are interesting. Conscience clauses are destructive in my opinion. The fact that a whole pharmacy can opt out of offering medical care due to religious reasons scares me. Right now it is plan b and RU486, tomorrow it could be HIV medication or medication for herpes or syphillis or any STD.

            No. 2 is intirguing because government should not require business to sell certain items, but the public has a right to have access to items that are legally attainable. I can easily see this as something that the courts decide.

            No. 3: I think it should. The problem here is that when people who subscribe to certain beliefs takeover the government they try and dictate their moral thought processes on others and passing it off as law.

            Thanks for responding.

            1. It must have been the old LSAT…I took it in the early 70;s…I would not know what the new one is like……I remember a lot of verbal, some math and page after page of geometric figures which had to be compared or manipulated or replicated…it was crazy making.  I did allright….just couldn’t swing it financially….

              Do you miss law school? Regret not being there?

              1. He’d make a great attorney and we need more like him.  Of course, he’d probably end up being a Labor or Trial attorney, but he’d make so much money that we’d eventually be able to woo him over, lol.

                1. I did want to be a trial attorney, but a trial attorney in the form of an assistant US attorney or DA. The pay wouldnt be geat to start, but I thought it would be fun. I also liked the political side of law and that was part of my reasoning to go.

                  If i ever made the switch I would be one of the RINOs that are complained about on here, but I bet I would like the company.

                  Maybe some day I will return. If I do at least I know what I will be getting into. Thanks again for your kind words.

              2. Its made up of 1 section of logic games, 2 logic reasoning, 1 reading comprehension, and a non-graded experimental section of one of the previous sections (the dont tell you which is experimental). I had two logic games sections. Then there is a non graded writing section at the end (a compare and contrast). When I took the LSAT, it was in December at DU in 05 it had snowed the night before and started two hours late. I mistakenly didnt bring anything to eat, and my writing section was about owning a pizza place in the city or the country (pros and cons), so I was mentally drained and salivating at the end writing about pizza. I got there at 7 am and left at 3.

                I miss law school to a certain extent, but there are a lot of things that I dont miss. I lived in a grad dorm that was caddy corner to the law school which wasnt too bad. It was a single and I shared a bathroom with one other person. The majority of the students were from Michigan and Canada so it was tough to break into social circles. Speaking of social circles it was a lot like high school. The psuedo hot girls banded together and there were the guys that hung on to that group. There were the Student Bar Association kids that traveled in packs. There were the friends from college. Then there was me, the outsider.

                School-wise I thought I was prepared. But something that anyone considering law school should know is that you are never prepared enough. Phoenix and Cuervo’s talk about chattel brings back thoughts of tort law (tresspass on the chattel). I struggled with classes. IRAC (Issue, Reasoning, Analysis, Conclusion) is the method with which you are to read cases and extrapolate on hypotheticals in class. I never grasped the method. Actually, I never was able to find them in cases, and when I thought I had them I would find out in class that I was completely off.

                Classes are socratic method, which means that in class you will be called on repeatedly with no warning. Seriously, it is scary. A typical class will consist of “Mr. Dwyer, explain Pennoyer v. Neff.” “Mr. Dwyer, explain this hypothetical in relation to Pennoyer v. Neff.” and on and on. In some classes, if you get it wrong they lay into you. My criminal law prof laid into me a couple of times. And when I say lay into me I mean a five minute tirade, in class, against me. It is extremely demoralizing. During a torts class that professor made fun of me much to the humor of my fellow classmates. I was close to walking out. My one victory was in Contracts. That professor tells everyone at the start of class who will get called on that day, its sort of like what I imagined the draft would be like. Everyday that you arent called on is a reprieve, when its your day your shaking in your boots, literally for me. So I get called on and he asks me a question, I squeak out some answer, and he responds “well….” my mind is racing and I blurt out something that I must have read because he says “yes, exactly, that is what I am looking for and you are touching on things we havent covered yet.” I almost cried I was so happy.

                My contracts professor was a young guy (mid 30s) who got tenure during our class. He went to Harvard and according to him he was arguing in front of New York courts of appeal when he was 25. He was hilarious in class and talked about his experience working for big pharm and tobacco. Like all classes, I stuggled in his. I went to see him after class one day to get help. He wrote the book we were using, and the nice thing was that it hadnt been published yet so it was 25 dollars; I figured he could offer particular insight to help. The meeting went, verbatim like this:
                Me: “Professor, Im really stuggling. What do I need to do to start understanding whats going on?”
                Him: “have you read Blum (the horn book for the class)?”
                Me: “No.”
                Him: “Well, read Blum, and close the door on the way out”

                My end goal with law school was to become attractive to a campaign. In leaving law school, I recognize that since I have no campaign experience and no real qualifications, staying would have made it a lot easier for me to be taken seriously when applying to a campaign, and not getting the brush off that I do today. I take responsibility for leaving law school, and in the end I think it was wise for me to leave MSU, because at the end of that semester I hated law and had little self confidence.

                I applied to 7 schools and MSU was the only one I got into. Thinking back on it I wonder if accepting was the right thing to do. They sent me so much stuff in the mail, and I admit I was intrigued by their trial institute, that I felt obligated to pay them back with an application fee. When they were the only school that accepted me it was a tough decision. Part of me thought I could go in, kick ass, and transfer back here; like it was my only opportunity. The other part thought maybe it was a sign. The only school I got into was the one I applied to on a whim. I dont regret going and I dont regret leaving.

                Sorry this is so long.

                1. Back in the 70s, there was a movie called “The Paper Chase”…..exactly how you describe law school….have you ever seen it?  Makes me wonder if professors saw it back in their student days and decided that that was the way to be….

                  Sounds like you are well out of it…

                  1. But I’ve never seen it. First year is like marine boot camp: they break you down to build you back up. I understand that idea in the military setting, but in education it always irked me. It is definitely sink and drown or sink but break the surface every now and again. There is no swimming involved.

        2. It was only 1975 when the first state passed a law against “marital rape”, and only 1995 when all 50 states had passed some form of “marital rape” law.  As of 2005, only 20 states provided equal protection for married victims as they did to unmarried victims; Colorado is one of those 20, I’m happy to say.  The other 30 states still provide exception if the wife is unable to consent (asleep, drunk/drugged, mentally incapable…) – 5 of those states extend this exemption to unmarried cohabitating partners.

          Similarly, laws in Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana and other states held that married women were chattel until the 1970s (and in Louisiana’s case, into the 1980s!).

          And because the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, women are still easier to target for discrimination at work than are minorities: minorities can claim treble damages through the EEOC, but women only get single damages.

          There are people still alive and well who married under these old-school presumptions, just as there are many people still kicking around who lived under pre-civil rights law and accepted it as truth.  It’s easy to live under the false assmption that we’re past all of that, until you realize that some of these people are still raising and teaching our children, are still in positions of leadership and trust, and still hold to the “old ways”.  We are less than a generation removed from all of this; we’re moving forward, but we must remember that we can all too easily slip backward, too.

            1. I think I’ve found it, but can’t cite a case or state that this is 100% the reasoning.  EEOC cases brought by women are considered civil cases, which have historically been ineligible for treble damages.  EEOC cases brought by minorities are escalated to civil rights violations, which are eligible.

              The ERA would add discrimination based on gender to the list of classes protected under the 14th Amendment.

              2. Both are “civil rights” violations.  Again, all of these damages issues are governed by statute.  Congress can provide for any type of damages it wishes; the EEOC merely implements Congressional acts.  So, treble damages for discrimination against women are possible if Congress wants them, regardless of whether the ERA exists.

                Also, the 14th Amendment doesn’t list any protected classes.  It says that Congress many not deny “any person” the “equal protection of the laws.”  Constitutional case law has developed which subjects racial discrimination to strict scrutiny, and sex discrimination only to “intermediate scrutiny” (as opposed to the lowest level, rational basis scrutiny). 

                But, in any event, Congress’s power to enact civil rights laws, and provide damages for violations thereof, derives largely from its commerce power, not the 14th Amendment. 

                    1. In a way I wish I hadn’t added it; the rest of the post was more important to me.  It really strikes me when I consider that I was alive and pretty cognizant when married women were still considered chattel within the United States, that if I’d been in different circumstances I could have even married (young) under those laws.

                      It seems like so long ago, as Lauren’s post implied.  But it’s not.  I’ve been alive for all of what I posted except for Griswold and Civil Rights.

    4. And quit being so damn patronizing. “I used to hold an exception position” – now isn’t that mighty white of you. Next time a rape victim ends up in the ER, I’m sure *your opinion* will be really important to her. Do you prefer your women barefoot or pregnant or both? 

      So is life after birth sacred? or is it only sacred when you get to tell women what to do? If that same clump of cells dies from pneumonia as a toddler because they don’t have access to a doctor because Bush defunds SCHIP, does that count?

      A conservative group that would attack anyone for compassion for rape victims isn’t compassionate, it’s just plain nuts.

  5. and logical step to take in helping  inform sexual assault victims of emergency contraception.  I do not think this will have any impact on voters who support Ritter

    1. To be blunt… Liberal Dems on the steps of the capitol are making a huge fanfare of this being landmark legislation and the first of its ilk in 10 years… if you think that in the next election cycle Conservatives will make any less a fuss than you my friend are sadly mistaken. It’s not exactly what I’m hoping for from my GOP brothers but I believe it’s bound to happen.

      1. The conservatives can whine about it all they want.  Who’s going to listen to them?  I’m through tolerating people who have nothing but slippery slope arguments that lead all the way down to the Bible.  Most people don’t even read the Bible–they just listen to somebody else talk about it.  Maybe Ritter is committing the sin of thinking, or maybe he just doesn’t think the Bible is always right for society.  But if someone starts in on me about how EC is somehow bad, I will just turn the other cheek, and tell them to shut up. 

  6. Intelligent people know there is a difference between an abortion and preventing an egg from attaching to the uteran wall.  Seriously, those things get peed out much of the time. Don’t confuse science with religious zealots being whipped by the Bush crowd. 🙂

    1. you’re absolutely right. Those things do get peed out all the time.

      Just out of curiousity, is there anyone out there who is a born again secular humanist? I mean, is there anyone reading this who once had the didactic notion that a human embryonic cell is the mystical equivalent of a human being, who suddenly saw a syllogism on the road to Damascus and realized that, well, “those things get peed out all the time?” Or will we forever be hopelessly trapped in a world of immutable contradictory beliefs constantly crashing into each other in the particle accelerators of public discourse?

      You know, religion is a wonderful thing. It can help provide imagery with which to celebrate the wonder and mystery of existence, and to frame an ethical system that, when not polluted with hypocrisy, can bring out the best in people who sincerely try to adhere to its spirit.

      Dogma, on the other hand, are the shackles of ignorance. “God” didn’t give us brains so that we could go around being brainless in “His” name. It seems to me that the people who most fervently claim to be FOD’s (“friends of the Deity”) are the least respectful of the subtle and complex tool he/she has given us to confront the subtle and complex reality of his/her creation.

    2. Intelligent people know that conception occurs prior to implementation. That the union of the sperm and the egg, usually in the fallopian tube, produces a new entity with complete DNA. That entity tumbles down into the uterus and depending on an ongoing complex biochemical process, may or may not implant in the uterus. If the entity successfully implants, then it grows and develops until it can live outside the uterus, unless it leaves the uterus, prematurely,  via the vagina ( separate tube from where the female “pees”…..the male penis operates to release both seman and urine from the body, the female has separate ortifaces for those functions) If the entity is “born” and breathes, then in the United States, according to our Constitution, that entity is a person and is entitled to the full range of civil rights.

      Intelligent people know that there is nothing in the biological process which bestows value.  Value is a philosophical construct, varies tremendously among religions and non religions. In this country, value to a human entity attaches at birth, legally.  Individuals are free to place whatever value they wish on that entity prior to its birth; they can not force that valuation on others but neither should they be ridiculed for their beliefs.

      Capice?

        1. I was too captivated by your detailed description of the male and female anatomy to notice.  It was so vivid, I thought I was traveling down that fallopian tube myself and falling out of one of those female “ortifaces”.  (I’m sorry, I couldn’t help it.)

          If it makes you feel any better, I applied for a job at a college once and on my resume I incorrectly spelled “assess” as “asses”. Don’t you know those professors got a howl out of that! 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

68 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!