I've blogged about Jay Bakker before, but his story is inspiring so here's another link.
And here's more Good News about younger evangelicals, from the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll:
"Young evangelical Christians display generational differences on some key social issues. A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples. Older evangelicals remain strongly opposed. At the same time, young evangelicals are as solidly pro-life on abortion as older evangelicals."
The "religious right" is changing, and as I've argued regarding conservatives in general, inroads can be made if there's an effort to do so, rather than knee-jerk, secular-liberal and frequently contemptuous dismissal of the Palin people.
Another observation: it's past time to stop insisting that gay legal equality be tied at the hip to support for abortion on demand (are you listening HRC and Victory Fund, both of which have a "pro-choice" litmus test for candidates they support-even if those candidates are openly gay Republicans).
More. This is religious cultism we could do without.
Roger L. Simon adds, "And they complain about the religious right -- can you imagine the reaction to a similar group of kids singing about McCain under the tutelage of an evangelical minister?"
Blogs the Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren, "as creepy and inappropriate as this singing is - it's not as bad as what Obama is actually proposing: forcing all children, starting at the age of 11, to give 50 hours a year of child labor working in their communities at the direction of the federal government."
Reason.tv now has this parody.
71 Comments for “Gospel of Love Gets Christianity Right”
posted by A Question on
Why not just rename the “Culture Watch” sidebar to “The Stephen H Miller Show Starring Stephen H Miller?”
posted by Craig on
Even if the majority of younger evangelicals are liberals on relationship equality issues, I fail to see your reasoning behind abandoning support for women’s reproductive liberty.
Surely the rest of the anti-abortion movement consists overwhelmingly of conservative Catholic, fundamentalist, Mormon,
and other antigay religious groups?
Yes, I know about PLAGAL and the Seamless Garment Network pacifist wing of that movement, but they’re very much a minority.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by JimG on
Craig,
I would just like to comment on your use of the term “women’s reproductive liberty” with regards to abortion. I would assert that with all the contraceptive options available, there is really no excuse for getting pregnant if you don’t want to have a child. In today’s environment, it is simply irresponsible to do so. I’m not sure the term “liberty” really fits here. There is a maturity issue here I believe. (I would also add as an aside, that it is not just a “women’s” issue either. Daddy not only has responsibilites, but rights as well.)
I know gays who are pro abortion, against abortion and all shades of gray in between.
posted by Jorge on
Well yes, the pro-life movement is strongly based on the opposition of devout Christians. And as we begin to get to a place where gays are being more compatible with the religious community, well, you’re going to see a lot of gays coming back to the faith and embracing the pro-life movement. Why not? Most pro-lifers are of the non-childbirthing sex. It stands to reason that the gay community should be even more skewed toward being pro-life, all other things being equal.
posted by tavdy79 on
I agree with JimG, and would add that keeping abortion so readily available is massively irresponsible at a time when diseases like HIV are spreading rapidly amongst heterosexuals, and when abortion can cause serious psychological and emotional problems for some women.
I don’t think that banning abortion outright is the way to go, however it is far too easily available and it encourages people to take serious risks. Abortions should be restricted to clearly defined instances, such as rape or where the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life.
posted by ETJB on
First of all, their are many LGBT Christians who are ‘engaging’ “Palin’s people”. So please do not demean their work and dedication by suggesting or even implying by silence that they are not.
Second of all, the older adults are the ones who tend to run the socially conservative Christian churhces and other related social-political organizations and act as their face. They are generally not too interested in changing their almost knee-jerk opposition to gay rights, while also demonstrating their “love” by supporting the ex-gay movement or comparing us to child molestors and dogs.
Thirdly, the pro-life political movement is also, largely, anti-gay and anti-woman and does not appear to want to change. They have recently decided to ‘tolerate’ the existence of ‘feminists for life’ and the pro-life gay rights movement, but they are still social reactionaries.
Fourth, abortion is actually about as ‘available’ as it was when Roe v. Wade was decided. In pratical terms, it is not really that easily accessible at all.
Family planning clinics may exist in small towns and suburbian communiites but actual abortion ciinics are often only in urban cities and even then they are not terribly to accessible;
Fifth, it is rather odd to see gay men — who probably last saw a woman’s vagina at birth — getting all excited about controlling all women’s reproductive rights.
Of coarse, many of these same men would force a woman to give birth, but are not eager for society to help pay for that kids food, water, shelter, health care, education, etc.
posted by GeorgeNJ on
I just wanted to voice my full agreement with JimG and tavdy79. Altho I am entirely in favor of a woman’s right to determine her life, at the same time, I could never bring myself to disregard the human life of a fetus.
Jorge’s comment above, “Most pro-lifers are of the non-childbirthing sex”, is a cheap shot and reveals his own refusal to form a responsible idea about the fetus.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, fair points all.
What is interesting is that a call for the gay civil rights movement to shed it’s non-gay advocacy of things like abortion rights, preservation of affirmative action, unconditional retreat from Iraq or mandatory union membership normally meets with huge resistance.
Those issues aren’t our concern. They’re the concerns of the gayLeft’s political leadership who have to stay connected to BigLabor, the abortion industry, the RetreatWithDishonor crowd and minority’s victimhood industry. They have to stay connected because the Democrat Party demands allegiance on those issues and our gayLeft leaders will prostitute themselves for that connection faster than an underage teen in the Chicago projects.
I love how even the suggestion that it’s high time –especially given how the gayLeft brethern have sold out the interests of all gays to BarryO’s audacity of hype campaign– for gays to evaluate whether abortion rights should even be an issue for gay civil rights movement meets the usual opposition from the very netherheads who gave us 11 NEW state FMAs in the last election cycle.
It’s amazing that progress on gay civil rights has to be such an enemy of Democrat Party hegemony.
Amazing.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, if liberal gays should respect conservative gays’ ideological differences, shouldn’t that be reciprocated? I agree with JimG that people who don’t want to become pregnant should take responsibility and avoid becoming pregnant, but the question remains as to what role the government should play. I don’t think the government should be involved in the decision, notwithstanding my views about people’s responsibility and my moral concerns about abortion. Stipulating that you do not and will not see a connection between gay rights and abortion rights, others of us do and will. I think it comes down to sexual self-determination, notwithstanding my recognition that abortion (unlike gay sex in and of itself) involves the taking of a life (something that most pro-choicers either deny or avoid discussing). It is a question of who decides, and I think that must be the woman who faces the pregnancy. It is not a cheap shot to point out that men have historically tried mightily to control women. The series of SCOTUS rulings from Griswold v. Connecticut to Eisenstadt v. Baird to Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas connects women’s reproductive liberty to gay people’s sexual rights in terms of constitutional law. Former Senator Rick Santorum, who equated gay sex with man-on-dog sex, didn’t just oppose the ruling in Lawrence. And he didn’t just oppose Roe v. Wade. He even objected to the privacy rights involved in Griswold. And logically speaking, why not? If the government has a right to prohibit and criminalize abortion, why should it not have the right to criminalize either a single woman’s or a married couple’s use of contraception? Many of us who believe the government must be kept out of all of these decisions have made common cause and have good reason to make common cause. It is not your cause, Steve, and it is not the cause of my friends in PLAGAL. I respect that. But respect is not agreement. Instead of expending energy pushing to sever gay rights from abortion rights, it would be more productive to support education, advocacy, and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies–so that abortion becomes moot.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MM wrote: “Those issues aren’t our concern.”
Correction, they are not YOUR concern. A lot of people disagree with you. You can attribute the crassest possible motives to them, or you could have a life-changing epiphany and decide to respect people who disagree with you instead of constantly insulting them. Either way, many gay rights advocates–whether you call them leftists or they call themselves leftists–will continue to embrace abortion rights as part of their advocacy.
MM’s reference to “the very netherheads who gave us 11 NEW state FMAs in the last election cycle” appears to shift blame for those anti-gay amendments from those who supported them to those who (arguably) failed to oppose them effectively enough.
Another thing that MM is doing, of course, is making sweeping (and always extremely disparaging) generalizations. This is one quality he shares with John McCain: treating anyone who disagrees as a knave.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve wrote that “inroads can be made if there’s an effort to do so, rather than knee-jerk, secular-liberal and frequently contemptuous dismissal of the Palin people.”
I will take this more seriously when you put a stop to the postings on IGF comment boards by people such as MM, who is addicted to contemptuous dismissal.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard opines: “I will take this more seriously when you put a stop to the postings on IGF comment boards by people such as MM, who is addicted to contemptuous dismissal.”
Sort of like the little stunt you just practiced, King Richard? Wow, talk about the biggest Kettle calling the other pots, black? Yeow!
Trying to contempuously dimiss and silence me? Your closed, singular mindset is a very hard nut to crack -even with reason, rational discussion and facts.
When you get some therapy with your own “addiction to contempuous dimissal”, we’ll talk. Until then, it’d be good if you could just curb the condescending and belittling attitude that pervades your comments & posts. There’s the right place to start, King Richard… get the dirt out of your own eye.
The issues I outlined have absolutely nothing –NOT ONE THING– to do with the progress of gay civil rights… or in fixing the movement which is hopelessly stuck in reverse gear thanks to gayLeft voices like King Richard. For a failed strategy, we have pursued “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn It” and it has, indeed, led to nearly 11 new state FMAs, a twice threatened federal FMA, and a battle in many states to reverse the stupid, hardcore partisan excesses that put the gay civil rights movement into REVERSE gear.
We should be doing more, far more, than our gayLeft leadership allows. Part of that would be reaching out to moderate, center-right and GOP gays… but in King Richard’s realm, that is treason of the highest sort. For him and all his subjects, it’s BarryOBiden or Bust.
Rather than try to quiet your critics who fairly, justly criticize your silly opinions in the open marketplace of ideas (how very gayLeft of you, King Richard)… maybe you should reflect on the considerable failings of your own opinions and conclusions, my Lord.
Humbly submittted, your loyal servant, blah blah blah.
It’s why I call your unquestioning, unwavering near-devotional woship-like support of BarryOBiden to be a sell out to the gay community’s best interests. You don’t want progress on gay civil rights… you want to sell your gaybrethern down the rathole of Democrat Party fealty because that’s what your Party expects of you and your gayLeft cohorts.
You may not like the truth, King Richard. But trying to unilaterally silence your critics is the first step of a royal tyrant.
Thought you’d have known that? Fancy that, eh?
posted by dalea on
Thank you ETJB for pointing out how difficult it is for many women to get an abortion. The myth of ease and availability spread by this forum needs to be countered.
When we went thru the topic in the early 70’s, lesbians insisted that support of abortion rights was a great concern of theirs. It seems rape resulting in pregnancy was a practice used against outdykes at the time. And as we were a Gay and Lesbian coalition, it was necessary to accept support for self determination from our allies.
What bothers me is the so called ‘Pro Life’ people never explain just how they would ban abortions. The only effective ban I have ever heard of came in Romania during Soviet rule. The process involved having women selected at random, like in offices and factories. The women would then urinate in cups in public. Then a pregnancy test would take place. Women who were pregnant would then be forcibly hauled off to barracks. There they would be chained to cots until the infant was born. This seems to be the only way for a ‘Pro Life’ law to work.
If people think this goes a bit too far, and I certainly do, then ‘Pro Life’ supporters need to explain just how they plan to limit abortions. How much do you intend to restrict the liberty and life’s of women to accomplish your goal? Listening to ‘end abortion’ advocates is like listening to Marxists. Both leave out their anti-liberty methods. Which I find profoundly dishonest.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I don’t think that banning abortion outright is the way to go, however it is far too easily available and it encourages people to take serious risks.
By similar logic, would you argue that the ready availability of insurance-subsidized anti-HIV drugs encourages barebacking among gay and bi men? And would you therefore suggest that access to antiviral therapy should therefore be made a bit less easy (or a bit more expensive out-of-pocket), to avoid “promoting irresponsibility”?
(Despite a rise in heterosexual infection rates, “MSM” cases continue to account for a disproportionate percentage of HIV infections in the U.S.)
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And if King Richard’s two-snap postings weren’t enough, he exits the Royal Throne Room with this illogical slap: “This is one quality he shares with John McCain: treating anyone who disagrees as a knave.”
Gee, I guess when BarryO told the journalist in Detroit asking a pointed, fair, intelligent question of his High Priestliness, BarryO’s response of “Now, hold it just a minute there sweetie. We’re going to be answering all that later” he wasn’t contempuously dismissing a knave of your realm, King Richard?
Or when BarryO told a group of PUMAs at the Denver convention that they needed to get over the failed campaign of Hillary and get onboard his campaign, he wasn’t being contempuous of their honest, fair concerns about his rampant sexism… as his campaign had been practicing on Hillary, on Gerrie Ferraro, on Sarah Palin?
And I’m guessing that BarryO’s contempuous dimissal of the wounded military in Germany, when he chose to shoot some hoops and grab for some glitter instead, wasn’t engaged in contempuous dimsissal. “I met with the troops already”. Yeah, he actually tried to convince the Iraqi govt to withhold agreement on troop reductions until after the Nov prez elections –great patriot that he is.
And of ALL the contempuous moments in the last week, BarryO’s failure to even remember whose military bracelet he wore in the debate… he was so eager to say “Me too, me too, I gots me a bracelet… let me see, it’s from… um…um… shoot this print is hard to read. Staff? Staff? What’s that idiot’s name I have on this thing?”
Even gayDemocrats were cringing from that openly contempuous moment BarryO showed to America’s military sacrafice. He even beat out JohnKerry’s famous line of “If you aren’t smart enough to go to college, you go into the army”.
And, you King Richard, can contend that McCain acts contempuously? Without example? Without reference?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, you are the King. That trumps everything, every opinion, every reader. The King has spoken.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea offers: “Thank you ETJB for pointing out how difficult it is for many women to get an abortion. The myth of ease and availability spread by this forum needs to be countered.”
The only myth is partisans who contend abortion is difficult to secure.
In Ann Arbor, there 8 clinics that will help facilitate an abortion –one of them the local “Catholic” charities group. You can have an abortion the same day you go to the clinic for a pregnancy test. If a minor, you can bypass the parental consent requirement fairly easily and without legal cost. The abortion fees and surgical costs will be paid if you meet income restrictions or are a minor.
Abortions hard to get? I don’t know what spacecraft ET been spinning in, but it’s pure fiction.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And just like teaching terrorists how to make a dirty nuke bomb and explode it in an American city, the internet is a great place to learn how to get an abortion, fast, safe and cheaply.
Like with sites like this:
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Can_i_get_an_abortion_without_parental_consent_-t75508-0-asc-0.html
You guys really, really do need to get out more.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think it comes down to sexual self-determination, notwithstanding my recognition that abortion (unlike gay sex in and of itself) involves the taking of a life (something that most pro-choicers either deny or avoid discussing).
So notice how Rosendall says flat-out that abortion involves ending a life…..but considers having no restraints or responsibility involved with sex to be more important.
In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to Rosendall to kill someone if letting them live would interfere with your sex life.
Unfortunately, that’s quite typical among the gay left, who scream bloody murder over environmental issues that they say kill and cause the abortion of animals, but will blithely write off human life as being subordinate to sexual pleasure.
Of coarse, many of these same men would force a woman to give birth, but are not eager for society to help pay for that kids food, water, shelter, health care, education, etc.
Since pregnancy is not spontaneous, but is the result of choices made by the people involved, why should society at large be forced to pay for the results? Do you think Jamie Lynn Spears should be able to stand up and demand a payoff from society for her choice to have a baby?
At least be honest, ETJB; you and your fellow liberals think it’s cheaper to murder a child than to raise it, and as such you encourage women to do so to reduce the burden on the state.
The irony of a person who claims to be Jewish promoting that is not lost on anyone.
posted by ETJB on
What is and what is not a ‘gay issue’ often differs between individuals and institutions.
I have known gay libertarians who insist that medical marijuana should be treated as a ‘gay issue’. I have known gay conservatives who insist that tax cuts for the wealthy should be treated as a gay issue.
The bottom line is that people are going to make up their own minds about abortion policy. Their is pro-life group that supports gay rights, the rest of them do not.
If you are unhappy with the number of LGBT people who support pro-choice politics, then you are free to try and persuade them to change their mind — although hateful, fear based and malicious comments are generally not too helpful.
I think telling gay people that they must be 100% pro-choice is as silly as telling them that they must be 100% pro-life.
posted by ETJB on
Ah, more hateful, malicious and border line racist comments from gay conservatives.
Again, abortion clinics may exist in urban cities, but they are typically much rarer in the more suburbia, rural or small town communities.
Not every woman lives in Ann Arbor. Many do live in communities were abortion services are difficult to obtain, if for no other reason, then they involve a long drive.
Two good friends of mine both had an abortion. It was not free, or easy to access. It was a difficult, vexing, decision for both of them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
By similar logic, would you argue that the ready availability of insurance-subsidized anti-HIV drugs encourages barebacking among gay and bi men?
Considering that many authorities on the matter say exactly that, why wouldn’t he?
The interesting part is that the demographic group of females most likely to have HIV/AIDS — black women — is also the one most likely to have an abortion. Think there might be a connection there?
posted by ETJB on
It is pretty typical of some pro-life people to accuse anyone and everyone who fails to agree with them of being a Communist or a Nazi.
It is hateful and malicious tactics like that, which keep many decent America in the pro-choice side.
We are probably not going to solve the dispute here and now, but it is rather telling (if not tragic) that pro-life and pro-choice Americans tend to be unable to be too nice to each other or find common ground.
I do not scream, “bloody murder” over every little environmental issue.
If society is going to force every woman who gets pregnant to produce the child, then society has just made its self a heck of a lot more responsible for that child.
“At least be honest”
I am always honest. I leave the partisan spin to other people.
“you and your fellow liberals think it’s cheaper to murder a child than to raise it…”
I cannot speak for my ‘fellow liberals’ nor do I think that should be try. I do not recall stating that it was cheaper to have an abortion then to raise it. Must be another gay conservative lie.
Frankly, I feel that most ‘pro-life’ people are not really that respectful of life and most ‘pro-choice’ people are not really respectful of choice.
My own moral and political views on abortion, as is the case with many issues, tend to bother many people among the political left and right.
My faith is very important to me and feel no obligation to justify it to a slack jaw jerk off such as yourself.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones home with this nugget of truth: “The bottom line is that people are going to make up their own minds about abortion policy.”
Were you even reading the post, ET?
The point is NOT a question of people making up their own minds… that’s not a problem in our society since abortion is widely available, fairly accessible, open to all including minors. About the only thing that isn’t fair is that religiousRight whackjobs can’t protest at abortion clinics anymore… but the farLeft is fine with infringing on free speech if it works to their partisan interests.
The problem is when gay civil rights groups, who claim to be part of the gay civil rights movement, use OUR movement to advocate, fund raise or bolster the abortion industry, feministLeft advocacy groups, affirmative action for minorities, mandatory union membership for govt workers, unconditional retreat from Iraq, Democrat-inspired impeachment efforts for Prez Bush or other silly notions that have nothing -NOT ONE SINGLE THING- to do with gay civil rights but has everything to do with keeping the gayVote Democrat.
That’s the thread’s issue, ET. But I gotta love your attempt to blandly spin it into an almost “RichardII-ish” cartoon of “some people like abortion, some people oppose abortion, some people just don’t know” reduction.
Only you can take banal to a new level of gay fashion. Wait, wasn’t that RichardII’s singular claim to fame?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET finds a figleaf that doesn’t provide cover for the botanist with this whopper of a fig leaf:
“I am always honest. I leave the partisan spin to other people.”
Nice try. Actually, I think you, next to PrincessPriya, are the one to use the words “lie”, “liar” and “lying” more often than if we add up all the other collective IGF commenters together.
ET, you spin enough to keep a Dervish happy… or the spacecraft in orbit. (wink)
“I am always honest. I leave the partisan spin to other people.” Really, do you even think before typing this fabrication?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX offers: “The irony of a person who claims to be Jewish promoting that is not lost on anyone.”
You know, NDXXX, as a pro-choice GOPer, I’ve wondered why so many farLeft types ultimately reduce their arguments to one of contending it’s cheaper to kill an unborn child than raise it in poverty or be a ward of the state. Which, of course, is a false choice intended to aid the abortion industry.
And for a supposedly Jew like ET –with the history of being a people who were the brunt of social engineering genocide of the last century– it’s unfathomable he can’t and won’t see the folly in that line of “reasoning”.
It’s almost as unfathomable as the person here who wrote they “pro-Lifers never explain what’s their alternative to abortion”. Incredible stupidity, that.
As a gay man who adopted a child targeted for abortion, I can tell all IGF readers here firsthand, a human life lived is worth far more than the “rights” of that woman to terminate her pregnancy and end a human life.
Does she have that right? Sure. It’s why I am pro-choice; it’s her right according to our SCOTUS. But to claim that pro-Lifers have never explained what they would do if abortion weren’t available is utter, incredible stupidity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If society is going to force every woman who gets pregnant to produce the child, then society has just made its self a heck of a lot more responsible for that child.
Since pregnancy is not spontaneous, but is the result of choices made by the people involved, why should society at large be forced to pay for the results? Do you think Jamie Lynn Spears should be able to stand up and demand a payoff from society for her choice to have a baby?
Again, be honest, ETJB; you use the money argument as a means of justifying your support of infanticide and murder. That’s why your friends found their abortions to be a “difficult, vexing, decision”; the vast majority of non-sociopathic humans know it’s wrong to kill a defenseless baby for decisions that you made. But for gay and lesbian liberals like yourself who subordinate everything to sexual pleasure, that’s the sort of attitude that must be eliminated. That’s why you argue that abortion must be allowed because society refuses to pay every single cost of raising a child; you attempt to shift the blame away from one’s choice to be sexually promiscuous.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The interesting part is that the demographic group of females most likely to have HIV/AIDS — black women — is also the one most likely to have an abortion. Think there might be a connection there?
Even if your claims about the abortion rate and the HIV/AIDS rate among black women are both true, it’s not necessarily the case that black women have a lot more unsafe (i.e., condomless) sex than non-black women.
For instance, although recreational drug abuse overall does not know racial boundaries, it may be the case that injectable drugs like heroin are significantly more popular among blacks than among whites. If so, infection via dirty needles (rather than unsafe sexual practices) could account for the higher rate of HIV among black women compared to other women.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Even if your claims about the abortion rate and the HIV/AIDS rate among black women are both true, it’s not necessarily the case that black women have a lot more unsafe (i.e., condomless) sex than non-black women.
Oh, they’re quite true, thank you.
Women who are most likely to have an abortion are Black women aged 18-24 who are either separated or unmarried and have an annual income of less than $15,000, or have Medicaid. These women are twice as likely to have abortions compared to the general population.
Women of color are approximately twice as likely to have an abortion as White women.
And, especially if you look at the second chart here, you see that black women have the second-lowest incidence of HIV being transmitted by injectable drug use as well, at least 9% less than white women — and in fact, have a higher rate of transmission via sexual contact.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, returning to the post for a second, the clip you provide in your update ought to be scary for anyone who cares about liberty, free thinking and decency… and about the main thrust of the Obama Campaign, which seems to be about worship, cultish-like adoration and the raising up of BarryO to the new Messiah.
It started with Will.I.Am’s creepy video of adoring worshiping fans chanting “OH-Baam-AH, OH-Bamm-AH”… now, it’s morphing into the indecent use of kids to add to the Messiah’s presence as in that video you linked.
Of course, all we need know is that this video was done in Venice, CA… where they’ve outlawed squirrels because they’d be chasing all the people by mistake (thinking of them as the real nuts).
Creepy and cultish. Sort of like the Temple of Barack in Denver and demanding that his people fill a stadium with 70,000+ adoring, chanting, loving fans in order to sate his need for celebrity.
My God, I think BarryO is bigger than Lohan or Brad Pitt or Clay Aiken. No, no way. We need to check next week’s People cover to be sure.
posted by Super-Meme on
Like Michegan-Matt I also adopted an aborted child. It was kind of gross at first but, you know what, love isn’t gross. Somebody should tell BHOops about that. Maybe you che-worshiping aristo-nazis go take a car ride like Biden’s first wife. And you know what? So what if a person has read every magazine and newspaper. If you damn libtards had half a chromosome you would know that being well-read makes a person super great. Sorry Dhimmicrats, you picked the wrong year to bet on hope. I saw the videos of you code pink peeholes marching through downtown Denver…”OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam-AH.” Whatever. I don’t even waste my time with that Defeatocrat nonsense. You traitorous socialists are always complaining about getting chased by squirrels. Well that is because you are nuts. HIV/AIDS is on the rise in various areas of places and you do-nothing Dem0Asshats just flop around like fishes baking in the desert.
posted by dalea on
As for abortion being widely and easily available:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/sfaa.html
shows a persistant decline in availibility over the years. And an associated decline in providers. Plus a large increase in travel time needed to reach assistance. Your claims are simply false MM.
The Mandated Pregnancy people have yet to explain how they will work their program. Do they endorse the Romanian program, which seems to be the only efffective one? Or is there some other way to force women to bear children against their will?
The fact that there are virtually no lesbians in the anti-abortion movement shows that this is a gay issue.
posted by Craig2 on
For the record, there seems to be an assumption here that all pro-choicers belong to the centre-left. Actually, I know many centre-right libertarian feminists who are, as well, as I suspect some of your other readers do.
I’m concerned that anti-abortion philosophy is being rammed down the throats of centre-right gays as a converse litmus test. It isn’t that clear cut.
I can understand that I might differ with you about Iraq for legitimate reasons, but in this case, it appears to be a scotch tape sort of issue. And I inhabit a *lesbian and gay* political movement.
If the Christian Right succeeds in banning abortion, do you honestly think anything would stop them from trying to recriminalise homosexuality next?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that there are virtually no lesbians in the anti-abortion movement shows that this is a gay issue.
No, it simply shows that you choose not to recognize the women involved.
Whether that is a matter of negligence or deliberate ignorance is the greater question.
The Mandated Pregnancy people have yet to explain how they will work their program. Do they endorse the Romanian program, which seems to be the only efffective one? Or is there some other way to force women to bear children against their will?
Unfortunately for that argument, women are not “forced” to bear children, inasmuch as pregnancy is not spontaneous; it is the result of the choice of the parties involved to have unprotected sex.
What banning abortion does is make it clear that society values life ahead of sexual promiscuity and personal irresponsibility. It is astounding that liberal gays and lesbians like Rosendall will acknowledge that abortion involves ending a human life, but then in the next breath insist that sexual gratification and behavior that is sexually irresponsible justify what they admit is the killing of another human being.
Society is under no obligation to sanction behavior that involves in the loss of human life. If a woman wishes to take the life of a child, society need neither protect her or facilitate her doing it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea suggests that abortion is no longer readily available nor accessible and links to a pro-abortion group that makes NARAL and NOW and your local abortion center look tame in their pseudo-medical outlandishness.
Guttmacher, dalea? Good God… it’s like going to binLaden for an opinion on what America should do in Iraq!
Oh wait, to you guys that’s ok because BarryO says he should meet without preconditions with guys like bin Laden, Hamas’ leader-4-the-day, Iran’s Prez, NKorea’s dictator, et al. I forgot, to you a reference to Guttmacher is mainstream.
Nothing false about abortions being readily available, easily accessible and a host of “partners” in the abortion industry who will INSURE whomever wants an abortion, will get one. And, I would add, whoever is fence sitting will get persuaded to have an abortion.
Nothing false in all that, dalea. Except your attempt to mislead; like PrincessPriya using an EMILYS’ List poll to prove women love BarryO… despite 23 states having strong PUMA chapters.
Now, what was that about the preservation of abortion ought to be a concern to the gay civil rights movement? Something about 40+ yrs ago when lesbians were being raped by men to keep them hetero? I think that’s where you were going… or somewhere else in outer space.
Yeah, you said: “… in the early 70’s, lesbians insisted that support of abortion rights was a great concern of theirs. It seems rape resulting in pregnancy was a practice used against outdykes at the time.”
Goodness, you guys will say anything to maintain the gayDemocrat grip on our civil rights movement. Utter bunk, dalea.
Like trying to argue that it’s abortions free for 12 yr olds or chaining ’em to a bed until they produce… now there’s a fair choice.
posted by dalea on
FTR I lean PUMA. And will probably vote Barr or McKiney next month. Could this site have some sort of moderation?
Guttmacher appears to be an impartial source. It is certainly to the right of the leftys cited. All of which has nothing to do with Bin Laden. On foreign policy I probably closest to Ron Paul.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Nice dodge and spin, dalea… but it ain’t selling anywhere except Biden’s hometown of Scranton… where they’ll believe almost anything, evidently.
Guttmacher is now right-wing? What a crock!
Abortion is still readily accessible, reasonably available and can be of little cost even to penniless 14 yr old girls if they get to the “right” abortion promoter… whoops, counselor.
Now, what was that nonsense claim of your’s about the gay civil rights movement includes abortion rights because 40+ yrs ago lesbians were being raped to keep ’em hetero?
Try staying on topic, dearie. It makes discussion easier. BTW: Cynthia McKinney spells her name with two “n”s… it might make finding her on your ballot a bit easier.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I think our IGF village troll, Patrick Gryphomon, is back for another round of thread hijack. Readers beware.
Super-Meme | September 30, 2008, 11:24pm | #
He’s the guy who has been booted off more blogs, blacklisted at more sites than even Charles Wilson –IGF’s former village idiot.
If you get a chance, you can read about Patrick Gryphmon’s antics in blog-o-land here http://www.gryphmon.com/
Please visit his site ’cause no one else does and he’s begging for attention.
posted by Pat on
Again, be honest, ETJB; you use the money argument as a means of justifying your support of infanticide and murder. That’s why your friends found their abortions to be a “difficult, vexing, decision”; the vast majority of non-sociopathic humans know it’s wrong to kill a defenseless baby for decisions that you made.
Yet, NDT, most people in this country are pro-choice. Go figure.
NDXXX offers: “The irony of a person who claims to be Jewish promoting that is not lost on anyone.”
You know, NDXXX, as a pro-choice GOPer
Matt, interesting that neither you nor ETJB, who are both pro-choice, have not “promot[ed] that” (encourage abortions because it’s cheaper), yet only one of you had his faith questioned.
Even if your claims about the abortion rate and the HIV/AIDS rate among black women are both true, it’s not necessarily the case that black women have a lot more unsafe (i.e., condomless) sex than non-black women.
Throbert, thanks for pointing out how easily statistics can be misinterpreted and abused.
posted by Patrick on
Apparently someone hasn’t used thier blogarific syntax 2000 from AnnArbor, craptastic Capitol in Michigan. IGF Village idiot writes “Blah blah blah IGF village troll, Patrick Gryphomon, is back for another round of thread hijack blah blah blah lookatme lookatme blah blah gayDemocrat chortle BarryO whoop de do blah blah blah spindogewhirlBLAH” o.O
posted by ETJB on
I was using the so-called “money argument” to illustrate the hypocriscy of those pro-lifers who have a lot of passionate chest beating about the rights of the unborn and
socieites duty, but then get all silent when the child is actually, well, born.
The pro-life movement is not really pro-life.
If, as some pro-life advocates maintain, it is not socities business to ensure that every child born has access to decent food, water, shelter, health care, education, and an equal opportunity, then society has very little business being involved in the decision of a pregant woman to have or not have children.
The pro-choice movement is also, not really pro-choice. Unless we deal with these same type of issues I fault the bulk of the pro-life movemnent for ignoring, then it is hard to argue that a woman is really “choosing” to have an abortion, if she is unable to care for the child, or even herself, on her own.
I have a lot of criticism for both the pro-life and the pro-choice movement.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, I’m trying to understand your point in “Matt, interesting that neither you nor ETJB, who are both pro-choice, have not “promot[ed] that” (encourage abortions because it’s cheaper), yet only one of you had his faith questioned”. Care to explain?
As for this nonsense from ET: “I was using the so-called “money argument” to illustrate the hypocriscy of those pro-lifers who have a lot of passionate chest beating about the rights of the unborn and socieites duty, but then get all silent when the child is actually, well, born.”
I guess when Pro-Life of Michigan raised $3,780,000 last year to assist families in adopting special needs children who were, by function of their birthmothers’ own admission, destined for the medical waste bin… that isn’t sufficient to ET.
I mean, to ET, if it didn’t become a govt program with hundreds of bureaucrats spending other peoples’ money, it can’t be good.
Pro-Life groups NOT helping out in fostering adoptions, is it ET? You couldn’t be more wrong –although you’ve tried to be more wrong on more than a few occasions here.
Maybe someone should tell them to stop their advocacy work in 307 social service agencies to promote adoption. Posters, brochures, 24 hr telephone lines, intervention volunteers, direct payments for heating, housing, health care. Yeah, those Pro-Life folk sure don’t walk the talk.
Maybe they should stop their support of counseling in Michigan’s 244 hospitals and clinics helping young birthmothers make good, informed decisions instead of just listening to the abortion industry promoters and sidewalk counselors. Yeah, those Pro-Life folks sure don’t walk the talk, eh ET?
Maybe they should stop the Annual Youth Award promoting wise decisions made by Michigan youth in preventing abortions and choosing life, adoption and responsible action? Thats’ where they raised $3.7 m last year –and not a single dime went to the PL-MI organization –it went to the 987 kids and parents of the kids with special needs. Yeah, those Pro-Life folks sure don’t walk the talk.
You know what, ET, opinions like yours which are imbedded with partisan self-interest have little utility in a world seeking informed discussion.
I’m not a Pro-Life supporter but I respect the hard, steadfast work they’ve done to improve our society and advocate against abortion… but more importantly, walk the talk when it comes to saving precious children from the medical waste bin.
BTW ET, I think this thread was about divorcing the abortion rights issues from the gay civil rights movement… not about gays defending the abortionists.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pat, I’m trying to understand your point in “Matt, interesting that neither you nor ETJB, who are both pro-choice, have not “promot[ed] that” (encourage abortions because it’s cheaper), yet only one of you had his faith questioned”. Care to explain?
That’s pretty easy, Matt; Pat is trying to provide cover for abortion-promoting gays like ETJB by insinuating that I’m not being fair in my attacks, since he claims you both are “pro-choice”.
The difference is that you, as you pointed out, actively work to fund and provide alternatives for abortion, and definitely hold the people involved responsible.
In contrast, ETJB excuses murdering children because society doesn’t provide every child a free ride, and without that, obviously the child’s life won’t be worth living and they’re better off murdered.
You look for reasons not to abort children; ETJB makes constant arguments as to why children should be aborted. You obviously don’t think abortion is a good or socially-beneficial thing, regardless of the circumstances into which the child is born, and work to change that; ETJB argues that abortion is both good and socially-beneficial, and promotes it in lieu of sexual responsibility.
posted by Mark F. on
ND40:
What penalties do you support for women who have abortions? By your logic, they are accomplices in murder. Please be specific.
posted by ETJB on
M&M;
I hate to burst your little bubble, but not all Americans, women other otherwise, live in Michigan. Raising money for volunteer and or charitable work is an important noble thing and I have been invovlved in several successful fundraising initiatives for non-profits.
However, it is no where near enough to deal with the costs involved in rasing a child intro adulthood. If society, through law, wants to collectively require all pregnant women to give birth, then society has to be willing to pick up the collective tab for these children. Food, water, shelter, education, medical care, housing, transporation, etc.
You cannot argue, without being a hypocritc, that having/raising children into adulthood is soley a private responsiblity, but the decision to have or not have those children is soley a social responsibility.
Adoption is certainly a possibility, and should be promoted, However, some conservatives are uncomfortable with gay couples becoming parents and some liberals get uncomfortable with certain transracial adoptions. Beyond that, you still have the issue of collective social responsibility for the children that society seeks to require being born.
Some pro-life groups are more involved then others, and in most cases, at least in my experience, (I have personally know four women in this situation) their is limited support for a few months, maybe and then prospective mother is on her own.
Getting back to the original topic here, it is certainly a good think to poin out that their are people who pro-life and pro-choice people who support gay rights. Just as its important to point out that their are gay Democrats, Republicans and Independents who support gay rights.
Some LGBTA people strongly feel that support for reproductive rights is part of a suitable coalition for feminism and gay rights. Other people do not.
A good faith, but civil and sincere diologue would be best, but that is unlikely to happen when people feel free to call any some one who disagres with their abortion politics as a baby killer or a mss murder.
Politically it is tough because, traditionally, pro-life politicians also tended to be very much opposed to feminism and gay rights legislation. Before candidates or news media outlets readily talked about LGBT rights issues, abortion politics (being pro-life or pro-choice) were often the buzz code words for not just abortion politics but also gay rights.
A reporter would probably ask a candidate where they stood on abortion, long before they asked them about gay rights and thus a connection was made. Outside the gay press, it pretty rare for federal, major party candidates to say much about gay rights, although they might talk about abortion.
Today, I can not think of many federal politicans who are very pro-life but have a great record on gay rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What penalties do you support for women who have abortions? By your logic, they are accomplices in murder. Please be specific.
There are several approaches which could be taken, Mark.
Perhaps the simplest would be to deal with those who kill their children the same regardless of whether they are in utero or not.
After all, there is precedent; the Endangered Species Act applies the same penalties to those who illegally harvest eggs or cause endangered species to abort or miscarry as it does to those who kill an adult animal. You would think that a civilized society like our own that would extend such protections to animals would do the same thing to humans.
The second way is to not worry about the women, but to ban the act of providing abortion services, which is what was originally done in most cases.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If society, through law, wants to collectively require all pregnant women to give birth, then society has to be willing to pick up the collective tab for these children. Food, water, shelter, education, medical care, housing, transporation, etc.
Since society does not require people to have unprotected sex, and indeed comes out strongly against it, society has no responsibility to pay for the consequences of their actions for those who choose to do so.
The fact that a child will not have “sufficient” whatever is the fault of the people who chose to produce it, not society. If you cannot afford a child, don’t have unprotected sex. If you can’t provide a child with the proper home, don’t have unprotected sex. When you choose to have unprotected sex, you are assuming the responsibility for the consequences. Society’s role is to hold you responsible for your decisions.
Politically it is tough because, traditionally, pro-life politicians also tended to be very much opposed to feminism and gay rights legislation.
Not surprising, because, as we’ve seen here, gay and lesbian people have made it obvious that anyone who is opposed to abortion is “antigay”, just as so-called “feminists” have claimed that anyone who is opposed to abortion is “anti-woman”.
A good faith, but civil and sincere diologue would be best, but that is unlikely to happen when people feel free to call any some one who disagres with their abortion politics as a baby killer or a mss murder.
I quote what Rosendall said above:
I think it comes down to sexual self-determination, notwithstanding my recognition that abortion (unlike gay sex in and of itself) involves the taking of a life (something that most pro-choicers either deny or avoid discussing)
Since abortion is “taking a life”, it is literally killing a baby; therefore, anyone who does it or facilitates it is a baby killer.
posted by ETJB on
I have never advocated the murder of children. It is hysterical, hateful and malicious comments such as this that ensure that abortion politics remain at a counterproductive dead end, and must people polled remain pro-choice.
The pro-life movement maintains, in many cases, a hypocriticial position. They want to keep, and or support, the priviatization of being a parent ana raising children, but want to socialize the decision to have or not have children.
The pro-choice movement maintains, in many cases, a hypocritical position. They talk about choices (i.e. abortion, birth control, adoption) but also tend to gloss over the role that socio-econommics play in what choices people have. Both sides are overlly found of outragoues political street theatre, but do not want to dig too deeply into pesky class issues.
In their effort to rant and rave, often to the point of personal excitment, both sides tend to offer little in the way of a construsctive and civil debate beyond shouting matches, fligging the latest buzzwords around and seeing who can call who a Communist or a Fascist the loudest.
Well I have known four women in my life who have gotten pregannt and been faced with the prospect of abortion. Two had an abortion, and it was a deeply difficult, complicated and personal decision.
Two initially decided to keep their kid, although one did end up giving their baby to a lesbian couple. I have a pretty good idea of what does and does not exist service wise and the assortment of rethoric, and bumper sticker slogans that pro-life and pro-choice people sling around.
I do believe that much more can be done to prevented unaplanned pregnacies, which means fewer abortions. I think adoption is a great option and was involved in some efforts to make it easer for adults to adult kids (which got me some cold shoulders from the left and right-wing).
I think that if pregannt women had a better network of support and resources — public and private, then they may feel more adapt to have their baby. From what I saw and experienced in helping some friends of mine, the support is marginal.
I do think that it is best for ‘the people’ to decide abortion law through regular, free and fair elections. I suspect the result would not be too different from the current court orthdoxy, but it might give people some sense of closure and being angry at politicans is probably a bit healthier then judges.
For the record, Jewish beliefs about abortion do not really fall within the pro-life or the pro-choice political camps.
Getting back to the central topic. By all means, people need not be pro-life or pro-choice to be an political or social ally for gay rights.
I know many young Catholics and evangelical Protestants who are much much opposed to abortion/reproductive rights, but also support some gay rights issues and want to see the Church play a bigger role in fighting poverty, and global warming. I have also noticed that many of these younger Christians also want to have more interfaith diologue with Jews and Muslims.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong about pro-life folks not “walking the talk” –at least here in Michigan there are excellent examples to refute your silly contention that pro-lifers don’t care and aren’t committed about what happens to the child after being saved from the medical waste bin.
Oh, wait, you didn’t admit that even in the face of irrefutable facts?
How typical of you, my liberal friend.
Of course, when you can’t admit you were wrong about Mark Bingham and your comments demeaned him, how could IGF readers expect you to admit even more errors in your wake?
Now, you were saying something banal and shallow like “some of friends oppose abortion, some of my friends have had difficult abortions, some of my friends support abortions… I’m standing with my friends” or something equally banal.
No need to burst anyone’s bubble, ET –God, you are the definition of shallowness.
posted by Pat on
Matt: Pat, I’m trying to understand your point in “Matt, interesting that neither you nor ETJB, who are both pro-choice, have not “promot[ed] that” (encourage abortions because it’s cheaper), yet only one of you had his faith questioned”. Care to explain?
NDT: That’s pretty easy, Matt; Pat is trying to provide cover for abortion-promoting gays like ETJB by insinuating that I’m not being fair in my attacks, since he claims you both are “pro-choice”.
Matt, NDT has it partly right, the being unfair in his attacks. The rest he got wrong.
NDT, in this thread both Matt and ETJB have indicated they were pro-choice (their actual words, not my claim). And neither has indicated they support promoting abortions.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Thanks Pat. I appreciate the explanation. I’m pro-choice because that’s the law… and the supposedly evil anti-gay judges that W appointed to SCOTUS feel, like I do, that Roe v Wade is pretty much settled law.
Restrictions on choice? Oh yeah.
Thanks for the clarification. MM
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said “I think you, next to PrincessPriya, are the one to use the words “lie”, “liar” and “lying” more often than if we add up all the other collective IGF commenters together.”.
That’s because I’m merely pointing out that you and Northdallas lie more than the otther collective commenters on the entire internet together.
posted by dalea on
MM says: ‘The second way is to not worry about the women, but to ban the act of providing abortion services, which is what was originally done in most cases.’
What a concept! Let’s treat alcoholism by banning alcohol. Let’s treat drug addiction by outlawing drugs, wait we do that. What a great program with super results. Not. Do you honestly think that at a blog where many libertarians post, is a place this sort of argument makes any sense. Yes, it used to be illegal. And many women died or were maimed by backalley abortions. It appears the rate of abortions is pretty much the same whether it is illegal or legal; just legal is so much safer.
I always found the libertarian view on abortion best expressed in a title: The Fetus That Wanted A Free Lunch.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What a great program with super results. Not.
Oh, the melodramatics. If we followed the same rule, we’d legalize murder because current laws against it don’t stop it completely.
Meanwhile, here’s a bit of numbers for you; on average, in the United States each year, over 42,000 people die from car accidents, over 100,000 people die from excessive alcohol consumption, and over 430,000 people die from causes linked to smoking.
In 2005, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of abortion-promoting organization Planned Parenthood.
Put differently, abortion kills twice as many people per year as do smoking, alcohol abuse, and car accidents combined.
And many women died or were maimed by backalley abortions.
Back-alley abortions are unnecessary if one exercises sexual responsibility and avoids promiscuous and unprotected sex.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea writes: “MM says: ‘The second way is to not worry about the women, but to ban the act of providing abortion services, which is what was originally done in most cases.”
I never wrote that and in my 40+ yrs of livin’, never said it either.
Care to correct that mistake of yours, dalea?
posted by Pat on
Thanks Pat. I appreciate the explanation. I’m pro-choice because that’s the law… and the supposedly evil anti-gay judges that W appointed to SCOTUS feel, like I do, that Roe v Wade is pretty much settled law.
Restrictions on choice? Oh yeah.
Thanks for the clarification. MM
No problem, Matt. I appreciate that your position is based on that it appears that Roe vs. Wade is settled law. That doesn’t necessarily have to prevent you or anyone else from being pro-life though. I sense from your posts that you feel the best way to reduce abortion is by means other than turning over Roe v. Wade or by an amendment.
Most pro-choice people I know do favor restrictions. Of course, the debate is what restrictions.
Further, my belief is that the abortion issue is totally separate from LGBT issues.
posted by ETJB on
People differ on when life begins, and when abortion is ethically immoral or moral.
If you do not believe that life begins at conception, then you are probably not going to think that abortion is murder. If you maintain this religious belief, then you probably do think that abortion is murder.
Most Americans tend to believe that abortion should be rare, but legal up to a certain point, which is why bans on ‘late term’ abortions tend to get much more support, including from the USSC. Bans that include ‘early term’ abortions tend to be strongly opposed.
BTW, Roe v. Wade is certainly not “settled law”, it was pretty much overruled in the 1990s and is not really the legal standard used. Also the Congress has the power to overturn, almost, any federal court decision. The Congress can declare or stop wars, bring down presidents, etc. They are the most powerful branch, when they want to be.
Yet, most elected lawmakers understand (or believe) that if Roe or PP v. C, vanish, then so will the two-party system.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
ET proposes: “BTW, Roe v. Wade is certainly not “settled law”, it was pretty much overruled in the 1990s and is not really the legal standard used. Also the Congress has the power to overturn, almost, any federal court decision”
Well, ET, you were wrong on the difference between basic political terms like bipartisan and non-partisan… you were wrong in demeaning Mark Bingham’s memory and then hiding from accepting responsibility for your actions and apologizing to all gays for demeaning our community’s greatest hero of the century…
And now you contend Roe isn’t settled law? Maybe you should get a note to TeddieKennedy who grilled now CJ Roberts on whether or not he thought it was settled law –they both agreed it was.
Maybe you should get a note to LyinJoeBiden who repeatedly and pointedly grilled SCOTUS AJ Ailto on whether or not he thought it was settled law –they both agreed it was.
Maybe you should contact the Harvard University Law School’s journal editors of the last 25+ yrs who have written and published extensively on the “settled law” apparent in the Roe v Wade decision.
BTW, you don’t know jack about govt or politics, ET.
As for Congress having the power to overturn any federal court decision?
When Roe v Wade was decided, a very liberal US Senator said “I’m glad the Court decided it because I didn’t want the Congress to have to handle that issue”… do you know who that Senator was ET?
Of course you don’t. You don’t even know the difference between bipartisan and non-partisan. Maybe it’d be best if you stuck to gay matters and stopped trying to advance any kind of opinion on govt or politics… for you, that’s far too heavy lifting.
As you, all too often, prove.
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt appears to be a bit ignorant about American constitutional law.
Fact: Roe, which I have problems with, talked about early term abortions as a fundamental right and then lessen the right the later the pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) abandoned the notion of abortion being a fundamental right and gives the States and the Federal government much more authority to regulate and in some cases ban abortions.
OK, now here is a question for you all; where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court, or any federal court, have the power to declare a law unconstitutional?
Answer: It is not in the Constitution.
The Congress gave the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution does and does not mean and thus what laws are unconstitutional.
Beyond the Supreme Court, the other federal exist and function at the discretion of the Congress.
So, all Congress would have to do was pass a law prohibiting the Federal courts for ruling on abortion and, abortion law would be decided by elected lawmakers.
Why don’t they do this? Well, they did something similar with Terri S. case, but the major reason is that if law makers had total responsibility over abortion law, the two-party system would crumble into a thousand pieces, not to mention a lot careers would go down the tubes.
By ‘settled law’, what they are really saying is that most pro-life and pro-choice politicians do not want the ones responsible for deciding when abortion is legal or illegal.
Given the rancor, passion, prejudice and hatred directed at the Supreme Court, I am not entirely without sympathy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Nice try at the dodge & spin two-step, but I think your dance card has been revoked, ET. Long overdue, at that.
I’m not the one, you are, who gets basic concepts like bipartisan confused with non-partisan, settled law confused with political expediency and fails to express an informed opinion about even basic legal issues.
ET first wrote: “BTW, Roe v. Wade is certainly not “settled law””
Well, ET, you were wrong on the difference between bipartisan and non-partisan in another thread… you were wrong in still another thread in demeaning Mark Bingham’s memory and then hiding from accepting responsibility for your actions and apologizing to all gays for demeaning our community’s greatest hero of the century…
And now you still contend Roe isn’t settled law? Maybe you should get a note to TeddieKennedy who grilled now CJ Roberts on whether or not he thought it was settled law –they both agreed it was.
Maybe you should get a note to LyinJoeBiden who repeatedly and pointedly grilled SCOTUS AJ Ailto on whether or not he thought it was settled law –they both agreed it was.
You can’t argue that Roe v Wade is ripe for overturning or a reversal when the Lion of the Senate (TeddieK) and the Liar of the Senate (JoeyBiden) both made it a point to quiz the most recent SupCt justices on the notion of whether or not Roe v Wade is settled law. You may think you know something about law, ET, but I think the current Chief Justice of SCOTUS trumps you when he said, under oath, “‘Roe is the settled law of the land”.
Credibility is not your best suit, ET. And BTW, you still don’t know jack about govt or politics… or, not surprisingly, constitutional law.
It’s a pattern, no?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Some days, it’s like shooting stupid fish in the barrel with a shotgun… ET spits out this nugget of fish food:
“The Congress gave the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution does and does not mean and thus what laws are unconstitutional.”
Ummm, no ET. The Congress didn’t exist when the power of the Supreme Ct was established in Art 3 Sec 1.
The Sup Ct in Marbury decided that IT had the power to review the Constitution, not Congress.
From time to time, Congress can modify the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts –but neither Congress nor the Executive can alter SCOTUS as you suggest. They can try and have tried, but the Sup Ct has ruled those actions unconstitutional.
Honest, stop making yourself into the village idiot and get a history book, read about the Courts, learn before you make any more utterly uninformed comments like this one:
“The Congress gave the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution does and does not mean and thus what laws are unconstitutional.”
Fish in a barrel, ET; fish in a barrel. Oh wait, you’re the alien botanist trying to get home… you’re all about plants.
posted by ETJB on
Roe v. Wade is not, “settled law”. Laws can and do change.
Court opinions certainly do change when society changes, technology changes or the membership of the court changes.
Roe’s, legal principles has been seriously undermined with the subsequent 1992 ruling.
posted by ETJB on
For some one who claims to oppose, “activist judges” you shouuld note that judicial review is not a power found within the Constitution. Perhaps another one of your little, white hood, lies.
Congrss passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, to decide the format of the USSC and to create the lower federal courts.
It is this law, and subsequent laws, that give or take away the power of a federal court (with few exceptions) to hear a particular case.
The Supreme Court gave itself (1803) judicial review, but did so based on the Congressional law.
The Congress has the power to abolish every federal court, besides the supreme court, to decide how many members sit on the Court and (generally) what type of cases the court may take.
This is Constitutional Law 101 and is sometiems called the judicial “nuclear option”.
Hence, if pro-life, elected politicians really want to prohibit all or most abortions they have the power to do so.
Yet, most elected officials do not want to decide when abortion is legal or illegal.
They want limited responsibility in this policy area, to protect their own careers and the current two-party system.
The Congress has the power to forbid a federal court from taking cases dealing with abortion, which would do what many pro-life Americans claim to want; let elected lawmakers decide when abortion is illegal or legal.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Ummm, ET, I hate to burst that alien bubblehead of yours but Congress wasn’t around when the Framers drafted the language creating SCOTUS. The Court decided to add judicial review of the Constitution to their duties, not Congress. You continue to get even objective, straightforward facts wrong and you can’t seem to stop. Over and over.
It appears that you not only don’t know what bipartisan means, how non-partisan differs, what settled law means to most leagl scholars and lawyers… but you also don’t know much about the US Constitution or con law history. Damn, that’s scarey for someone who claims he writes professionally… along with 8-9 other jobs.
Settled law, ET, isn’t about unchanging court decisions… it’s about whether or not the fundamental right to an abortion was decided in Roe V Wade… that’s what TeddieKennedy meant when he asked CJ-designee Roberts if he would agree that Roe V Wade is settled law…. that’s what LyinJoeBiden meant when he asked AJ-designee Alito if he would agree that Roe V Wade was settled law… that’s what Sen Feinstein meant when she had those comments read into the Sen Judiciary Committee minutes and record.
Settled law, ET. As in Roe v Wade. You claimed it wasn’t… it is. You were wrong. You still can’t accept responsibility for your misstatements, mistakes and deceptions.
Sort of sounds like BarryO’s inability to admit the Surge in Iraq worked. Or that he shouldn’t have taken bundles of campaign cash from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Do I detect a pattern in farLeft liberals? Yeah, I think so.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And not too put too fine a point on ET’s plundering, blubbering nonsense about Roe v Wade as settled law… during the 2008 Democrat Party prez debates, NMexico Gov Bill Richardson used the expression “settled law” in reference to his criteria for SCOTUS nominees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ac3gsRjw0
Give a listen, ET. Learn instead of continuing on in ignorance. And then, when you’re ready, say “Sorry Matt. I got that one wrong, too”.
OK? Be a man for once… you’ve failed that test repeatedly here at IGF
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt;
The Federal Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the general power of judicial review and it certainly does not give it to other ‘inferior’ federal courts who only exist as the Congress feels is best. This is a basic fact.
The Founding Fathers did not put in this explicit general judicial review power when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. They certainly new what it was, but choose not to put it in their.
The power of judicial review was given to the federal courts by Congressional legislation. The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to give itself judicail review.
It got the power of judicial review from the Congress, who was familiar with its English Common law tradition and found it benifical, in saving careers and the two-party system, by dumping certain senititive or controverial issue into the federeal courts lap.
The Congress does have the power to abolish all the ‘inferior’ federal courts, or otherwise tell them what to do (i.e. Terri case). The Congress could tell all federal courts not to take certain types of cases. This is unlikely to happen, not because of constitutional law, but because of what such a decision would likely do to people’s careers and the two-party system.
Roe v. Wade is not the standard used by the majority of the court when it comes to judging the constitutionality of Federal or State abortion law. It has not really been the standard since 1992, although it still gets invoked by the more liberal or libertarian justices.
The fact that politicians assert that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” does not make it true. Prospective federal judges who may answer in the affirmative, are not going to outright overturn the current legal standard on abortion (although their is no such thing as a ‘super precedent’), because it is precedent.
Most justices dislike rapid or sudden overrulings of a legal precedent (smaller or gradual erosion is more acceptable), even if they do not like it, unless they feel it is really necessary.
The major point being that the Congress gives the federal courts the power of general judicial review, the federal courts like having this power (their careers and the two-party system) and thus do not want to risk losing it.
Be a man? “Honey, I am more man then you will ever be and more woman then you will ever get”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones home with “The Federal Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the general power of judicial review”
I never said that either, ET. I told you about judicial review and Marbury v Madison, remember? You thought Congress gave that power to the Court.
I explained to you why Roe v Wade is settled law and CJ Robert, AJ ALito, Sen Kennedy, Sen Biden, Sen Feinstein, Sen Durbin and a host of constitutional law scholars agree.
You’re the one who keeps getting basic polisci and law issues confused. Like non-partisan and bipartisan and they’re different meanings.
Then, ET, you leave the dictionary home and phone in from the spacecraft: “The Founding Fathers did not put in this explicit general judicial review power when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. They certainly new (sic) what it was, but choose not to put it in their (sic).”
Never said they did, ET. I told YOU how the writ of judicial review was a power rightly asserted by the Marshall court.
You were the one who wrongly claimed that Congress controls the Court’s agenda… you wrongly claimed that Congress can restrict the Court’s jurisdiction –I’ve explained that the Court can rule those restrictions unconstitutional and has done so in the past.
I think instead of just repeating the nonsense YOU think passes for observations or informed opinion, you need to take some time and actually learn about our system of govt and courts.
It all comes down to the fact that you shouldn’t have taken those college classes from jr community colleges who advertise on the back of matchbox covers… there’s where your sizable problems began.
[BTW, you sure are sounding a lot like RichardII and making the same grammatical mistakes these days, ET… question: Did you go by RichardII here until widely discredited?]
posted by ETJB on
Congress did give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. They certainly did give it to all the inferior federal courts. What they give, they can also take away or effectively control. Your inability to deal with basic facts is simply stunning.
Your explantation of Marbury v. Madison was flawed, but I will let that go, for now. You seem to have a problem realizing that the Congress let the Supreme Court give itself the power of judical review. That one of its first pieces of legislation was giving the court that power.
Then and now, the Congress wanted to be able to avoid certain controversial or hot button issues. Today, it explains why most politicans who claim to be pro-life or pro-choice are being less then entirely truthful, because they do not want to tell the federal courts not to take abortion cases.
Most Federal politicans are very, very happy with having little responsiblity over abortion law. Apparently, most abortion is number one issue voters — despite their political street theatre — are also happy with this situation as well.
Roe v. Wade is not settled law. Heck, its legal principles have largely been replaced with the 1992 case I mentioned and explained to you. People who suggest otherwise, especially for the cameras, are, typically, engaging in a bit of deceptive, political street theatre.
Most federal politicans, Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice, do not want to be the federal courst shoes on abortion law. Most federal justices are well aware of this fact, and they do not want to risk their own careers or the two-party system.
posted by jake on
i don’t think we need to be constitutional law scholars or very liberal elected officials or very conservative judicial types to know the following, despite what etjb erroneously offers:
1) roe is settled law and certifying adherence to that fact is what leads most liberal u s senators when they review judicial nominees to the federal courts
2) congress wasn’t even created when the framers created the supreme court and no amount of thrashing about by etjb will help him rewrite history and, no, congress didn’t give the supreme ct the power of judicial review -matt from michigan is right, the marshall court established that power in marbury and martin
3) the supreme court created for themselves the right to judicial review of the constitution -crap, i learned that fact in grade school for christ’s sake
4) ETJB began by incorrectly stating:
a) Roe v. Wade is certainly not “settled law”;
b) Congress has the power to overturn, almost, any federal court decision;
c) Congress gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
i looked at my msn encarta citation and here’s what they say, slamming the door on etjb thrashing about:
“Supreme Court of the United States, highest court in the United States and the chief authority in the judicial branch, one of three branches of the United States federal government. The Supreme Court hears appeals from decisions of lower federal courts and state supreme courts, and it resolves issues of constitutional and federal law. It stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, and its decisions can be changed only by a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court?s most important responsibility is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This power, known as judicial review, enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with its interpretation of the Constitution.”
etjb, you’re as wrong on these basic facts as you have been pointed out to be wrong about bipartisan and nonpartisan, about why you thought it was alright to demean mark bingham’s memory and senator mccain’s tribute of that great gay hero, et cetera
give it a rest
you were wrong
posted by Pat on
Matt, Jake, I’m by no means a constitutional expert. But I don’t see why ETJB’s statement that Congress gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review implausible. First of all, I thought Congress was first elected in 1789. It seems like the power of judicial review had to come from somewhere. Had Marbury v. Madison been decided without at least some kind of tacit approval, I don’t see how that decision could have stood. It does not appear that the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court, or even the ability of the Supreme Court to be able to decide on it, was enumerated in the Constitution.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, Congress didn’t “give” the SupCt the power of judicial review over the Constitution -the Marshall Court took it. They took it based on a long precedent of English common law… the Congress is an co-equal branch with the judiciary. Marbury articulated the new Court’s power of judicial review… one which has, from time to time, tried to be constrained by both Congress and the Executive and… in all instances, the Court’s preeminent position on the matter has been reinforced.
RichardII or ETJB or whatever name he’s going to go by now tried to claim that under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress “gave” the SupCt the right of judicial review.
Flat out wrong. In fact, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was one of the very first Congressional acts the SupCt overturned!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789
The Act gave the SupCt jurisdiction over a limited class of cases… the SupCt took the power of judicial review over Constitutional issues in Marbury.
Any 1st yr ConLaw student knows these simple facts… it isn’t about political philosophy or ideology. RichardII or ETJB was simply flat-out wrong.
Just like he was when he claimed that pro-Life folks aren’t willing to help support kids averted from abortion and the waste bin…
Just like he was when he claimed that Roe v Wade wasn’t settled law.
posted by Pat on
Thanks, Matt. I understand what you’re saying about the Judiciary Act of 1789. But it seems to me that there would have to be some consensus to allow the Supreme Court to give themselves the power of judicial review, which they apparently did in Marbury v. Madison. Otherwise, Congress and the President could have simply ignored such a thing, as it wasn’t clear who had the power of enforcement back then. Fast forward to today, since this has been the way of the past 200 years, it obviously has been standard practice and accepted.