NationStates Jolt Archive

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

There it is ladies and gents.

State your views on this here. Do you think it would over turn Roe V. Wade?
Bear in mind that there have been changes in the law since the time this was written. Hey, lots of things happen in 6 year periods.
And I attempted to take the interests of all sides into consideration, except the government's which really doesn't have any interest.

This would overturn Roe vs. Wade as this amendment gives states all the authority over allowing or banning and regulating abortion while Roe vs. Wade gives all women the right to an abortion during the 1st trimester. I don't think this will pass as most pro-choice people will think this is a covert way to ban abortion, and many pro-life people want to use federal power to ban abortion.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.


The President can't issue laws anyway. The only legislative power the President has is his veto.

This proposal would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would, however, leave open the question of whether state constitutions protected a woman's right to choose.

Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate.

This proposal would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would, however, leave open the question of whether state constitutions protected a woman's right to choose.

Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate.

Actually the state constitutions do protect a woman's right "to choose".
The amendment would set that in stone at the federal level by prohibiting the federal Congress from acting favorably or unfavorably on the act of or quest for abortion.
I hold the protections provided in the state constitutions are more than enough to counterbalance any concerns about the loss of federal oversight. The less government involvement in this issue the better off women will be.

"Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate."
Surely you can do better than that?

Would you really prefer to rely on the will of a group of judges which can be easily overturned by the will of another group of judges?
As long as we leave it to the Supreme Court to protect a woman's right to choose, that right will have its foundation in sinking sand as the court's decision in any woman's abortion case could easily be overturned by a later court and the that revoked by the court doing the overturning.

If there is a constitutional amendment that says that the federal government can neither promote, nor discourage abortions, and the state constitutions already protect a woman's right to choose at the state level, I would think that a woman's right to choose would be fully protected by the stone foundation of our nation, the US constitution.

But I want to know what the women here think. Particularly the American ones, since the proposal would affect them most.

Also, (to everyone else, not to Cat-Tribe), if you are going to say it would overturn Roe v Wade, explain why you think that. Cause I thought about all the possible contingencies I could think of. But if I might missed one or two. So if you can explain why you think it would overturn RvW I might have already thought about it and wrote the proposal this way in order to deal with that particular type of issue.

Trans-human']This would overturn Roe vs. Wade as this amendment gives states all the authority over allowing or banning and regulating abortion while Roe vs. Wade gives all women the right to an abortion during the 1st trimester. I don't think this will pass as most pro-choice people will think this is a covert way to ban abortion, and many pro-life people want to use federal power to ban abortion.
Regarding your last sentence:
1. I haven't found any yet. Except for Jacobia.
2. Past experience on this issue shows you to be right on that one. Hence their claimed reason for opposing it. It would have barred them from banning abortion using the federal government's coercive powers. But if you are pro-choice, do you really want to leave the door open for the other side to use the federal goverment to impose it moral religious will upon you?
And if you are pro-life, do you want the federal government to force you to involuntarily support abortions that you object to on conscientious grounds?

Regarding your point about giving the states all authority over the issue. You need not be concerned cause, as I pointed out in response to Cat-Tribe, the states' various constitutions have provisions in them that directly protect a woman's right to choose.
Such that a state cannot ban abortion without violating its own constitution. And changing a state's constitution cannot be done easily. It would require a vote of the people. And which gender makes up the majority of voters at the state level? Women.
That begs a question of you, do you think women would really be willing to vote to give up a right they think is fundamental and important to themselves?

The President can't issue laws anyway. The only legislative power the President has is his veto.
The issue part is in there to prevent him from attempting to use his executive order powers.
The main point here is that the executive would be blocked from enforcing any laws regarding abortion. (He would still be able to enforce any decisions made by the US Supreme Court however).

snip

No effect. Roe v. Wade is a court decision that is based on the concept of a privacy right predicated on the 4th, 9th, and 14th ammendments. The Canales Ammendment would likely end up being nothing more than a symbolic nod the the notion of state's rights.

More to the point, pro-lifers who think this is a good idea are shooting themselves in the foot. This ammendment would close any federal legislative or executive power they have in the abortion debate. Remember, current undesputed precident holds abortion to be a constitutionally protected right, and the states are required to play by constitutional rules by section 1 of the 14th ammendment.

It is also important to note that Roe v. Wade is not the end of the discussion. The Pro-lifers could get it overturned tomarrow and abortion would still be legal. There have been a series of court decisions that have upheld or expanded Roe over the years and abortion is generally considered a matter of settled law by the courts. Remember, the privacy right argument on which Roe hinges is one of the weakest pro-choice argument available and the pro-lifers haven't managed to muster a real challenge to even that low bar.

The fight is over, the forces of religion lost. Go home and stop clogging up the system.

This proposal would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would, however, leave open the question of whether state constitutions protected a woman's right to choose.

Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate.


How do you figure? The language doesn't mention the 4th, 9th, or 14th ammendments with any specificity. All it does is limit the power of congress and the president. I can see how section 4 of the ammendment might be read by some as restricting the powers of the courts, but it can just as easily be read (especially when there is no direct mention of the federal courts even while the executive and legistature are mentioned) plainly as reserving the power to make laws in that arena to the states. That doesn't negate judicial oversight.

Would you really prefer to rely on the will of a group of judges which can be easily overturned by the will of another group of judges?
As long as we leave it to the Supreme Court to protect a woman's right to choose, that right will have its foundation in sinking sand as the court's decision in any woman's abortion case could easily be overturned by a later court and the that revoked by the court doing the overturning.

If there is a constitutional amendment that says that the federal government can neither promote, nor discourage abortions, and the state constitutions already protect a woman's right to choose at the state level, I would think that a woman's right to choose would be fully protected by the stone foundation of our nation, the US constitution.

This ammendment has NO jurisdiction over the courts. Even if legislation and execution is forbidden at the federal level, the 14th ammendment provides the federal courts as a final level of appeal. The Canales ammendment has no wording that could be reasonably read to limit that power.

abortion is really a state issue.
The 11th amendment clearly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and their people.
The constitution does not give power over abortion to the federal government.
If most people were smart enough to realize this, the Canales amendment would not be necessary.
And as you admitted, the reasons for the passage of Roe v Wade are indeed very very weak. The reason the Pro-life side has not succeeded in challenging it is because they always start off by saying something like "thus saith the Lord" or "abortion is against christian morals". They keep getting defeated cause they keep using religion to try to overturn it.
Roe v Wade could easily be overturned, and in the next court, it is very likely that it will be. Due to the fact that it rests on a very shaky foundation that itself, is highly suspect and questionable as one Supreme Court historian has stated.

How do you figure? The language doesn't mention the 4th, 9th, or 14th ammendments with any specificity. All it does is limit the power of congress and the president. I can see how section 4 of the ammendment might be read by some as restricting the powers of the courts, but it can just as easily be read (especially when there is no direct mention of the federal courts even while the executive and legistature are mentioned) plainly as reserving the power to make laws in that arena to the states. That doesn't negate judicial oversight.



This ammendment has NO jurisdiction over the courts. Even if legislation and execution is forbidden at the federal level, the 14th ammendment provides the federal courts as a final level of appeal. The Canales ammendment has no wording that could be reasonably read to limit that power.
You make a good point.
Thing is, I don't think I want to limit court involvement. Because if there are extreme cicumstances that require the involvement of the federal courts, for example, suppose State A decides to change its constitution, because its women, for whatever reason, decide they want to give up their right to choose (unlikely). Sally gets knocked up. If she gives birth it will kill her and the child will die anyway. If she gets the abortion, the state will prosecute her for murder.
Now, the way it is supposed to work, is that Sally gets protection from such persecution from the state courts. But, what if somehow, the governor stacked the state courts (I admit this is unlikely to happen in the US)?
We must leave open for Sally some means of vindication and the only thing I can think for such a case (as unlikely as it is to happen in rl) is to keep open the power of the federal courts to review and if necessary overturn the decisions of the state courts.
The ultimate remedy of being able to appeal to the US Supreme Court must be kept open to protect people such as the hypothetical Sally.
The federal courts must also be free to protect the prolife side. Suppose state B passes a very pro-choice law and now requires that everyone, including pro-lifers must pay for other people's abortions. So it imposes a 25% (percentage is exagerrated to make a point) abortion tax so that women can get absolutely free abortions anytime for any reason (even if its just on a whim). This would violate a pro-lifers right to freedom of consceince under the first amendment. Now suppose, as is the case in the rl, the state courts decide that the state's power to force all of its citizens to support stuff they oppose on moral grounds takes precedence of the people's rights as pronouned in the 1st amendment? Again, remedy through the federal courts must be kept open for an extreme case such as this.
I would not want to take away the federal court's ability to correct extreme abuses of the system.

abortion is really a state issue.
The 11th amendment clearly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and their people.
The constitution does not give power over abortion to the federal government.

Umm...no. The 10th ammendment reserves powers not specifically delegated. If read in conjunction with the 9th theres a pretty good argument that most of those "powers" are really default rights reserved by the people, but that is a bit off topic.

To address your argument directly, it is an open question. Pro-choice advocates would argue that the federal government has jurisdiction because of it's constitutional responsibilities to protect the rights of it's citizens. Under this argument, the federal courts would have jurisdiction over ANY state or federal action that infringes upon these rights. Now, there are several major rights that are at issue here.

The first is a privacy right that was established in Griswold v. Conneticut and has stood unchallenged (and often strengthened) to this day. The argument is simple, it doesn't matter if abortion is legal or not, the government has no legal way to discover a crime has been committed and therefore has no jurisdiction. It goes a bit deeper, arguing that any law which would forbid an action the government has no legal way of discovering is suspect. Roe v. Wade is a weak case because the wording in the majority decision lacks precision. Still, it has stood because an argument against it simply cannot be formed.

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, abortion would still be legal, and it is likely another abortion case built on the same argument would become precendent, only the judges would be careful to word the decision better.

After privacy, the next major constitutional argument in favor of abortion is the competing rights issue. It would be difficult to argue that the government has the power to force an individual to sacrifice their body without due process or conscription. Forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy legally amounts to the forceable seizure and occupation of property. Even if a fetus has a "right" to live, it doesn't have a right to live there.

After the competing rights argument there is the 9th ammendment argument. Usually 9th ammendment arguments have trouble gaining traction because there is no historically protected right to use as evidence. Not the case with abortion. That would leave the the government having to prove that a right to abortion both does not exist, and that the government has the authority to legislate in that area.

Next comes a medical argument, attacking the authority of a government to outlaw a medical procedure that is generally considered to be safe and effective.

If all that fails (which I doubt, since pro-lifers have yet to manage to even threaten, much less overturn, Roe), there always the 3rd ammendment ;)

And as you admitted, the reasons for the passage of Roe v Wade are indeed very very weak. The reason the Pro-life side has not succeeded in challenging it is because they always start off by saying something like "thus saith the Lord" or "abortion is against christian morals". They keep getting defeated cause they keep using religion to try to overturn it.
Roe v Wade could easily be overturned, and in the next court, it is very likely that it will be. Due to the fact that it rests on a very shaky foundation that itself, is highly suspect and questionable as one Supreme Court historian has stated.

Ok, Roe v. Wade wasn't "passed." It isn't a law or an executive order, it is a court decision that was issued by a branch of the federal government that is not mentioned in the Canales ammendment. The reason they have failed to challenge is isn't because they bring religious arguments to the court but because they have failed to find a single valid LEGAL argument.

Also, I take issue with your argument that the next court will overturn Roe. Can you give me a reason for that belief? At last count the Supreme court looked like it was likely 6-3 in favor of Roe (Roberts replaced Reinquist, a no vote for a no vote means no change). If Alito makes it through and he is a no vote that makes the new count 5-4. Maybe. If a case makes it to the court. And the court decides to hear it. And the votes go the way they're expected. Even then, it is VERY possible that the court might, in one decision, both overturn Roe and establish a new precident with the same effect and better wording.

I would not want to take away the federal court's ability to correct extreme abuses of the system.

You can't. Unless you change the US constitution. It is an all or nothing proposition. Either the federal courts can hear any case they choose to that is appealed to them, or they can only hear federal cases. Even then, making something a federal case only requires that you make your arguments within the framework of the US constitution. Section I of the 14th ammendment makes the states follow the US constitution as well as their own, and it grants the US constitution primacy (if a state constitution and a the US constitution disagree, the US constitution is right, period).

how can it NOT overturn roe v wade? it takes all control of abortion away from the federal government. roevwade mandated how abortion can be legislated in this country by both federal and state governments.

perhaps SOME state constitutions protect a woman's right to choose. many do not and many that now can be ruled to protect a womans choice would be ammended so that it would be banned (texas, kansas and oklahoma immediately come to mind)

why in the world would anyone make an ammendment to the constitution if they thought it wouldnt change anything??

Umm...no. The 10th ammendment reserves powers not specifically delegated. If read in conjunction with the 9th theres a pretty good argument that most of those "powers" are really default rights reserved by the people, but that is a bit off topic.

To address your argument directly, it is an open question. Pro-choice advocates would argue that the federal government has jurisdiction because of it's constitutional responsibilities to protect the rights of it's citizens. Under this argument, the federal courts would have jurisdiction over ANY state or federal action that infringes upon these rights. Now, there are several major rights that are at issue here.

The first is a privacy right that was established in Griswold v. Conneticut and has stood unchallenged (and often strengthened) to this day. The argument is simple, it doesn't matter if abortion is legal or not, the government has no legal way to discover a crime has been committed and therefore has no jurisdiction. It goes a bit deeper, arguing that any law which would forbid an action the government has no legal way of discovering is suspect. Roe v. Wade is a weak case because the wording in the majority decision lacks precision. Still, it has stood because an argument against it simply cannot be formed.

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, abortion would still be legal, and it is likely another abortion case built on the same argument would become precendent, only the judges would be careful to word the decision better.

After privacy, the next major constitutional argument in favor of abortion is the competing rights issue. It would be difficult to argue that the government has the power to force an individual to sacrifice their body without due process or conscription. Forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy legally amounts to the forceable seizure and occupation of property. Even if a fetus has a "right" to live, it doesn't have a right to live there.

After the competing rights argument there is the 9th ammendment argument. Usually 9th ammendment arguments have trouble gaining traction because there is no historically protected right to use as evidence. Not the case with abortion. That would leave the the government having to prove that a right to abortion both does not exist, and that the government has the authority to legislate in that area.

Next comes a medical argument, attacking the authority of a government to outlaw a medical procedure that is generally considered to be safe and effective.

If all that fails (which I doubt, since pro-lifers have yet to manage to even threaten, much less overturn, Roe), there always the 3rd ammendment ;)



Ok, Roe v. Wade wasn't "passed." It isn't a law or an executive order, it is a court decision that was issued by a branch of the federal government that is not mentioned in the Canales ammendment. The reason they have failed to challenge is isn't because they bring religious arguments to the court but because they have failed to find a single valid LEGAL argument.

Also, I take issue with your argument that the next court will overturn Roe. Can you give me a reason for that belief? At last count the Supreme court looked like it was likely 6-3 in favor of Roe (Roberts replaced Reinquist, a no vote for a no vote means no change). If Alito makes it through and he is a no vote that makes the new count 5-4. Maybe. If a case makes it to the court. And the court decides to hear it. And the votes go the way they're expected. Even then, it is VERY possible that the court might, in one decision, both overturn Roe and establish a new precident with the same effect and better wording.
You are right that it is indeed the 10th. Why was I thinking 11th for some reason?

2. Valid argument since the US Constitution states that only people BORN on US territory can be counted as natural citizens of the US. The preborn have no rights under the US Constitution under this argument, which I have noted, is not addressed by the pro-life side nor cited by the pro-choice side. I refer to the 14th amendment which you cited to support a different argument. But it also supports this one:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" As I read that, the preborn cannot have any rights under the constitution because they are not US citizens.
The application of the second part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and its applicability to the situation is not settled since it is still debated (for some reason) whether the preborn count as persons. But until that is decided clearly, I think only the first part should apply.
Such that we end up having the ability to use the 14th to support both sides of the abortion argument and admit that my attempt to use that section to support a pro-abortion argument is shaky. Since the first section may seem to be contradictory. Which is why we need science to determine the point at which a preborn child actually becomes a person.
I think the Supreme Court tried to address this issue with the limited knowledge they had at the time. That is why they said states could only regulate it after a specific trimester because they held that before that trimester, the fetus was not a person. I believe the cut off point they used was the third. I might be wrong.
3. Suspect assumption here. The US Congress regularly reviews the medical records of private citizens on a daily basis. They have the power to do this because it is necessary to them to be able to do their job. The same with the executive branch. If they find that a person has had an abortion while undertaking their legal job, that is a legal finding of a violation of the law.
This doesn't apply to private persons or groups. Only to the federal goverment. And of course, if they find such a violation, they have the power to seek a court order authorizing a search and further investigation to determine whether a crime occured and to collect the evidence they need.
4. In the case of the 9th, it would be difficult because you have two rights that are in conflict. The right of the woman, and the right of the fetus.
5. I was referring to the fact that they made religious statements instead of valid legal arguments. But I think we are saying the same thing, just differently.

how can it NOT overturn roe v wade? it takes all control of abortion away from the federal government. roevwade mandated how abortion can be legislated in this country by both federal and state governments.

perhaps SOME state constitutions protect a woman's right to choose. many do not and many that now can be ruled to protect a womans choice would be ammended so that it would be banned (texas, kansas and oklahoma immediately come to mind)

why in the world would anyone make an ammendment to the constitution if they thought it wouldnt change anything??


It takes authority away from the executive and legislative branches. I agree, it is a bad idea, and it's proponents clearly believe that it will strengthen their position. The issue I am arguing is that this ammendment simply doesn't effect the courts, and it is the courts which decided Roe v. Wade. Abortion is (whether opponents like it or not) a constitutional issue. As such, the federal courts will ALWAYS have jurisdiction over it.

I'm sure people think that the Canales ammendment will change things, but it likely won't. Hell, it probably won't even pass. Still, it is a very bad idea, and it is an attempt (even if ineffectual) to constrict abortion rights.

Shit like this is why I fly the Gadsden flag.
(http://www.gadsden.info/)

It takes authority away from the executive and legislative branches. I agree, it is a bad idea, and it's proponents clearly believe that it will strengthen their position. The issue I am arguing is that this ammendment simply doesn't effect the courts, and it is the courts which decided Roe v. Wade. Abortion is (whether opponents like it or not) a constitutional issue. As such, the federal courts will ALWAYS have jurisdiction over it.

I'm sure people think that the Canales ammendment will change things, but it likely won't. Hell, it probably won't even pass. Still, it is a very bad idea, and it is an attempt (even if ineffectual) to constrict abortion rights.

Shit like this is why I fly the Gadsden flag.
(http://www.gadsden.info/)
of course it affects the courts. the part where it say "SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION." invalidates all federal abortion law. all questions of the legality of abortion would no longer be a federal matter. it would all belong to the states. as in "SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST".


thats a big change.

2. Valid argument since the US Constitution states that only people BORN on US territory can be counted as natural citizens of the US.

Or naturalized. Not really part of the discussion, but it is important to point out.

[QUOTE=Whittier--]The preborn have no rights under the US Constitution under this argument, which I have noted, is not addressed by the pro-life side nor cited by the pro-choice side. I refer to the 14th amendment which you cited to support a different argument. But it also supports this one:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" As I read that, the preborn cannot have any rights under the constitution because they are not US citizens.
The application of the second part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and its applicability to the situation is not settled since it is still debated (for some reason) whether the preborn count as persons. But until that is decided clearly, I think only the first part should apply.
Such that we end up having the ability to use the 14th to support both sides of the abortion argument and admit that my attempt to use that section to support a pro-abortion argument is shaky. Since the first section may seem to be contradictory. Which is why we need science to determine the point at which a preborn child actually becomes a person.

Wrong. A fetus is not a person. It is not generally identified as a person under the law, nor is there a tradition of giving it any rights.

Even if it was, you're reading selectively. That little due process clause is pretty important. Even if a fetus is a person, even if you look at the facts of a case in the light that most favors the fetus, the woman will always win a competing rights argument. A fetus has no valid claim on the womb of a woman, there is your due process. A fetus becomes a person when it leaves the womb (either by birth or cesarian). You're grasping at straws, and your consistant use of the term "preborn" says volumes.

[QUOTE=Whittier--]3. Suspect assumption here. The US Congress regularly reviews the medical records of private citizens on a daily basis. They have the power to do this because it is necessary to them to be able to do their job. The same with the executive branch. If they find that a person has had an abortion while undertaking their legal job, that is a legal finding of a violation of the law.
This doesn't apply to private persons or groups. Only to the federal goverment. And of course, if they find such a violation, they have the power to seek a court order authorizing a search and further investigation to determine whether a crime occured and to collect the evidence they need.

Look at the case law, read Griswald. Hell, read the actual text of Roe. You are running into some rather serious problems with your assumptions. For a warrant to be issued you need admissable probable cause. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section; Ferguson v. City of Charleston as to the problems with gathering evidence.

4. In the case of the 9th, it would be difficult because
you have two rights that are in conflict. The right of the woman, and the right of the fetus.

Only if a fetus has rights. If a fetus has already been decided to not have rights, then the 9th ammendment argument becomes a nearly impossible burden on the government.

5. I was referring to the fact that they made religious statements instead of valid legal arguments. But I think we are saying the same thing, just differently.

Right, but they made those because there IS NO valid legal argument.

Regardless of your feelings about the organization, Planned Parenthood has a good round up of the major abortion cases in the last 50 or so years, along with brief summaries of the issues and outcomes here: http://plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-rulings.xml

If you distrust them, just grab the case names and google.

of course it affects the courts. the part where it say "SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION." invalidates all federal abortion law. all questions of the legality of abortion would no longer be a federal matter. it would all belong to the states. as in "SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST".


thats a big change.


Wrong. Look at Section I of the 14th ammendment. The federal courts have jurisdiction over anything that infringes on the constitutional rights of citizens. Abortion is a constitutional right, therefore the federal courts can intervene if a state law violates it. Canales doesn't interfere with that basic excercise of jurisdiction. It is still a bad idea, and I hope it doesn't pass, but I'm less worried about the power it has (which is little) and more worried about the implicit message it sends.

yeah the 14th ammendment might carry right up to the point where you pass a constitutional ammendment that exempts abortion from federal consideration

granted its not the best written hunk of legislation ive ever seen, it doesnt even define abortion. it may need a bit of tweaking but YEAH its intent is to overrule roe v wade and instead of banning abortion in the US, to make it a state by state decision.

yeah the 14th ammendment might carry right up to the point where you pass a constitutional ammendment that exempts abortion from federal consideration

granted its not the best written hunk of legislation ive ever seen, it doesnt even define abortion. it may need a bit of tweaking but YEAH its intent is to overrule roe v wade and instead of banning abortion in the US, to make it a state by state decision.


Yes, but it is so badly written that it fails to even notice the judicial branch. All the damned thing would do is preclude legislative or executive action. Hell, nowehere in it's text does is even mention who gets to interpret state laws on the issue. In order to preclude federal judicial review they would have to either edit the 14th or specifically mention the courts. The Canales ammendment does neither, it essentially decalres abortion to be subject to the 10th ammendment. I mean, it is so badly written it doesn't even manage to address what it is trying to address. This is what the pro-life movement has degenerated into, a bunch of bumbling fools who can't even manage to pull off a dirty political trick.

Honestly, donate some time (or money, they could use it) to the local planned parenthood, open a beer, make some popcorn, and laugh at the troglodytes. If you're still worried at the end of the day, buy a gun.

So many posts to respond to, I think I'll just lay out my thoughts in general, and let you figure out what is in response to whom:

1. The proposed amendment would not directly overturn Roe, but, as an amendment to the Constitution, it would allow arguments that Roe is unconstitutional and that would lead to it being overturned. It is an indirect attack. Basically, since Roe has been declared correct under the Constitution, and the anti-choice faction hasn't been able to prove otherwise, they just want to rewrite the Constitution and then say, see, it's unconstitutional, just like we said.

2. Abortion is not a state issue. It is a medical procedure. Like all medical procedures it should be subject to a universal standard of regulation. This is why there are not 50 FDAs.

3. Demands for abortion to be handed over to the states come from anti-choice groups. Because there are several states currently dominated by the religious right or with influential anti-choice leaders, they feel they may be able to get abortion banned in those states, which would be at least a partial victory for them. You'll notice you never hear a call for state control over abortion from pro-choice groups or medical professionals.

4. The Constitution is supposed to lay out the process of running the country, making law, and related practical procedures. I think it's rather grossly inappropriate to try and amend the Constitution for such narrow issues. I also consider any amendment that would take away rights from any segment of the citizenry to be downright un-American.

Yes, but it is so badly written that it fails to even notice the judicial branch. All the damned thing would do is preclude legislative or executive action. Hell, nowehere in it's text does is even mention who gets to interpret state laws on the issue. In order to preclude federal judicial review they would have to either edit the 14th or specifically mention the courts. The Canales ammendment does neither, it essentially decalres abortion to be subject to the 10th ammendment. I mean, it is so badly written it doesn't even manage to address what it is trying to address. This is what the pro-life movement has degenerated into, a bunch of bumbling fools who can't even manage to pull off a dirty political trick.

Honestly, donate some time (or money, they could use it) to the local planned parenthood, open a beer, make some popcorn, and laugh at the troglodytes. If you're still worried at the end of the day, buy a gun.
Excellent advice. I'll take it. :D

Yes, this Canales thing reads like he had his 13-year-old great-grandson write it for him. It's nothing but a ruse to get floor time for the old dude.

2. Abortion is not a state issue. It is a medical procedure. Like all medical procedures it should be subject to a universal standard of regulation. This is why there are not 50 FDAs.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have the one, what with the hell OTC morning after pills have been going through.

3. Demands for abortion to be handed over to the states come from anti-choice groups. Because there are several states currently dominated by the religious right or with influential anti-choice leaders, they feel they may be able to get abortion banned in those states, which would be at least a partial victory for them. You'll notice you never hear a call for state control over abortion from pro-choice groups or medical professionals.

The downright deceptiveness of it really disgusts me. I don't see how we can have all this yammering about states being in charge of medical procedures when the hard right is storming state-run marijuana distribution centers for cancer and aids patients...

4. The Constitution is supposed to lay out the process of running the country, making law, and related practical procedures. I think it's rather grossly inappropriate to try and amend the Constitution for such narrow issues. I also consider any amendment that would take away rights from any segment of the citizenry to be downright un-American.

You do? I bet you think a flag burning ammendment is a bad idea, too...comrade!

Seriously, all good points, all dead on, three cheers for Muravyets!!!

How do you figure? The language doesn't mention the 4th, 9th, or 14th ammendments with any specificity. All it does is limit the power of congress and the president. I can see how section 4 of the ammendment might be read by some as restricting the powers of the courts, but it can just as easily be read (especially when there is no direct mention of the federal courts even while the executive and legistature are mentioned) plainly as reserving the power to make laws in that arena to the states. That doesn't negate judicial oversight.

This ammendment has NO jurisdiction over the courts. Even if legislation and execution is forbidden at the federal level, the 14th ammendment provides the federal courts as a final level of appeal. The Canales ammendment has no wording that could be reasonably read to limit that power.

You are seriously misreading Section 4 of the Amendment. It unequivocably allows states to prohibit abortion. Thus, the federal courts would have no power under the 14th Amendment to say that prohibiting abortion is unconstitutional.

You are seriously misreading Section 4 of the Amendment. It unequivocably allows states to prohibit abortion. Thus, the federal courts would have no power under the 14th Amendment to say that prohibiting abortion is unconstitutional.


Hmm. I see your point. I still disagree, but I can definately see your point.

Wouldn't that create an issue of competing rights? What I mean to say is that if you are correct, wouldn't that turn abortion into an issue similar to say speech, association, press, or religion? More importantly, might something similar to the Lemon test be applied? Perhaps, under this ammendment, a state government could make the argument that it had both a compelling interest to legislate on the issue of abortion and the authority to do so, but a citizen could bring suit arguing that the law violated their rights? I would also be interested to see how laws stemming from an ammendment like Canales would be viewed in light Lawrence v. Texas. Constitutional power to outlaw something doesn't necessarily mean that the use of the power would be unconstitutional.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have the one, what with the hell OTC morning after pills have been going through.

The downright deceptiveness of it really disgusts me. I don't see how we can have all this yammering about states being in charge of medical procedures when the hard right is storming state-run marijuana distribution centers for cancer and aids patients...

You do? I bet you think a flag burning ammendment is a bad idea, too...comrade!

Seriously, all good points, all dead on, three cheers for Muravyets!!!
Why, thank you. :)

For the last 10 years or so, much of the US news has given us proof of just how self-serving, dishonest, and hypocritical are the people who are pushing this so-called "culture war" that's been plaguing us. I'm talking about the religious right.

They're for states rights and against federal power in states that support their issues, but they pull an about face in states that don't support them. Then it's all about national concerns and what the Constitution dictates. And they'll make this switch over and over within the same states, issue by issue.

As to the Constitution itself, they're strict constructionists if they can make it support them, but they think it needs emergency amending if it supports their opponents.

They lie constantly about their motives and agenda. They claim to support free religious rights in one breath while seeking to eliminate public references to all religions other than their own in the next (this "war on Christmas" bullshit). They just slap a secular title onto pure scripture and thus try to push obvious religion into politics and science. (One of my favorite Christmas presents this year was the court decision against the Dover PA School Board's ID policy -- "breathtaking inanity" -- lovely :D ) They claim to be free of prejudice, yet they are fighting tooth and nail to deny equal rights to gays. They say that all they want is this or that small concession, but every inch we give them leads to more aggressive pushing for more and more yardage.

This Canales thing is part of this pattern of indirect, incremental attack.

You are seriously misreading Section 4 of the Amendment. It unequivocably allows states to prohibit abortion. Thus, the federal courts would have no power under the 14th Amendment to say that prohibiting abortion is unconstitutional.
True. The claim on this would probably be that it would merely make the federal government completely neutral on abortion, but it does not remove abortion from government control. Rather, it breaks up control among 50 different authorities while at the same time allowing the federal government to cut off funding to medical care providers who offer abortion services. (Note that there is no limitation or definition attached to the word "funding." In practice, we have seen that such restrictions have caused funding to be cut off from clinics that offer full spectrum services, just because abortion is among them.) This is essentially a one-two punch that not only undermines access to medical services, thus creating legal fights, but also force pro-choice activists and lawyers to wage those fights on 50 different fronts with 50 sets of laws. Finally, by amending the Constitution, rather than merely making a new law, Canales seeks to head off appeals to the Supreme Court on civil rights claims.

As drafted, the amendment is a piece of crap that would be easy to throw out of Congress. But Canales is not a political rookie. He may not be able to write, but his agenda and his strategy are obvious.

True. The claim on this would probably be that it would merely make the federal government completely neutral on abortion, but it does not remove abortion from government control. Rather, it breaks up control among 50 different authorities while at the same time allowing the federal government to cut off funding to medical care providers who offer abortion services. (Note that there is no limitation or definition attached to the word "funding." In practice, we have seen that such restrictions have caused funding to be cut off from clinics that offer full spectrum services, just because abortion is among them.) This is essentially a one-two punch that not only undermines access to medical services, thus creating legal fights, but also force pro-choice activists and lawyers to wage those fights on 50 different fronts with 50 sets of laws. Finally, by amending the Constitution, rather than merely making a new law, Canales seeks to head off appeals to the Supreme Court on civil rights claims.

As drafted, the amendment is a piece of crap that would be easy to throw out of Congress. But Canales is not a political rookie. He may not be able to write, but his agenda and his strategy are obvious.


The little glimmer here is that by choosing an ammendment, he has likely ended the debate before it can even begin. In order to pass he'd need 66 votes in the Senate, 290 in the House, and 38 state legislatures behind him. Thats a pretty steep hill to climb, especially at a time when at least some republicans are starting to question how intelligent their entanglement with Robertson et al is.

The little glimmer here is that by choosing an ammendment, he has likely ended the debate before it can even begin. In order to pass he'd need 66 votes in the Senate, 290 in the House, and 38 state legislatures behind him. Thats a pretty steep hill to climb, especially at a time when at least some republicans are starting to question how intelligent their entanglement with Robertson et al is.
From your mouth to god's ear, if you'll pardon an old fashioned expression of hope. We'll see how the mid-term elections go.

Sadly dated states' rights claptrap. We solved this issue with the Civil War, civil rights, &c.


Local majorities cannot revoke rights as citizens.

You can't. Unless you change the US constitution. It is an all or nothing proposition. Either the federal courts can hear any case they choose to that is appealed to them, or they can only hear federal cases. Even then, making something a federal case only requires that you make your arguments within the framework of the US constitution. Section I of the 14th ammendment makes the states follow the US constitution as well as their own, and it grants the US constitution primacy (if a state constitution and a the US constitution disagree, the US constitution is right, period).
Actually the US Constitution says that Congress decides what the court gets to look at. The federal courts only gets to look at state cases because the Congress, passed a law that says they can.
Congress decides that court's jurisdiction, not the Courts. As for original jurisdiction, the Constitution severely restricts what the courts can claim for themselves.

Under Article III Section 2:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



As you can see, the Constitution does not give the federal courts the right to review state law or state law cases. Indeed, it only gives the Supreme Court the authority to determine whether a state law violates a federal law.
All other federal courts are not granted any authority under the Constitution and hence get all authority from Congress which, of course, can take it away. (which I note they were talking about doing a couple months back).
Heck, if you notice, it doesn't even give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted by Congress.
In the first Supreme Court case, in his opinion, Justice Marshall stated that there needed to be someone to interpret the Constitution and that the court would take that role. The court only got that role because Congress and the President accepted the proposal and have accepted it ever since. Because it avoids a lot of confusion.

of course it affects the courts. the part where it say "SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION." invalidates all federal abortion law. all questions of the legality of abortion would no longer be a federal matter. it would all belong to the states. as in "SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST".


thats a big change.

Let me see if I am reading you right. Are you saying that section 4 is too broad and gives too much power to the states?

The President can't issue laws anyway. The only legislative power the President has is his veto.
Um ... he can propose legislation to Congress and bring very strong influence to bear on it.

Sadly dated states' rights claptrap. We solved this issue with the Civil War, civil rights, &c.

Local majorities cannot revoke rights as citizens.
They can if the Constitution is amended to allow them to do so, as in this case. That's one reason the process for amending the Constitution is so stringent.

[QUOTE=Whittier--]2. Valid argument since the US Constitution states that only people BORN on US territory can be counted as natural citizens of the US.

Or naturalized. Not really part of the discussion, but it is important to point out.

[QUOTE=Whittier--]The preborn have no rights under the US Constitution under this argument, which I have noted, is not addressed by the pro-life side nor cited by the pro-choice side. I refer to the 14th amendment which you cited to support a different argument. But it also supports this one:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" As I read that, the preborn cannot have any rights under the constitution because they are not US citizens.
The application of the second part: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." and its applicability to the situation is not settled since it is still debated (for some reason) whether the preborn count as persons. But until that is decided clearly, I think only the first part should apply.
Such that we end up having the ability to use the 14th to support both sides of the abortion argument and admit that my attempt to use that section to support a pro-abortion argument is shaky. Since the first section may seem to be contradictory. Which is why we need science to determine the point at which a preborn child actually becomes a person.

Wrong. A fetus is not a person. It is not generally identified as a person under the law, nor is there a tradition of giving it any rights.

Even if it was, you're reading selectively. That little due process clause is pretty important. Even if a fetus is a person, even if you look at the facts of a case in the light that most favors the fetus, the woman will always win a competing rights argument. A fetus has no valid claim on the womb of a woman, there is your due process. A fetus becomes a person when it leaves the womb (either by birth or cesarian). You're grasping at straws, and your consistant use of the term "preborn" says volumes.



Look at the case law, read Griswald. Hell, read the actual text of Roe. You are running into some rather serious problems with your assumptions. For a warrant to be issued you need admissable probable cause. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section; Ferguson v. City of Charleston as to the problems with gathering evidence.



Only if a fetus has rights. If a fetus has already been decided to not have rights, then the 9th ammendment argument becomes a nearly impossible burden on the government.



Right, but they made those because there IS NO valid legal argument.

Regardless of your feelings about the organization, Planned Parenthood has a good round up of the major abortion cases in the last 50 or so years, along with brief summaries of the issues and outcomes here: http://plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-rulings.xml

If you distrust them, just grab the case names and google.

1. Yes I agree. I was only using the "born in the US" part to argue that fetuses don't have rights as citizens.

2. Whether a fetus is a person or not is still debated. Although it must be said that after the 3rd trimester, the law does recognize it as a person. As to prior to the 3rd trimester, the law and indeed the government contradicts itself. I say a fetus is either a person or it isn't. If you look at science however, scientists tend to agree that fetuses show traits that are common to all persons. The question is whether a fetus is self aware (has dreams, thoughts, etc.). We know that the fetus responds to everything the woman does or says to it. Did you know that fetus shows traits similar to anger or sadness when someone hits or yells at its mother? Actually it curls up into a tighter ball, as if its trying to hide. (a good reason not yell at pregnant women, cause you may be causing harm to fetus even if not the woman)

3. I say that due process is not met simply by the fetus being in the woman's body. There are other requirements such as the woman's physical life must be in danger.

4. If Congress banned abortion, and in their investigation which is a legal part of their job they come across that so and so had an abortion performed by so and so on such a date, that fills the requirement for plausible cause.

5. The US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade stated that the fetus has rights during the 3rd trimester at which point it said the states could ban or restrict abortion.

6. Planned Parenthood, it my community is known for lying and fraud. Not to mention many very serious health and public safety violations such as the illegal storage of lethal and volatile chemicals on the clinic property in violation of state law. They've been fined a few times.

yeah the 14th ammendment might carry right up to the point where you pass a constitutional ammendment that exempts abortion from federal consideration

granted its not the best written hunk of legislation ive ever seen, it doesnt even define abortion. it may need a bit of tweaking but YEAH its intent is to overrule roe v wade and instead of banning abortion in the US, to make it a state by state decision.
This amendment would supersede the 14th by explicitly giving the power over abortion to the states. If this is passed I don't think the 14th would apply anymore.
It has to maintain faith with the language and structure of the rest of the Constitution. That's why its not long and convoluted. It has to be very short and to the point so that you don't have to take a law class to understand it.
I think it ought to be upto the states to define abortion (which should not be debatable by any elitened person btw, we all know what abortion is)
You are right when you say the intent is to make a state by state decision. But how can you be certain this would of necessity overrule Roe?
I would think that women would be better off under the states. The states are after all, more responsive to them than the federal government is.
Would you not prefer that such a power be given to the one level of government that is most responsive to you rather to some people in a far away city who can't even give you the time of day to listen to your problems? I know that state legislators listen to their constituents all the time, versus those at the federal level who seldom have time for a townhall or two and even those don't cover all their constituents' needs or concerns.
An overly simplistic way to put it is this: the states rule for the people, Congress rules for itself. (not that simple but I think it does as a model unless you have a better one)

Excellent advice. I'll take it. :D

Yes, this Canales thing reads like he had his 13-year-old great-grandson write it for him. It's nothing but a ruse to get floor time for the old dude.
Old dude? I have you know I just turned 32 last week.

Old dude? I have you know I just turned 32 last week.
[ mutters ] ""bunch'a punk kids"" :D

I see some valid arguments and I see some posts that I don't think are even related to the abortion debate.

One, it is not my intention to remove the federal courts as relief of last resort for women or other persons who think the states might have gone too far. That is why I left them out. If, Cat-Tribe is correct in his reading, such clause allowing for the Supreme Court to review state laws and state court decisions might need to be included.

I disagree with the way the FDA runs things and I think marijuana should be left to the states and the federal government should butt out. But that's a seperate issue.

I also disagree that laws should be based on religion. The US is not a theocracy and should not become one. People have seen have capable I am of bashing the religious right when they need it. Even to the point that even the religious rights own enemies come to its aid.

I doubt that such people would be able to ban abortion at the state level. There are far too many forces acting against them. One is the fact that federal constitution mandates that every state must have a government representative of the people. A state that goes about making laws just because some religious group wants such laws, cannot be said to be representative of the people can it? Also, states must give priority to the health and safety of their citizens. I don't see how banning all abortions would not violate the health and safety of a state's citizens. But that is why my intent was and is to leave the federal judiciary room to maneuver.
A woman has just as much right to life as a fetus does. And, if the two coflict, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the woman.

I don't think the FDA should even be banning morning after pills. If their use were encouraged we would not need abortion so much.


Marijuana for purposes of treating critical diseases ought to be the perogative of the states. Yes the "anti-choice" side is hypocritical on this and other issues. But I am not one of them. You see me as one of them, but they see me as one of you. Which is it, surely I am not both. Or could it be that I am actually neutral and that people can find that scary.



Muravyets main concern seems to have more to do with the religious right than it does with the amendment would actually do.

I oppose this culture war as much as you claim to. The culture war is forced on us not just by republicans but by the democrats also. They use it in their elections.

I am aware of the up hill battle. That is why it doesn't expire or have to be reintroduced until 100 years after its introduction to the states It should give plenty of time for it to pass.

This proposal would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would, however, leave open the question of whether state constitutions protected a woman's right to choose.

Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate.

I disagree. It wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade but it would toss the question to the states. That is where it should be in the first place.

Besides that, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it won't make abortion illegal anyway.

Old dude? I have you know I just turned 32 last week.
I meant Mr. Canales. He's the "old dude." The "floor" was the Senate, for speechifying.

2. Whether a fetus is a person or not is still debated. Although it must be said that after the 3rd trimester, the law does recognize it as a person. As to prior to the 3rd trimester, the law and indeed the government contradicts itself. I say a fetus is either a person or it isn't. If you look at science however, scientists tend to agree that fetuses show traits that are common to all persons. The question is whether a fetus is self aware (has dreams, thoughts, etc.). We know that the fetus responds to everything the woman does or says to it. Did you know that fetus shows traits similar to anger or sadness when someone hits or yells at its mother? Actually it curls up into a tighter ball, as if its trying to hide. (a good reason not yell at pregnant women, cause you may be causing harm to fetus even if not the woman)

3. I say that due process is not met simply by the fetus being in the woman's body. There are other requirements such as the woman's physical life must be in danger.

4. If Congress banned abortion, and in their investigation which is a legal part of their job they come across that so and so had an abortion performed by so and so on such a date, that fills the requirement for plausible cause.

5. The US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade stated that the fetus has rights during the 3rd trimester at which point it said the states could ban or restrict abortion.

6. Planned Parenthood, it my community is known for lying and fraud. Not to mention many very serious health and public safety violations such as the illegal storage of lethal and volatile chemicals on the clinic property in violation of state law. They've been fined a few times.


A fetus is only considered a person by religious hacks. Fine, we've gotten to that point in the conversation. You're a pro lifer, I'm a pro choicer. You think I advocate murder, and I think that tresspassers on planned parenthood (or any abortion provider) property should be shot dead and left for the crows. There, its all out. I support the right of a woman to have final say over who and what can use her body and under what circumstances, I view anyone who threatens that right as a threat to the basic freedoms of our country. If a law were passed that banned abortion I would likely be involved in the active and willfull disobediance of that law and I feel that in that circumstance a violent and potentially insurrectionist response would be justified and appropriate. It is done. You are intellectually dishonest and I am an asshole, thanks for your time.

Local majorities cannot revoke rights as citizens.


Not to jump on a soapbox or anything but...perhaps this would be less of an issue if the minorities whose rights were threatened had both the will and the means to resist. *dreamily thinks of planned parenthood clinics staffed entirely by people with concealed carry permits*

As you can see, the Constitution does not give the federal courts the right to review state law or state law cases. Indeed, it only gives the Supreme Court the authority to determine whether a state law violates a federal law.
All other federal courts are not granted any authority under the Constitution and hence get all authority from Congress which, of course, can take it away. (which I note they were talking about doing a couple months back).
Heck, if you notice, it doesn't even give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted by Congress.
In the first Supreme Court case, in his opinion, Justice Marshall stated that there needed to be someone to interpret the Constitution and that the court would take that role. The court only got that role because Congress and the President accepted the proposal and have accepted it ever since. Because it avoids a lot of confusion.

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,"

If a law violates the constitution, the federal courts claim jurisdiction. What cases make the cut? Any case the courts decide to hear. It is black letter law. Traditionally, this had only applied to federal law, then there was a rather serious insurrection. See, after the civil war, congress and the states ammended the constitution several times, and one of the things they did was they forced the states to have the same restrictions on their power under the consitution that the federal government had. That meant that if a state law violated a citizen's constitutional rights, the court got to step in. The supreme court has both traditionally and constitutionally had the right to step in.

I see some valid arguments and I see some posts that I don't think are even related to the abortion debate.

One, it is not my intention to remove the federal courts as relief of last resort for women or other persons who think the states might have gone too far. That is why I left them out. If, Cat-Tribe is correct in his reading, such clause allowing for the Supreme Court to review state laws and state court decisions might need to be included.

<snip re FDA -- agreed.>

<snip re secular law -- agreed.>

I doubt that such people would be able to ban abortion at the state level. There are far too many forces acting against them. One is the fact that federal constitution mandates that every state must have a government representative of the people. A state that goes about making laws just because some religious group wants such laws, cannot be said to be representative of the people can it? Also, states must give priority to the health and safety of their citizens. I don't see how banning all abortions would not violate the health and safety of a state's citizens. But that is why my intent was and is to leave the federal judiciary room to maneuver.
A woman has just as much right to life as a fetus does. And, if the two coflict, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the woman.

<snip re pot & FDA -- agreed.>


Marijuana for purposes of treating critical diseases ought to be the perogative of the states. Yes the "anti-choice" side is hypocritical on this and other issues. But I am not one of them. You see me as one of them, but they see me as one of you. Which is it, surely I am not both. Or could it be that I am actually neutral and that people can find that scary.

Muravyets main concern seems to have more to do with the religious right than it does with the amendment would actually do.

I oppose this culture war as much as you claim to. The culture war is forced on us not just by republicans but by the democrats also. They use it in their elections.

I am aware of the up hill battle. That is why it doesn't expire or have to be reintroduced until 100 years after its introduction to the states It should give plenty of time for it to pass.
1. Are you Mr. Canales? You didn't write the thing, did you? ;)

2. Your argument relies on the fact that the majority of Americans want little or no change in Roe, and this is true. But in this or that state it may be different, depending on their demographics. So who rules, the majority in the states or the majority in the nation? (And, indeed, is it the majority of the people, or just the majority of the people who vote?) You may argue that the states are required to look out for and represent their people, but they are only required to do this for their people, i.e. New Yorkers, or Kansans, or Alaskans, not for all Americans. If one state's people want to ban abortion, then there would be nothing to stop them from doing so, even if the result would be bad for them -- and we already see glimmers of the bad results in areas where anti-choice pressure has caused clinics to shut down and abortion providers to relocate; the effects are immediate upon the poor, particularly the rural poor, who are thus cut off from not only abortion services but often also from a range of ob-gyn services. To put control of abortion into the hands of the states without a national standard for them to conform to would only worsen this effect.

Also, your argument ignores the provision in the proposed amendment that would end federal funding for abortion services. Many clinics and hospitals, especially those that serve the poor, are dependent on funding. Many states do not have the resources to take up the slack if the feds stop paying. This almost ensures loss of abortion services, even in states that otherwise would vote to keep it available.

3. I can speak only for myself, but my remarks were about the religious right. I was not trying to identify anyone here as a member of the religious right.

Yes, my concern is mainly about the religious right, because I don't see this proposed amendment as a states rights amendment. It is specifically about abortion and nothing else, and I definitely see it as an indirect attempt to undermine the availability of abortion by cutting off federal funds and eliminating a national standard regulating it. As far as I can see, there is no one in the US who wants to do this with abortion, other than the religious right. It is obvious that there is no other source for this amendment and no other agenda behind it.

3. I can speak only for myself, but my remarks were about the religious right. I was not trying to identify anyone here as a member of the religious right.

That particular comment, I think, was meant for me. I was the one who first began to imply that Whittier might not have been completely on the level with this thing when he started using phrases like "preborn." I've only heard that particular word come from one group of people, and it is pretty clearly designed to humanize a fetus.

That particular comment, I think, was meant for me. I was the one who first began to imply that Whittier might not have been completely on the level with this thing when he started using phrases like "preborn." I've only heard that particular word come from one group of people, and it is pretty clearly designed to humanize a fetus.
Yeah, whatever. I wouldn't mind being tarred with the same brush as you, but I just like to be clear about precisely how and why I'm going after people. ;)

Anybody who is familiar with Whittier knows he's playing coy here, but while you may call him on his true abortion stance, I'm happy to go after his attempt to make the Canales amendment look like it's not about restricting abortion.

Yeah, whatever. I wouldn't mind being tarred with the same brush as you, but I just like to be clear about precisely how and why I'm going after people. ;)

Why, I do believe thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. lol

Oh, and to the forum in general, sorry about losing my cool. Intellectual dishonesty is a bit of a raw nerve for me but I should have kept myself on a better leash.

Why, I do believe thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. lol

Oh, and to the forum in general, sorry about losing my cool. Intellectual dishonesty is a bit of a raw nerve for me but I should have kept myself on a better leash.
Now we just have to hear from the tar fetishists, and my day will be complete. :D

Um ... he can propose legislation to Congress and bring very strong influence to bear on it.

Right, but saying the President can "issue" laws implies (to me, anyway) that he would somehow be enacting legislation. If Congress were already prohibited from enacting any such legislation than any prohibition on the President "issuing" laws would be irrelevant. Of course this section would prevent the President from directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services from creating regulations.

Sadly dated states' rights claptrap. We solved this issue with the Civil War, civil rights, &c.


Local majorities cannot revoke rights as citizens.

Sorry, but I for one don't believe that "might makes right" so I don't believe the Civil War killed states' rights. Also, states' rights doesn't necessarily have to mean violation of civil rights by the states.

No majority can revoke rights. Isn't that the purpose of having a codified Constitution?

A fetus is only considered a person by religious hacks. Fine, we've gotten to that point in the conversation. You're a pro lifer, I'm a pro choicer. You think I advocate murder, and I think that tresspassers on planned parenthood (or any abortion provider) property should be shot dead and left for the crows. There, its all out. I support the right of a woman to have final say over who and what can use her body and under what circumstances, I view anyone who threatens that right as a threat to the basic freedoms of our country. If a law were passed that banned abortion I would likely be involved in the active and willfull disobediance of that law and I feel that in that circumstance a violent and potentially insurrectionist response would be justified and appropriate. It is done. You are intellectually dishonest and I am an asshole, thanks for your time.
1. How about we agree to disagree? My views on abortion and your views on abortion are irrelevant to the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to take government out of the abortion business.
2. I pass judgment on no one until I've seen evidence. We don't know why women choose abortions. Though I might oppose abortion in general, many women might actually have valid reasons for having them. That is why the amendment is not intended to, and does not address the rightness or wrongness of abortion. I hold that women ought to be given a benefit of the doubt.
3. Abortion itself is not a basic freedom or fundamental right, however every woman has a fundamental right to life and to be secure in her own person. I oppose your position yet I may have just given it a more valid argument than what you have been able to come with thus far.
4. You are advocating murder of not only fetuses but of US citizens who are protected by the law.
5. An violent revolt in response to the passage of this amendment or any other would be highly unlikely as the American people in all 50 states disdain bloodshed on their streets.
6. Intellectually dishonest? You have accused me of intentions that are not mine by any means. If they were, why I would be open to listening to what the posters here are posting about the amendment?
In fact, you have also called me a religious wacko.

1. Are you Mr. Canales? You didn't write the thing, did you? ;)

2. Your argument relies on the fact that the majority of Americans want little or no change in Roe, and this is true. But in this or that state it may be different, depending on their demographics. So who rules, the majority in the states or the majority in the nation? (And, indeed, is it the majority of the people, or just the majority of the people who vote?) You may argue that the states are required to look out for and represent their people, but they are only required to do this for their people, i.e. New Yorkers, or Kansans, or Alaskans, not for all Americans. If one state's people want to ban abortion, then there would be nothing to stop them from doing so, even if the result would be bad for them -- and we already see glimmers of the bad results in areas where anti-choice pressure has caused clinics to shut down and abortion providers to relocate; the effects are immediate upon the poor, particularly the rural poor, who are thus cut off from not only abortion services but often also from a range of ob-gyn services. To put control of abortion into the hands of the states without a national standard for them to conform to would only worsen this effect.

Also, your argument ignores the provision in the proposed amendment that would end federal funding for abortion services. Many clinics and hospitals, especially those that serve the poor, are dependent on funding. Many states do not have the resources to take up the slack if the feds stop paying. This almost ensures loss of abortion services, even in states that otherwise would vote to keep it available.

3. I can speak only for myself, but my remarks were about the religious right. I was not trying to identify anyone here as a member of the religious right.

Yes, my concern is mainly about the religious right, because I don't see this proposed amendment as a states rights amendment. It is specifically about abortion and nothing else, and I definitely see it as an indirect attempt to undermine the availability of abortion by cutting off federal funds and eliminating a national standard regulating it. As far as I can see, there is no one in the US who wants to do this with abortion, other than the religious right. It is obvious that there is no other source for this amendment and no other agenda behind it.
1. Yes I did. But I did not find anyone willing to provide input or concerns at the time so I ended up writing it without the input or help from any one. Because I didn't find any political activists who were willing to come to a compromise.
2. If a state's decision ends up hurting it, the people can always go back and reverse themselves. That's the beauty of our form of government. If majority rule violates the rights of a minority, that is why we have the courts. To prevent that. There was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona had to treat Californians the same way it treated its own people in regard to the distribution of gas. I forget the case name though. But it shows that states cannot treat the citizens of other states differently than their own.
The purpose of the state right section is to enable them to enact laws regulating abortion, not to enable them to ban it.

3. It is unfair to use money from people opposed to abortion to pay for abortion. It violates their rights.
4. The purpose of this amendment is to make the federal government neutral and return the issue to the states where it belongs. That and only that is the intent behind the amendment.

That particular comment, I think, was meant for me. I was the one who first began to imply that Whittier might not have been completely on the level with this thing when he started using phrases like "preborn." I've only heard that particular word come from one group of people, and it is pretty clearly designed to humanize a fetus.
I've always heard the religious right use the phrase "unborn". That I know of I coined the term "preborn" in the 90's while reading up on the issue because unborn did not seem to fit. How can anything become unborn? "Preborn" however makes more sense because it describes a state that before birth. The term itself does not address whether a fetus is a person or not though. Until now, I was not aware of anyone other than myself using the term.
I would like to know which groups in particular are using the term and how they are using it.

Yeah, whatever. I wouldn't mind being tarred with the same brush as you, but I just like to be clear about precisely how and why I'm going after people. ;)

Anybody who is familiar with Whittier knows he's playing coy here, but while you may call him on his true abortion stance, I'm happy to go after his attempt to make the Canales amendment look like it's not about restricting abortion.
Well, anyone who knows me knows I am not coy but brutish.
The Canales amendment is not about restricting abortion but rather about restricting government involvement to the state level.
The very purpose of state authority in the amendment, btw, is to allow states to ensure that abortions are done safely.

1. How about we agree to disagree? My views on abortion and your views on abortion are irrelevant to the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to take government out of the abortion business.
2. I pass judgment on no one until I've seen evidence. We don't know why women choose abortions. Though I might oppose abortion in general, many women might actually have valid reasons for having them. That is why the amendment is not intended to, and does not address the rightness or wrongness of abortion. I hold that women ought to be given a benefit of the doubt.
3. Abortion itself is not a basic freedom or fundamental right, however every woman has a fundamental right to life and to be secure in her own person. I oppose your position yet I may have just given it a more valid argument than what you have been able to come with thus far.
4. You are advocating murder of not only fetuses but of US citizens who are protected by the law.
5. An violent revolt in response to the passage of this amendment or any other would be highly unlikely as the American people in all 50 states disdain bloodshed on their streets.
6. Intellectually dishonest? You have accused me of intentions that are not mine by any means. If they were, why I would be open to listening to what the posters here are posting about the amendment?
In fact, you have also called me a religious wacko.


1) No, I won't agree to disagree. If you want to be anti abortion, fine, then be anti abortion, but don't lie to me. The ammendment isn't about taking abortion out of the government, it is about taking the federal government out of the equation in the hopes that some states might outlaw abortion. Be honest about your intentions, then maybe we can agree to disagree. Likely not, though, because I feel that anyone who would tromp on individual liberty in the name of religious beliefs is a traitor.

2) No, you hold that states should be given the power to pass those judgements. Again, be honest, lying makes the baby jesus cry.

3) If you oppose abortion, don't have one. Thats kinda the whole idea behind freedom, especially of the American variety. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

4) Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and tyrants have to die. Oh, and it isn't murdering a fetus, its evicting a squatter. Does that make the issue clear enough for you. It doesn't matter if turning you away will mean you freeze to death, I don't have to let you live in my home if I don't want to. If you refuse to leave after I tell you to, quite a few jurisdictions will allow me to shoot you dead if I feel you pose a threat. It doesn't matter if a fetus is or isn't a person, it is a trespasser that might just kill the host.

5) Unlikely, yes, but that doesn't me I wouldn't advocate it. I think that American politics would be alot less bleak if bad politicians found themselves hanging from trees occasionally. Fear tends to keep people on the level.

6) Yep, I'm calling you out. I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty and religious crankery. You've used the term "preborn" which you only hear coming out of the pro-life crowd. You've tipped your hand and called abortion murder. You're here advocating an ammendment designed to limit abortion rights and hiding behind a state's rights argument. If you were such a fan of states right, why haven't you suggested that we simply strengthen the 10th ammendment? Why have you decided to start a dialogue specifically about abortion, even if you've got a little bit of obfuscation? I've no stomach for the game. Play dumb, play the hero, play the martyr, I don't care. Anyone who has bothered to pay attention can see what you are as plain as day.

I've always heard the religious right use the phrase "unborn". That I know of I coined the term "preborn" in the 90's while reading up on the issue because unborn did not seem to fit. How can anything become unborn? "Preborn" however makes more sense because it describes a state that before birth. The term itself does not address whether a fetus is a person or not though. Until now, I was not aware of anyone other than myself using the term.
I would like to know which groups in particular are using the term and how they are using it.

Well, either you're the Johnny Appleseed of of loaded terminology or more than one mind has managed to think of the amazingly innovative term "preborn." I've heard it in dozens of internet and face to face discussions, from more than one prolife talking head on tv, and read it in the literature of Operation Rescue and others.

Google the word Preborn and you get 115,000 returns.
Well, anyone who knows me knows I am not coy but brutish.
The Canales amendment is not about restricting abortion but rather about restricting government involvement to the state level.
The very purpose of state authority in the amendment, btw, is to allow states to ensure that abortions are done safely.

Blah blah blah. To quote Judge Judy (I figure maybe you're a fan) "don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining." The purpose of the ammendment is to let states with enough conservative Christians ban abortion. Jeez, you even have fake arguments nested inside of eachother. Abortions are safe, as safe as they can be. The myth of unsafe abortions is perpetuated by pro lifers so they can restrict and legislate abortion out of existance. Your little ammendment would lead to quite a few unsafe abortions, as state after state that bans abortions sees a rise of coathanger wielding backalley abortionists serving a black market without even the basic protections of a medical procedure. Stop lying.

1) No, I won't agree to disagree. If you want to be anti abortion, fine, then be anti abortion, but don't lie to me. The ammendment isn't about taking abortion out of the government, it is about taking the federal government out of the equation in the hopes that some states might outlaw abortion. Be honest about your intentions, then maybe we can agree to disagree. Likely not, though, because I feel that anyone who would tromp on individual liberty in the name of religious beliefs is a traitor.

2) No, you hold that states should be given the power to pass those judgements. Again, be honest, lying makes the baby jesus cry.

3) If you oppose abortion, don't have one. Thats kinda the whole idea behind freedom, especially of the American variety. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

4) Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and tyrants have to die. Oh, and it isn't murdering a fetus, its evicting a squatter. Does that make the issue clear enough for you. It doesn't matter if turning you away will mean you freeze to death, I don't have to let you live in my home if I don't want to. If you refuse to leave after I tell you to, quite a few jurisdictions will allow me to shoot you dead if I feel you pose a threat. It doesn't matter if a fetus is or isn't a person, it is a trespasser that might just kill the host.

5) Unlikely, yes, but that doesn't me I wouldn't advocate it. I think that American politics would be alot less bleak if bad politicians found themselves hanging from trees occasionally. Fear tends to keep people on the level.

6) Yep, I'm calling you out. I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty and religious crankery. You've used the term "preborn" which you only hear coming out of the pro-life crowd. You've tipped your hand and called abortion murder. You're here advocating an ammendment designed to limit abortion rights and hiding behind a state's rights argument. If you were such a fan of states right, why haven't you suggested that we simply strengthen the 10th ammendment? Why have you decided to start a dialogue specifically about abortion, even if you've got a little bit of obfuscation? I've no stomach for the game. Play dumb, play the hero, play the martyr, I don't care. Anyone who has bothered to pay attention can see what you are as plain as day.
Such violent partisanship. Such virulent hatred that you show. :rolleyes:

Well, either you're the Johnny Appleseed of of loaded terminology or more than one mind has managed to think of the amazingly innovative term "preborn." I've heard it in dozens of internet and face to face discussions, from more than one prolife talking head on tv, and read it in the literature of Operation Rescue and others.

Google the word Preborn and you get 115,000 returns.


Blah blah blah. To quote Judge Judy (I figure maybe you're a fan) "don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining." The purpose of the ammendment is to let states with enough conservative Christians ban abortion. Jeez, you even have fake arguments nested inside of eachother. Abortions are safe, as safe as they can be. The myth of unsafe abortions is perpetuated by pro lifers so they can restrict and legislate abortion out of existance. Your little ammendment would lead to quite a few unsafe abortions, as state after state that bans abortions sees a rise of coathanger wielding backalley abortionists serving a black market without even the basic protections of a medical procedure. Stop lying.

LMAO. This is the best yet. "fake arguments nested inside of each other.?"
Are you actually serious are you someone's puppet?

1. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy based off the Bible. I oppose any laws that solely based off the Bible. That's the primary reason why I oppose the FCC. The FCC's entire regulatory power is based on the ability to censor in the name of morality. Whose morality? The morality of Christian fundamentalist wackos. And as long as the FCC continues to impose christian morals on the airwaves, I will continue to oppose its very existence.

2. Judge Judy is not a substantive person, she is nothing more than a TV show personality with no bearing on real life issues or cases.

3. Not in all cases. This amendment would allow states to conduct on site safety inspections. And if you are so convinced that all abortions are safe, you won't mind the state governments going in and conducting such inspections and imposing rigorous certification requirements for people conducting abortions. After all, we want to make sure the women who get the abortions are as safe as possible.

4. Even though, I am personally opposed to abortion, I think states should have the power to require that if any abortions are done in their borders, that such abortions be done free of charge. See, once this amendment passes, it might be easier to pass laws to prohibit people from making profits off of abortion. Example, Planned Parenthood which makes a pretty nice profit off the business. The one I love the most is this one: A law that would not only require abortion providers to give all women free abortions, but that would also prohibit any doctor who had previously performed abortions, from refusing to do abortions after he learns he can't profit from it. Thus all women will have fair and equal access to abortion because they can't denied on the grounds of inability to pay. All abortions must be done for free. It will place all women on equal footing with each other, instead of just the rich women being the only ones who can afford abortion while the poor have to rely on government generosity which contributes to the national debt whereby increasing the deficit.
It is wrong for anyone to profit off the unfortunate situation that any woman finds herself in. That is why it should be illegal to charge anyone for a woman's abortion. Abortion providers should be required to absorb the costs themselves.

I guess the big question is.. "Will it overturn RvW?"

Does it matter? Personally, I think this is brilliant. And it will *more or less* force states into legalizing it.

Why? Because the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution makes it so one state cannot enforce another state's laws. And, if there is no federal law against abortion, that means that all you have to do to get a legal abortion would be to go to a state where it is legal. Your home state cannot, legally, punish you for doing that (provided it is outlawwed in your state).

And... seeing as government is ALWAYS run by money grubbing slobs... it would be legalized in all the states because politicians dont want to lose money for their state. Bastards.

Genius I tell you. Genius.

4. Even though, I am personally opposed to abortion, I think states should have the power to require that if any abortions are done in their borders, that such abortions be done free of charge. See, once this amendment passes, it might be easier to pass laws to prohibit people from making profits off of abortion. Example, Planned Parenthood which makes a pretty nice profit off the business. The one I love the most is this one: A law that would not only require abortion providers to give all women free abortions, but that would also prohibit any doctor who had previously performed abortions, from refusing to do abortions after he learns he can't profit from it. Thus all women will have fair and equal access to abortion because they can't denied on the grounds of inability to pay. All abortions must be done for free. It will place all women on equal footing with each other, instead of just the rich women being the only ones who can afford abortion while the poor have to rely on government generosity which contributes to the national debt whereby increasing the deficit.
It is wrong for anyone to profit off the unfortunate situation that any woman finds herself in. That is why it should be illegal to charge anyone for a woman's abortion. Abortion providers should be required to absorb the costs themselves.

What about abortion clinics?

Basicially, you are dooming all the experienced doctors and clinics to bankruptcy simply because you dont believe someone should have to pay. Fine, dont make them pay. Make someone else pay for it. In fact, why dont YOU pay for it?

Personally, I am for abortion. And I believe that no one should be denied an abortion simply because they cant pay. But Im not sure that MediCare is going to cover the costs.... And I dont want my tax dollars paying for it either.

Lastly, I dont know where you get the crazy notion that Planned Parenthood makes obscene profits. From my personal experience, they give out free condoms and very inexpensive but effective birth control. Im not even sure they charge for that. And isnt their target market people who are not exactly well-to-do? Teenagers and Young adults are not exactly loaded with cash. If they do charge for abortions, it definitely isnt much.

Such violent partisanship. Such virulent hatred that you show. :rolleyes:

Violent? Yeah, occasionally, especially when people start talking about limiting personal freedom in the name of some radical interpretation of a faith.

Partisanship? Not really, I'm a conservative libertarian. I'm not one to compromise on rights, sorry.

Virulent hatred? Yeah, you could say that. See, I could approach your position respectfully, and I would. If you didn't insist on such willful dishonesty. There are enough liars in politics, we don't need them in intellectual discussion. You can make as many thrid rate explainations as you please, but everyone can see right through the little charade of this ammendment.

So you know what, if you wanna play the nice guy, if you wanna make me an ogre, thats cool. At the end of the day, I'd rather be a free asshole than a pleasant serf. The difference between you and me is that, though I am not a women, I recognize that an attack on a woman's freedom is an attack on mine. I'm not gonna wait for the theocrats to knock on my door.

LMAO. This is the best yet. "fake arguments nested inside of each other.?"
Are you actually serious are you someone's puppet?

1. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy based off the Bible. I oppose any laws that solely based off the Bible. That's the primary reason why I oppose the FCC. The FCC's entire regulatory power is based on the ability to censor in the name of morality. Whose morality? The morality of Christian fundamentalist wackos. And as long as the FCC continues to impose christian morals on the airwaves, I will continue to oppose its very existence.

2. Judge Judy is not a substantive person, she is nothing more than a TV show personality with no bearing on real life issues or cases.

3. Not in all cases. This amendment would allow states to conduct on site safety inspections. And if you are so convinced that all abortions are safe, you won't mind the state governments going in and conducting such inspections and imposing rigorous certification requirements for people conducting abortions. After all, we want to make sure the women who get the abortions are as safe as possible.

4. Even though, I am personally opposed to abortion, I think states should have the power to require that if any abortions are done in their borders, that such abortions be done free of charge. See, once this amendment passes, it might be easier to pass laws to prohibit people from making profits off of abortion. Example, Planned Parenthood which makes a pretty nice profit off the business. The one I love the most is this one: A law that would not only require abortion providers to give all women free abortions, but that would also prohibit any doctor who had previously performed abortions, from refusing to do abortions after he learns he can't profit from it. Thus all women will have fair and equal access to abortion because they can't denied on the grounds of inability to pay. All abortions must be done for free. It will place all women on equal footing with each other, instead of just the rich women being the only ones who can afford abortion while the poor have to rely on government generosity which contributes to the national debt whereby increasing the deficit.
It is wrong for anyone to profit off the unfortunate situation that any woman finds herself in. That is why it should be illegal to charge anyone for a woman's abortion. Abortion providers should be required to absorb the costs themselves.

Kinda a little of both, buddy. See, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, Jim Henson has his fist burried in my ass up to the elbow.

1) Yet you're pro-life, a position that is held exclusively by religious folk. Sorry, you doth protest too much.

2) No, you're right, she is no one. I'm glad to see that you recognize that.

3) Umm, yes, yes I would. See, I have a pretty big problem holding one minor medical procedure to a higher standard than all the others. Beyond that, I have a pretty big problem with government inspections and rigorous standards in general. I don't like the idea of a bureaucrat popping in on me to make sure everything is on the level. This "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" stuff doesn't fly with police searches, it doesn't fly with guns, and it doesn't fly with abortion. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm pretty consistant here.

Beyond that, the government already has rigorous standards. In most jursidictions, you have to be an M.D. Thats rigorous enough for me. It isn't a triple bypass, it isn't brain surgery. Hell, a nurse practitioner is fully able to perform an early term abortion, but a lot of states require a doctor to do it. What you are suggesting is harassment, a nudge and a wink. Yeah, safe abortions. Rigorous standards, on site tests. Then when your side makes it into office, which is easier at a local level, you can acheive de facto what you couldn't de jure. You can discourage, limit, and generally interfere.

Why? Because god tells you life begins at conception, which means abortion is murder. Can you give me any argument against abortion that doesn't boil down to that? Any argument that doesn't treat all women as children, that is.

4) I can't tell, are you a socialist? Would you support socialized medicine in general or do you only support it when it would interfere with a practice you dislike? Why is it that every suggestion you put forward in the name of equality or states rights always has the same end: fewer abortions. Canales allows states to ban it outright. Your safe abortions argument allows functionaries to hold up clinics and restricts the number of providers (by making it far harder, purely in the certification sense, to perform an abortion than to be a cardiac specialist), your equality argument is tailored to greatly limit the number of providers willing to perform abortion, drive those who remain out of the state, and basically ablosih the practice once new OB/GYNs refuse to give up their livelyhood. Stop lying. Come out an suggest an ammendment banning abortion.

If you have a problem with people profiting from the unfortunate situations of others, theres a little island southeast of Florida that would be perfect for your. I hear the guy who runs it is a big fan of the State making rules to enforce right and wrong. Just keep quiet about Jesus, that kinda stuff is frowned upon.

Robert, let me ask you a very direct question. You have made the assertion that
If an abortion is absolutely necessary it must be done for free. No one should be allowed to take advantage of a life and death situation.

Do you support socialized state healthcare? What I mean by that is do you support a constitutional ammendment banning any profit from life-saving procedures? Should paramedics be forced to be volunteers? Trauma doctors? Thorasic surgeons? Who should be paid for their services? If this is not simply an attempt to discourage providers of abortion, then you must surely agree that most doctors should be volunteers, because they shouldn't take advantage of life or death situations. How are we to pick and choose who deserves to profit and who does not?

While were on the subject of picking and choosing, allow me to ask you a second question. How is it that you reconcile your advocacy of taking the federal government out of the abortion debate and your advocacy of a constitutional ammendment banning certain abortion procedures?

A third question, if you support "the right to sue third persons who destroy their families by engaging in adultry with their spouse" how can you then turn around and support taking the government out of people's bedrooms when it comes to abortion? I mean, if you think the government ought to have the right to be an arbiter of personal choice, why pick and choose?

You're a conservative Christian, and even you admit that your religious views color your ideas about the law. Why is it that you do not have the courage to stand behind your convictions. You think abortion is wrong, advocate banning it, don't pussyfoot around some backdoor scheme.

Note: some of you might not have seen Whittier/Robert Canales make some of these statements on the forum. He didn't. He made them on his campaign website which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/

I guess the big question is.. "Will it overturn RvW?"

Does it matter? Personally, I think this is brilliant. And it will *more or less* force states into legalizing it.

Why? Because the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution makes it so one state cannot enforce another state's laws. And, if there is no federal law against abortion, that means that all you have to do to get a legal abortion would be to go to a state where it is legal. Your home state cannot, legally, punish you for doing that (provided it is outlawwed in your state).

And... seeing as government is ALWAYS run by money grubbing slobs... it would be legalized in all the states because politicians dont want to lose money for their state. Bastards.

Genius I tell you. Genius.yes yes. exactly.
That is the reason that state laws that make it illegal to cross state borders to get abortions are unconstitutional. One state cannot enforce its law within the territory of another state without that state's consent. It is the same with nations. US laws are not valid or operative in Japan, Britain, or Saudi Arabia and vice versa. A nation's laws stop at its borders. Likewise, a state's laws stop at its borders.
This is why there was a short movement during the last presidential election to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Because under the Full Faith and Credit clause which you cite, if just one state legalized gay marriage, then all the states would be constitutionally required to recognize gay marriages arising in that state, whereby undermining the antigay marriage movements in their own territories. That was an amendment that I disagreed with. Government should stay out of marriage altogether. The idea of requiring a government issued marriage license is the same as saying you have to have the govt.'s permission to get married. A violation of personal freedom.

What about abortion clinics?

Basicially, you are dooming all the experienced doctors and clinics to bankruptcy simply because you dont believe someone should have to pay. Fine, dont make them pay. Make someone else pay for it. In fact, why dont YOU pay for it?

Personally, I am for abortion. And I believe that no one should be denied an abortion simply because they cant pay. But Im not sure that MediCare is going to cover the costs.... And I dont want my tax dollars paying for it either.

Lastly, I dont know where you get the crazy notion that Planned Parenthood makes obscene profits. From my personal experience, they give out free condoms and very inexpensive but effective birth control. Im not even sure they charge for that. And isnt their target market people who are not exactly well-to-do? Teenagers and Young adults are not exactly loaded with cash. If they do charge for abortions, it definitely isnt much.

You are right when you say they don't charge the poor. They charge the government. They charge the taxpayer. In some cases, they charge try to charge the boyfriend. So even when the girl thinks she is getting a free service, someone else is being forced to pay for it.
I am not saying to use Medicare, though, if a state wanted to do that, I see no reason why it couldn't. It's the state's own money.
Plus, groups like Planned Parenthood have a huge following who contribute loads of money to it. Most of which is spent on political lobbying. Would it not be better if that money was spent on providing abortions and stuff to women who couldn't afford it? Instead of being used to create personal attack ads?
Because it is the taking of a life, I don't think any one but the abortion provider should pay for the service. And I believe that abortion clinics do more than just provide abortions. The abortions could be covered from the fees they charge for the other services they provide. They can afford to cover it. Unless you really believe in such a thing as a $20,000 hammer.

Violent? Yeah, occasionally, especially when people start talking about limiting personal freedom in the name of some radical interpretation of a faith.

Partisanship? Not really, I'm a conservative libertarian. I'm not one to compromise on rights, sorry.

Virulent hatred? Yeah, you could say that. See, I could approach your position respectfully, and I would. If you didn't insist on such willful dishonesty. There are enough liars in politics, we don't need them in intellectual discussion. You can make as many thrid rate explainations as you please, but everyone can see right through the little charade of this ammendment.

So you know what, if you wanna play the nice guy, if you wanna make me an ogre, thats cool. At the end of the day, I'd rather be a free asshole than a pleasant serf. The difference between you and me is that, though I am not a women, I recognize that an attack on a woman's freedom is an attack on mine. I'm not gonna wait for the theocrats to knock on my door.



Kinda a little of both, buddy. See, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, Jim Henson has his fist burried in my ass up to the elbow.

1) Yet you're pro-life, a position that is held exclusively by religious folk. Sorry, you doth protest too much.

2) No, you're right, she is no one. I'm glad to see that you recognize that.

3) Umm, yes, yes I would. See, I have a pretty big problem holding one minor medical procedure to a higher standard than all the others. Beyond that, I have a pretty big problem with government inspections and rigorous standards in general. I don't like the idea of a bureaucrat popping in on me to make sure everything is on the level. This "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" stuff doesn't fly with police searches, it doesn't fly with guns, and it doesn't fly with abortion. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm pretty consistant here.

Beyond that, the government already has rigorous standards. In most jursidictions, you have to be an M.D. Thats rigorous enough for me. It isn't a triple bypass, it isn't brain surgery. Hell, a nurse practitioner is fully able to perform an early term abortion, but a lot of states require a doctor to do it. What you are suggesting is harassment, a nudge and a wink. Yeah, safe abortions. Rigorous standards, on site tests. Then when your side makes it into office, which is easier at a local level, you can acheive de facto what you couldn't de jure. You can discourage, limit, and generally interfere.

Why? Because god tells you life begins at conception, which means abortion is murder. Can you give me any argument against abortion that doesn't boil down to that? Any argument that doesn't treat all women as children, that is.

4) I can't tell, are you a socialist? Would you support socialized medicine in general or do you only support it when it would interfere with a practice you dislike? Why is it that every suggestion you put forward in the name of equality or states rights always has the same end: fewer abortions. Canales allows states to ban it outright. Your safe abortions argument allows functionaries to hold up clinics and restricts the number of providers (by making it far harder, purely in the certification sense, to perform an abortion than to be a cardiac specialist), your equality argument is tailored to greatly limit the number of providers willing to perform abortion, drive those who remain out of the state, and basically ablosih the practice once new OB/GYNs refuse to give up their livelyhood. Stop lying. Come out an suggest an ammendment banning abortion.

If you have a problem with people profiting from the unfortunate situations of others, theres a little island southeast of Florida that would be perfect for your. I hear the guy who runs it is a big fan of the State making rules to enforce right and wrong. Just keep quiet about Jesus, that kinda stuff is frowned upon.
1. Whatever floats your bubble. Though, I wonder how many women really agree with you. I don't know, I'm just wondering.

2. You don't have to be religious to be pro-life. Where did you come up with that stereotype? Not all pro-lifers are religious. There are people who oppose it on philosophical grounds. Nor do you need to be religious to have a reasonable set of morals.

3. They already have on site inspections for hospitals and doctor's offices. The only form of medical practice that is often exempt from this is the abortion clinic. All I am asking for is that if abortion is to be treated as a medical procedure, it should be subject to the same exact type of safety and health protecting regulations that all other medical procedures are subject to. Even in the case of MD's some states still require on site health and safety inspections. Particularly of doctor's offices, surgical rooms, hospitals, etc. The amendment is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.


4. I believe the government should own and operate all healthcare facilities in the US. I especially believe the government should own all pharmaceuticals so as to ensure reasonable prices for the American people. With the private pharmaceuticals, the system we have now, not only do the taxpayers pay hundreds of billions of dollars to develop new drugs but they are charged as much as $25,000 per pill for some meds. That's after the American people already paid for the medicine by funding its research and development. Pharmaceuticals only contribute a tenth of the funds actually needed to develop the drugs they come up with. The rest of their research is funded by the American taxpayer. And that is just plain unfair. The only reason I am not proposing the nationalization of the US healthcare industry is that I haven't figured out a way, yet, to nationalize the whole system without making the taxburden unbearable while at the same time, causing healthcare to be rationed. People need to be able to get the care they need, when they need it without any hassles that would cause them harm.
Gynecologists would not go out of business. Heck, most of a gyn's practice is in services other than abortion.

Robert, let me ask you a very direct question. You have made the assertion that


Do you support socialized state healthcare? What I mean by that is do you support a constitutional ammendment banning any profit from life-saving procedures? Should paramedics be forced to be volunteers? Trauma doctors? Thorasic surgeons? Who should be paid for their services? If this is not simply an attempt to discourage providers of abortion, then you must surely agree that most doctors should be volunteers, because they shouldn't take advantage of life or death situations. How are we to pick and choose who deserves to profit and who does not?

While were on the subject of picking and choosing, allow me to ask you a second question. How is it that you reconcile your advocacy of taking the federal government out of the abortion debate and your advocacy of a constitutional ammendment banning certain abortion procedures?

A third question, if you support "the right to sue third persons who destroy their families by engaging in adultry with their spouse" how can you then turn around and support taking the government out of people's bedrooms when it comes to abortion? I mean, if you think the government ought to have the right to be an arbiter of personal choice, why pick and choose?

You're a conservative Christian, and even you admit that your religious views color your ideas about the law. Why is it that you do not have the courage to stand behind your convictions. You think abortion is wrong, advocate banning it, don't pussyfoot around some backdoor scheme.

Note: some of you might not have seen Whittier/Robert Canales make some of these statements on the forum. He didn't. He made them on his campaign website which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/
1. I support the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctor's don't turn away patients willingly. They are pressured by HMO's to do so. I support a law that leaves the final medical decision to the doctor and the patient. I would ban HMO's who punished physicians for providing a treatment that an HMO told them not despite the fact that treatment was needed for the patient to stay alive. Life must come before profit. Therefore, I would also support a law heavily regulating the HMO industry to make the healthcare sytem more patient friendly. I know that there are a few brave practitioners out there, who wave the fees because they believe that life is more important than helping a greedy HMO make a huge profit. I also know that some physicians have been punished by certain HMO's for providing services the HMO had earlier disapproved. The people who work for the HMO approval process in most cases, are bureacrats and accountants, not medical experts. We need to leave medical decisions to the medical experts, not to accountants. And even then, medical fees that go to the physicians should be kept reasonable. If a doctor or a paramedic works in an area where most of the people make barely enough to get by, there is no reason he should be charging those people $150,000 a year. If he wants to make that much, he should not be working there.

2. Partial birth abortion is not abortion at all. It is the murder of a child who has been, for most intents and purposes, born. Do you know what the procedure involves? It involves making the woman contract, pushing the baby through the birth canal until the head emerges from the vagina at which point, the provider stabbs a huge pair of scissors right smack through the new born's skull (even while the rest of its body is still coming out). And Once inside the child's head, the scissors are then opened and closed repeatedly until the child is dead. In partial birth abortion, you not talking about terminating a preborn life, you are talking about terminating a life that for all intents and purposes is already born, and which was given birth to just so someone could kill it right as it emerged into the world. It's not abortion, its murder.

3. As we all know, men are very seducible by women. It is easy for one woman to steal another woman's husband. (same goes for men). I am not advocating big brother here. I am advocating that we give a legal means of redress for women and men whose spouses are seduced away by other people.

4. My religion does color my views. The positions I take are the logical consequence of those views. I don't take position A just because Pastor Jake tells me to. I think for myself. I don't take position B just because some political party told me to. I think for myself. I am no one's puppet. I am not bribable. When considering laws or amendments, I look at the issue from both sides. You cannot legislate good laws unless you are able to wear the other sides' shoes so to speak.
Do I personally oppose abortion? Yes. Has that affected what laws I support on the issue? Look for yourself. If it did, and I was adamant about banning abortion cause, as you say that's all that matters, then are a lot of my positions on the issue actually pro-choice? I find pro-choice arguments just as compelling as pro-life arguments and I make my positions accordingly.

1. Yes I did. But I did not find anyone willing to provide input or concerns at the time so I ended up writing it without the input or help from any one. Because I didn't find any political activists who were willing to come to a compromise.
2. If a state's decision ends up hurting it, the people can always go back and reverse themselves. That's the beauty of our form of government. If majority rule violates the rights of a minority, that is why we have the courts. To prevent that. There was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona had to treat Californians the same way it treated its own people in regard to the distribution of gas. I forget the case name though. But it shows that states cannot treat the citizens of other states differently than their own.
The purpose of the state right section is to enable them to enact laws regulating abortion, not to enable them to ban it.

3. It is unfair to use money from people opposed to abortion to pay for abortion. It violates their rights.
4. The purpose of this amendment is to make the federal government neutral and return the issue to the states where it belongs. That and only that is the intent behind the amendment.
1. That explains why you're so in love with it then. I'll apologize for saying this (because, as a former editor, I know how people feel about the things they write), but this amendment is a non-starter with no hope of getting through Congress. It is already politically crippled, nothing but the expression of a narrow special interest and therefore, thankfully, likely to be rejected by any politician up for re-election and most of the voting public. Also, it opens the way for both states and the federal government to be accused of discriminating against women and the poor by cancelling medical funding, which is primarily used to provide services for the poor. I see no compromise in this amendment. It is nothing but another attempt to sneak the anti-choice agenda in under the radar. You'll have to do better.

2. Once again, you are trying to convince us that giving state government the constitutional power to ban abortion will not actually lead to the banning of abortion because the Constitution says they can't. This is total nonsense. If you were proposing a mere law, then, yes, the law would be unenforceable under the Constitution. But you want to AMEND the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution would no longer give the federal government power to enforce national standards on states on this issue. You may not be able to write law, sir, but I know how to read simple paragraphs. The meaning of your amendment is obvious. If it is not the meaning you intended, then you need to rewrite it. But actually, I think it is the meaning you intend, and you're trying to fool us into thinking otherwise. It's not working.

3. Not a valid point in this context. I'm an environmentalist. Should I try to amend the Constitution to prohibit the federal government from funding energy production because coal-fired plants pollute the environment, and forcing me to breathe polluted air is a violation of my rights? There is no line item veto for voters on tax appropriations. We pay our taxes. The government decides how to spend the money. You don't want to pay taxes for things you don't like? Either vote your people into office, or stage a tax strike. Those are your choices.

4. Neutral -- that's a laugh. I'll point out again that your amendment specifically states that the federal government should not fund abortion but does not suggest how to preserve funding for any other services. First, stating that the government will specifically not pay for a medical service is not neutral on the subject of that service. It is a clear stance against it. Second, funding is neither given nor applied for on a line item basis, so, as we have seen with medical aid for Africa, a refusal to fund providers who offer abortion leads to cancellation of funding for ALL services from those providers. Your argument that this won't happen is empty unless you specifically provide instructions otherwise, which you've chosen not to do. In practical application, the message to medical providers serving poor communities could not be clearer -- stop providing abortions, or else lose your funding and close your doors.

Finally, abortion is NOT a states' rights issue. It is a medical procedure. As a medical decision it belongs in the hands of patients and doctors, not state government. As a public health matter, it should be regulated to a national standard, which puts it in the hands of the federal government, not state government. Be honest, if there were no states right now with leaders and voting blocks who are anti-choice, you wouldn't be promoting this ridiculous amendment. You are only interested in giving your movement the chance to get its way in at least some jurisdictions. Hm, that seems like a sign of weakness to me.

Plus, groups like Planned Parenthood have a huge following who contribute loads of money to it. Most of which is spent on political lobbying. Would it not be better if that money was spent on providing abortions and stuff to women who couldn't afford it? Instead of being used to create personal attack ads?
Because it is the taking of a life, I don't think any one but the abortion provider should pay for the service. And I believe that abortion clinics do more than just provide abortions. The abortions could be covered from the fees they charge for the other services they provide. They can afford to cover it. Unless you really believe in such a thing as a $20,000 hammer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't have much experiance with planned parenthood. Planned parenthood (in most areas) doesn't turn a profit. They have to spend huge amounts of money on security, on constructing fortresses to keep protesters at bay. Planned Parenthood doesn't just provide abortions, thats actually only a fairly small fraction of the services they provide. They have OB/GYN services on a sliding scale, free condoms, hormonal birth control at cost (or below if you're very poor). Most of the money planned parenthood raises goes straight to keeping their clinics running. I find it odd that someone who has claimed to do so much research on the abortion issue that it sidetracked them out of college wouldn't know that.

2. You don't have to be religious to be pro-life. Where did you come up with that stereotype? Not all pro-lifers are religious. There are people who oppose it on philosophical grounds. Nor do you need to be religious to have a reasonable set of morals.

3. They already have on site inspections for hospitals and doctor's offices. The only form of medical practice that is often exempt from this is the abortion clinic. All I am asking for is that if abortion is to be treated as a medical procedure, it should be subject to the same exact type of safety and health protecting regulations that all other medical procedures are subject to. Even in the case of MD's some states still require on site health and safety inspections. Particularly of doctor's offices, surgical rooms, hospitals, etc. The amendment is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.


4. I believe the government should own and operate all healthcare facilities in the US. I especially believe the government should own all pharmaceuticals so as to ensure reasonable prices for the American people. With the private pharmaceuticals, the system we have now, not only do the taxpayers pay hundreds of billions of dollars to develop new drugs but they are charged as much as $25,000 per pill for some meds. That's after the American people already paid for the medicine by funding its research and development. Pharmaceuticals only contribute a tenth of the funds actually needed to develop the drugs they come up with. The rest of their research is funded by the American taxpayer. And that is just plain unfair. The only reason I am not proposing the nationalization of the US healthcare industry is that I haven't figured out a way, yet, to nationalize the whole system without making the taxburden unbearable while at the same time, causing healthcare to be rationed. People need to be able to get the care they need, when they need it without any hassles that would cause them harm.
Gynecologists would not go out of business. Heck, most of a gyn's practice is in services other than abortion.

Line up 10 pro lifers and you'll likely see 10 religious folks. Once in awhile you'll run into some aging hippy, some hardcore pacifist who believes that all life should be protected, but you and I both know that non-religious prolifers are in the minority. The vast majority are the kinds of people who quote Revelations on their blogs.

Again, I'd like some clairification on that. Can you provide me with information regarding a single district in which abortion is not subject to the same minimum standards as any other medical procedure of a similarly intrusive level? Show me one.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry is appalling. Where do you get the figure that companies only bring 10% of research funds to the table? I'd really like a citation there. Also, what drug costs $25,000 a pill? You gave the number, please cite it. The most expensive medication I have known about was iIterferon which, at the time, was around $800 per pre-measured syringe, mainly because it was in a clinical testing phase and wasn't yet being mass-produced. Once it was cleared the price dropped to $400. Incedentally, the government wasn't really involved in the R&D process because chemotherapy antiviral medications for something like Hepatitis C seemed like a morals issue, even though half of the patients didn't have an identifiable vector.

1. I support the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctor's don't turn away patients willingly. They are pressured by HMO's to do so. I support a law that leaves the final medical decision to the doctor and the patient. I would ban HMO's who punished physicians for providing a treatment that an HMO told them not despite the fact that treatment was needed for the patient to stay alive. Life must come before profit. Therefore, I would also support a law heavily regulating the HMO industry to make the healthcare sytem more patient friendly. I know that there are a few brave practitioners out there, who wave the fees because they believe that life is more important than helping a greedy HMO make a huge profit. I also know that some physicians have been punished by certain HMO's for providing services the HMO had earlier disapproved. The people who work for the HMO approval process in most cases, are bureacrats and accountants, not medical experts. We need to leave medical decisions to the medical experts, not to accountants. And even then, medical fees that go to the physicians should be kept reasonable. If a doctor or a paramedic works in an area where most of the people make barely enough to get by, there is no reason he should be charging those people $150,000 a year. If he wants to make that much, he should not be working there.

Yeah, lets look at the evil HMO. Nice strawman. Lets get back to the question I asked, shall we? If abortion providers should not be allowed to profit from their services, should other essential health care providers be required to work for free as well? Should trauma surgeons, cardiologists, onchologists, etc be prohibited from charging for their services?

2. Partial birth abortion is not abortion at all. It is the murder of a child who has been, for most intents and purposes, born. Do you know what the procedure involves? It involves making the woman contract, pushing the baby through the birth canal until the head emerges from the vagina at which point, the provider stabbs a huge pair of scissors right smack through the new born's skull (even while the rest of its body is still coming out). And Once inside the child's head, the scissors are then opened and closed repeatedly until the child is dead. In partial birth abortion, you not talking about terminating a preborn life, you are talking about terminating a life that for all intents and purposes is already born, and which was given birth to just so someone could kill it right as it emerged into the world. It's not abortion, its murder.

But then, you believe all abortion is murder, don't you? Partial birth abortion is something of a strawman, it is a very rare procedure (I direct you to the congressional hearings regarding the issue, particularly the fact that none of the OB/GYNs who testified had ever performed the procedure, and few could even think of a single incedent). Yes, we all understand that it is horrible, but rights are a matter of inches and degrees. I've no real desire to burn a flag or roll around in someone else's feces, but I recognize that preventing others from doing so does harm to my rights, to my freedoms.

You say that partial birth abortion is not an abortion, yet you yourself call it one. You say that it is murder, yet you feel the same way about all abortion. You say that it is so extreme that it needs to be banned, but then the limit is that much closer, the acceptable procedures and circumstances are that much more constricted. You fin a procedure that doesn't see regular use, and use it as an example of how bad abortion is. You ban it and desensitize the public to laws restricting abortion, after all, this is so terrible who would want it? It is the same trick gun control advocates have been using for years, I found it vile and deceptive then, I find it vile and deceptive now.

3. As we all know, men are very seducible by women. It is easy for one woman to steal another woman's husband. (same goes for men). I am not advocating big brother here. I am advocating that we give a legal means of redress for women and men whose spouses are seduced away by other people.

Well, I'm a man, I'm married, I've yet to be seduced. It isn't because a pretty enough woman hasn't come along, it is because I love my wife and I have the will to resist temptation. This idea of suing over adultery is a joke. It is disgusting on so many levels. It reeks of treating spouses as property, it reeks of treating people as children. If you want redress in the case of adultery, get a good pre-nup, then at least you have a leg to stand on.

4. My religion does color my views. The positions I take are the logical consequence of those views. I don't take position A just because Pastor Jake tells me to. I think for myself. I don't take position B just because some political party told me to. I think for myself. I am no one's puppet. I am not bribable. When considering laws or amendments, I look at the issue from both sides. You cannot legislate good laws unless you are able to wear the other sides' shoes so to speak.
Do I personally oppose abortion? Yes. Has that affected what laws I support on the issue? Look for yourself. If it did, and I was adamant about banning abortion cause, as you say that's all that matters, then are a lot of my positions on the issue actually pro-choice? I find pro-choice arguments just as compelling as pro-life arguments and I make my positions accordingly.

You've yet to present an argument that really looked pro-choice once you got under the hood. Looking at your options as a whole, there are only a handful of conslusions once could come to. The first is that you're a fool, that you have taken the arguments of the pro-life crowd at face value and are unable to comprehend the consequences of these actions. The second is that you are naive, that you really believe the world could be a good place, that all women who have abortions are sluts, that if everyone just did things your way it would all work out and we could dance in the fields with daisies in our hair. The third option is that you are cynically mistating your intentions, that you understand the consequences and you like them, but you also understand that being forthright about your intentions would get you no where.

At the end of the day, I don't care if you're a fool, a naive child, or a Machiavellian theocrat. You're wrong. Point after point, assertion after assertion. Your faith has colored your views, and it has lead you to a place incompatible with freedom. That is the bottom line. You believe me to be wrong, I believe you to be wrong, and no force will bring us toi a meeting of the minds. Our visions of freedom are too different to be reconciled. I tried saying that awhile ago, but you seemed unmoved. Perhaps now you'll get it. It isn't that I don't understand your point of view, it is that I am opposed to it from the base of my being on up.

Well, anyone who knows me knows I am not coy but brutish.
The Canales amendment is not about restricting abortion but rather about restricting government involvement to the state level.
The very purpose of state authority in the amendment, btw, is to allow states to ensure that abortions are done safely.
This time I'll frame my objection as a question -- why would you want to do this unless you expect it to lead to a change in the availability of abortion? If you are interested in seeing safe abortions, why do you include the provision allowing restriction of abortion? (That one's rhetorical; I know why -- it's because, to you abortion is only safe when it's banned.) Why would you specifically allow states to restrict abortion if you don't expect at least some of them to do so? What greater benefit to the people and to public health would we see if each state independently regulated abortion rather than having a national standard?

I'm sorry, Whittier, but your specific mention of restriction on abortion and your cancellation of federal funding make a lie out of your claim that this amendment doesn't seek to restrict abortion.

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

There it is ladies and gents.

State your views on this here. Do you think it would over turn Roe V. Wade?
Bear in mind that there have been changes in the law since the time this was written. Hey, lots of things happen in 6 year periods.
And I attempted to take the interests of all sides into consideration, except the government's which really doesn't have any interest.
Well, I'm not sure I'm sold on the whole 'States' Rights' thing which you seem to be advocating. Why is it any better for state to be able to decide than it is for Congress to? Either way, I'm being told what can and can't be done, only by different groups of people.

<snip>3. As we all know, men are very seducible by women. It is easy for one woman to steal another woman's husband. (same goes for men). I am not advocating big brother here. I am advocating that we give a legal means of redress for women and men whose spouses are seduced away by other people.<snip>
Those filthy jezebels. And no sooner do they steal the precious bodily fluids of clean American married men, than they run off to murder their ill-gotten babies. They should all be kept on leashes.

Oh, yeah, and guys too.

In fact, we should be able to sue for adultery because everyone knows that, under the sacred, god-ordained, institution of marriage, we are buying sex from our spouse.

Way to be dispassionate and egalitarian there, Hammurabi. :rolleyes: Although what this has to do with abortion, I have no idea, except that they are both parts of an overall pattern of seeking to legislate morality and the private behavior of individuals according to religious rules.

Well, I'm not sure I'm sold on the whole 'States' Rights' thing which you seem to be advocating. Why is it any better for state to be able to decide than it is for Congress to? Either way, I'm being told what can and can't be done, only by different groups of people.

Cause if his side has the power then some states will ban abortion. Then God will look down and smite all the abortionist states with hurricanes and seas of blood and falling stars named Wormwood, there'll probably be dragons and savages, too...

Those filthy jezebels. And no sooner do they steal the precious bodily fluids of clean American married men, than they run off to murder their ill-gotten babies. They should all be kept on leashes.


*gets all googlyeyed over the Strangelove reference and wonders if maybe flouridated water is really RU 486*

Seriously though, folks, I'm thinking that this thread is in danger of crossing over into self-parody.

I got the PBA procedure backward. This site has a more accurate description of what happens.

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

also see:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_18.asp#partial%20birth%20abortion

Proabortionists call the procedure D&X. Notice the following from a prochoice site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

They are not abortions as defined within medical science.

The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.

The rest of the site is political propaganda attempting to justify the murder of a citizen of the US.
You can claim its just a part of the woman's body or a trespasser (as the proabortionists on this forum often do) but once it has left the woman's body, there is no longer a right to kill to it. Once it begins to leave, it is no longer part of the woman nor is it any longer a "trespasser". In fact, I say that once a finger or toe of it has emerged from the woman's body, it becomes a US citizen as defined by the 14th amendment and as such is covered by the same rights and protections as all other US citizens.

1. That explains why you're so in love with it then. I'll apologize for saying this (because, as a former editor, I know how people feel about the things they write), but this amendment is a non-starter with no hope of getting through Congress. It is already politically crippled, nothing but the expression of a narrow special interest and therefore, thankfully, likely to be rejected by any politician up for re-election and most of the voting public. Also, it opens the way for both states and the federal government to be accused of discriminating against women and the poor by cancelling medical funding, which is primarily used to provide services for the poor. I see no compromise in this amendment. It is nothing but another attempt to sneak the anti-choice agenda in under the radar. You'll have to do better.

2. Once again, you are trying to convince us that giving state government the constitutional power to ban abortion will not actually lead to the banning of abortion because the Constitution says they can't. This is total nonsense. If you were proposing a mere law, then, yes, the law would be unenforceable under the Constitution. But you want to AMEND the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution would no longer give the federal government power to enforce national standards on states on this issue. You may not be able to write law, sir, but I know how to read simple paragraphs. The meaning of your amendment is obvious. If it is not the meaning you intended, then you need to rewrite it. But actually, I think it is the meaning you intend, and you're trying to fool us into thinking otherwise. It's not working.

3. Not a valid point in this context. I'm an environmentalist. Should I try to amend the Constitution to prohibit the federal government from funding energy production because coal-fired plants pollute the environment, and forcing me to breathe polluted air is a violation of my rights? There is no line item veto for voters on tax appropriations. We pay our taxes. The government decides how to spend the money. You don't want to pay taxes for things you don't like? Either vote your people into office, or stage a tax strike. Those are your choices.

4. Neutral -- that's a laugh. I'll point out again that your amendment specifically states that the federal government should not fund abortion but does not suggest how to preserve funding for any other services. First, stating that the government will specifically not pay for a medical service is not neutral on the subject of that service. It is a clear stance against it. Second, funding is neither given nor applied for on a line item basis, so, as we have seen with medical aid for Africa, a refusal to fund providers who offer abortion leads to cancellation of funding for ALL services from those providers. Your argument that this won't happen is empty unless you specifically provide instructions otherwise, which you've chosen not to do. In practical application, the message to medical providers serving poor communities could not be clearer -- stop providing abortions, or else lose your funding and close your doors.

Finally, abortion is NOT a states' rights issue. It is a medical procedure. As a medical decision it belongs in the hands of patients and doctors, not state government. As a public health matter, it should be regulated to a national standard, which puts it in the hands of the federal government, not state government. Be honest, if there were no states right now with leaders and voting blocks who are anti-choice, you wouldn't be promoting this ridiculous amendment. You are only interested in giving your movement the chance to get its way in at least some jurisdictions. Hm, that seems like a sign of weakness to me.

The amendment was popular with the people who knew about it. Except that I did not push do to being railroaded on another issue.

2. It gives states the power to impose health and safety regulations. If a state were to ban it, the fact is the state supreme courts would overrule any attempt to ban abortion within a specific state. This I know, cause your side has packed the state Supreme Courts. Now you're saying you don't trust your own side.

3. Actually it is valid. People who join the army under Conscientious Objector status don't have to go into combat. Support for abortion or against it, is not the equivalent of being pro or anti environment. It is the taking of a life just as war is the taking to life. You are comparing an apple with an orange.

4. Ah yes, the famous Bush line of "You're either with me or against me" argument. I think the American people just want both sides to leave them alone. I think the American people want the harrassement from both sides to stop. They want government neutrality. They want the government out of their bedrooms. They don't proabortionists or prolifers dictating their personal lives to them. This amendment is a step in that direction.
While you have a right to an abortion, you do not have the right to force me to pay for it. The matter of funding for other health services is easily remedied. Those groups that recieve federal funds should keep the federal funds in a budget seperate from the group's regular budget. If such groups want to continue to provide abortions, they are still free to do so. They can pay for them with private donations from good pro abortionists such as yourself. And lets not forget that many state governments will continue to provide public funding for abortion, and there is also the fact that the UN still provides public funding for abortion as do many other foreign governments. Abortion providing agencies in third world nations can always get abortion funding from them.

1. That explains why you're so in love with it then. I'll apologize for saying this (because, as a former editor, I know how people feel about the things they write), but this amendment is a non-starter with no hope of getting through Congress. It is already politically crippled, nothing but the expression of a narrow special interest and therefore, thankfully, likely to be rejected by any politician up for re-election and most of the voting public. Also, it opens the way for both states and the federal government to be accused of discriminating against women and the poor by cancelling medical funding, which is primarily used to provide services for the poor. I see no compromise in this amendment. It is nothing but another attempt to sneak the anti-choice agenda in under the radar. You'll have to do better.

2. Once again, you are trying to convince us that giving state government the constitutional power to ban abortion will not actually lead to the banning of abortion because the Constitution says they can't. This is total nonsense. If you were proposing a mere law, then, yes, the law would be unenforceable under the Constitution. But you want to AMEND the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution would no longer give the federal government power to enforce national standards on states on this issue. You may not be able to write law, sir, but I know how to read simple paragraphs. The meaning of your amendment is obvious. If it is not the meaning you intended, then you need to rewrite it. But actually, I think it is the meaning you intend, and you're trying to fool us into thinking otherwise. It's not working.

3. Not a valid point in this context. I'm an environmentalist. Should I try to amend the Constitution to prohibit the federal government from funding energy production because coal-fired plants pollute the environment, and forcing me to breathe polluted air is a violation of my rights? There is no line item veto for voters on tax appropriations. We pay our taxes. The government decides how to spend the money. You don't want to pay taxes for things you don't like? Either vote your people into office, or stage a tax strike. Those are your choices.

4. Neutral -- that's a laugh. I'll point out again that your amendment specifically states that the federal government should not fund abortion but does not suggest how to preserve funding for any other services. First, stating that the government will specifically not pay for a medical service is not neutral on the subject of that service. It is a clear stance against it. Second, funding is neither given nor applied for on a line item basis, so, as we have seen with medical aid for Africa, a refusal to fund providers who offer abortion leads to cancellation of funding for ALL services from those providers. Your argument that this won't happen is empty unless you specifically provide instructions otherwise, which you've chosen not to do. In practical application, the message to medical providers serving poor communities could not be clearer -- stop providing abortions, or else lose your funding and close your doors.

Finally, abortion is NOT a states' rights issue. It is a medical procedure. As a medical decision it belongs in the hands of patients and doctors, not state government. As a public health matter, it should be regulated to a national standard, which puts it in the hands of the federal government, not state government. Be honest, if there were no states right now with leaders and voting blocks who are anti-choice, you wouldn't be promoting this ridiculous amendment. You are only interested in giving your movement the chance to get its way in at least some jurisdictions. Hm, that seems like a sign of weakness to me.

The amendment was popular with the people who knew about it. Except that I did not push do to being railroaded on another issue.

2. It gives states the power to impose health and safety regulations. If a state were to ban it, the fact is the state supreme courts would overrule any attempt to ban abortion within a specific state. This I know, cause your side has packed the state Supreme Courts. Now you're saying you don't trust your own side.

3. Actually it is valid. People who join the army under Conscientious Objector status don't have to go into combat. Support for abortion or against it, is not the equivalent of being pro or anti environment. It is the taking of a life just as war is the taking to life. You are comparing an apple with an orange.

4. Ah yes, the famous Bush line of "You're either with me or against me" argument. I think the American people just want both sides to leave them alone. I think the American people want the harrassement from both sides to stop. They want government neutrality. They want the government out of their bedrooms. They don't proabortionists or prolifers dictating their personal lives to them. This amendment is a step in that direction.
While you have a right to an abortion, you do not have the right to force me to pay for it. The matter of funding for other health services is easily remedied. Those groups that recieve federal funds should keep the federal funds in a budget seperate from the group's regular budget. If such groups want to continue to provide abortions, they are still free to do so. They can pay for them with private donations from good pro abortionists such as yourself. And lets not forget that many state governments will continue to provide public funding for abortion, and there is also the fact that the UN still provides public funding for abortion as do many other foreign governments. Abortion providing agencies in third world nations can always get abortion funding from them.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't have much experiance with planned parenthood. Planned parenthood (in most areas) doesn't turn a profit. They have to spend huge amounts of money on security, on constructing fortresses to keep protesters at bay. Planned Parenthood doesn't just provide abortions, thats actually only a fairly small fraction of the services they provide. They have OB/GYN services on a sliding scale, free condoms, hormonal birth control at cost (or below if you're very poor). Most of the money planned parenthood raises goes straight to keeping their clinics running. I find it odd that someone who has claimed to do so much research on the abortion issue that it sidetracked them out of college wouldn't know that.



Line up 10 pro lifers and you'll likely see 10 religious folks. Once in awhile you'll run into some aging hippy, some hardcore pacifist who believes that all life should be protected, but you and I both know that non-religious prolifers are in the minority. The vast majority are the kinds of people who quote Revelations on their blogs.

Again, I'd like some clairification on that. Can you provide me with information regarding a single district in which abortion is not subject to the same minimum standards as any other medical procedure of a similarly intrusive level? Show me one.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry is appalling. Where do you get the figure that companies only bring 10% of research funds to the table? I'd really like a citation there. Also, what drug costs $25,000 a pill? You gave the number, please cite it. The most expensive medication I have known about was iIterferon which, at the time, was around $800 per pre-measured syringe, mainly because it was in a clinical testing phase and wasn't yet being mass-produced. Once it was cleared the price dropped to $400. Incedentally, the government wasn't really involved in the R&D process because chemotherapy antiviral medications for something like Hepatitis C seemed like a morals issue, even though half of the patients didn't have an identifiable vector.



Yeah, lets look at the evil HMO. Nice strawman. Lets get back to the question I asked, shall we? If abortion providers should not be allowed to profit from their services, should other essential health care providers be required to work for free as well? Should trauma surgeons, cardiologists, onchologists, etc be prohibited from charging for their services?



But then, you believe all abortion is murder, don't you? Partial birth abortion is something of a strawman, it is a very rare procedure (I direct you to the congressional hearings regarding the issue, particularly the fact that none of the OB/GYNs who testified had ever performed the procedure, and few could even think of a single incedent). Yes, we all understand that it is horrible, but rights are a matter of inches and degrees. I've no real desire to burn a flag or roll around in someone else's feces, but I recognize that preventing others from doing so does harm to my rights, to my freedoms.

You say that partial birth abortion is not an abortion, yet you yourself call it one. You say that it is murder, yet you feel the same way about all abortion. You say that it is so extreme that it needs to be banned, but then the limit is that much closer, the acceptable procedures and circumstances are that much more constricted. You fin a procedure that doesn't see regular use, and use it as an example of how bad abortion is. You ban it and desensitize the public to laws restricting abortion, after all, this is so terrible who would want it? It is the same trick gun control advocates have been using for years, I found it vile and deceptive then, I find it vile and deceptive now.



Well, I'm a man, I'm married, I've yet to be seduced. It isn't because a pretty enough woman hasn't come along, it is because I love my wife and I have the will to resist temptation. This idea of suing over adultery is a joke. It is disgusting on so many levels. It reeks of treating spouses as property, it reeks of treating people as children. If you want redress in the case of adultery, get a good pre-nup, then at least you have a leg to stand on.



You've yet to present an argument that really looked pro-choice once you got under the hood. Looking at your options as a whole, there are only a handful of conslusions once could come to. The first is that you're a fool, that you have taken the arguments of the pro-life crowd at face value and are unable to comprehend the consequences of these actions. The second is that you are naive, that you really believe the world could be a good place, that all women who have abortions are sluts, that if everyone just did things your way it would all work out and we could dance in the fields with daisies in our hair. The third option is that you are cynically mistating your intentions, that you understand the consequences and you like them, but you also understand that being forthright about your intentions would get you no where.

At the end of the day, I don't care if you're a fool, a naive child, or a Machiavellian theocrat. You're wrong. Point after point, assertion after assertion. Your faith has colored your views, and it has lead you to a place incompatible with freedom. That is the bottom line. You believe me to be wrong, I believe you to be wrong, and no force will bring us toi a meeting of the minds. Our visions of freedom are too different to be reconciled. I tried saying that awhile ago, but you seemed unmoved. Perhaps now you'll get it. It isn't that I don't understand your point of view, it is that I am opposed to it from the base of my being on up.
This post is filled with so many red herrings it would take a week to go through all of them.

This time I'll frame my objection as a question -- why would you want to do this unless you expect it to lead to a change in the availability of abortion? If you are interested in seeing safe abortions, why do you include the provision allowing restriction of abortion? (That one's rhetorical; I know why -- it's because, to you abortion is only safe when it's banned.) Why would you specifically allow states to restrict abortion if you don't expect at least some of them to do so? What greater benefit to the people and to public health would we see if each state independently regulated abortion rather than having a national standard?

I'm sorry, Whittier, but your specific mention of restriction on abortion and your cancellation of federal funding make a lie out of your claim that this amendment doesn't seek to restrict abortion.
The amendment is not about restricting abortion. Your arguments have, thus far, been based on the primise that you have a right to force other people to pay for abortion against their will. That is something I catagorically reject. You don't have the right to take someone else's property just because you think you have a better use for it.

The amendment forces federal neutrality. If you were to propose a change to amendment to also force neutrality on state governments, I would be open to considering it. But you are not. You are advocating that we force Peter at gun point to support a procedure that violates his right to freedom of conscience.

Well, I'm not sure I'm sold on the whole 'States' Rights' thing which you seem to be advocating. Why is it any better for state to be able to decide than it is for Congress to? Either way, I'm being told what can and can't be done, only by different groups of people.
That is what I am advocating. I'm big on the 11th amendment. This amendment would not be necessary if people would study constitution. Especially the part where it says that "anything not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or their people." If the Supreme Court would enforce the 11th amendment, the Canales amendment would not be needed. But instead we have one ruling on the 11th: where the sitting justices declared that the 11th was an oxymoron and ruled it unenforceable. Therefore we have to have amendments like the Canales Amendment to give the 11th some teeth.
The amendment would force people to look at the issue from the perspective of the state's rights amendment.

As for why states would be better, the states are more responsive to your desires and needs than the federal government is.

You can claim its just a part of the woman's body or a trespasser (as the proabortionists on this forum often do) but once it has left the woman's body, there is no longer a right to kill to it. Once it begins to leave, it is no longer part of the woman nor is it any longer a "trespasser". In fact, I say that once a finger or toe of it has emerged from the woman's body, it becomes a US citizen as defined by the 14th amendment and as such is covered by the same rights and protections as all other US citizens.

Thanks for the cheap shock, but its still old news. If it isn't abortion why do you yourself call it so? Why is it part of the abortion argument. You wouldn't be going for the old bait and switch, would you?

More to your point, about saying it isn't an "abortion" because it is called "D&X" (which is dialation and extraction). I find it shocking that someone who has done as much research as you would make a mistake like that. Anyone who has ever a cursory overview of abortion knows that medically, the procedures all have their own name. There is dialation & extraction (which you mentioned), dialation & evacuation (the 'standard' mid-term abortion), vacuum aspiration, syringe aspiration, RU 486, and a few other procedures that are less common. None of them have "abortion" in their medical discriptions, because medical descriptions are NEVER that broad.

As for it being a person one a finger is out, you're kinda screwed. See, if the Supreme Cout agreed with you, D&X could be banned outright. The fact of the matter is, it is still allowed if the life or health of the mother is in question. Also, if that became the standard, they'd just end up doing the same procedure arthroscopically. See, D&X is kind of a throwback, something that was necessary before we had so much advanced technology. It's already virtually out of use, and a lot of schools don't even bother to teach it. Which makes me wonder why it is part of the discussion. You wouldn't be trying to distract anyone, would ya?

Support for abortion or against it, is not the equivalent of being pro or anti environment. It is the taking of a life just as war is the taking to life. You are comparing an apple with an orange.

Only if you consider it a life. Seeing as ther exists no scientific concensus, you'd have to go with faith on this one. Are you perhaps suggesting we inflict one man's faith onto a minority through legislation? Really, honestly, can you give me a pro-life arguement that doesn't come down to raw faith?


I think the American people want the harrassement from both sides to stop. They want government neutrality. They want the government out of their bedrooms. They don't proabortionists or prolifers dictating their personal lives to them. This amendment is a step in that direction. While you have a right to an abortion, you do not have the right to force me to pay for it.

Now, if only your strawman had a brain. You keep shifting to new arguments as justification, arguments no one has brought up. As it stands now, the supreme court has allowed public health providers to refuse to pay for abortions. So, not only did no one here bring it up, it isn't an issue.

As for neutrality, don't make me laugh. Neutrality would be a fairly simple thing, it wouldn't require much tweaking in your ammendment, you'd just take government out of abortion at all levels. Let it be an issue between a woman, her god, and her doctor. But no, you object to that, you want the government there to step in. Depending on what hat you're wearing you want them there to ensure safety (who cares about an informed consumer, these women are children to be protected!), you want them there to protect the babies (damn sluts shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place!), you want them there to protect the undesirable (how dare you have sex with my wife/husband, pay me tribute!).

This post is filled with so many red herrings it would take a week to go through all of them.

Really? I'm not seeing any... http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Still, if you insist, lets pair it down then, shall we?

1) Can you provide me with information regarding a single district in which abortion is not subject to the same minimum standards as any other medical procedure of a similarly intrusive level?

2) Where do you get the figure that companies only bring 10% of research funds to the table? I'd really like a citation there.

3) What drug costs $25,000 a pill? You gave the number, please cite it.

4) If abortion providers should not be allowed to profit from their services, should other essential health care providers be required to work for free as well? Should trauma surgeons, cardiologists, onchologists, etc be prohibited from charging for their services?

The amendment is not about restricting abortion. Your arguments have, thus far, been based on the primise that you have a right to force other people to pay for abortion against their will. That is something I catagorically reject. You don't have the right to take someone else's property just because you think you have a better use for it.

The amendment forces federal neutrality. If you were to propose a change to amendment to also force neutrality on state governments, I would be open to considering it. But you are not. You are advocating that we force Peter at gun point to support a procedure that violates his right to freedom of conscience.

The funding argument is a nice new one but, alas, it is the very definition of a strawman. Still, I'll rise to you challenge.

THE SUTURED PSYCHE AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: NEITHER SHALL STATES NOR ANY LOCAL JUSRISTICTION HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL LICENSURE AND SAFETY STANDARDS NOT SPECIFICALLY, IN LETTER OR IN PURPOSE, REGARDING ABORTION.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.


That is what I am advocating. I'm big on the 11th amendment. This amendment would not be necessary if people would study constitution. Especially the part where it says that "anything not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or their people." If the Supreme Court would enforce the 11th amendment, the Canales amendment would not be needed. But instead we have one ruling on the 11th: where the sitting justices declared that the 11th was an oxymoron and ruled it unenforceable. Therefore we have to have amendments like the Canales Amendment to give the 11th some teeth.
The amendment would force people to look at the issue from the perspective of the state's rights amendment.

As for why states would be better, the states are more responsive to your desires and needs than the federal government is.


Amendment XI: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

huh? What does the 11th amendment have to do with this discussion. Oh...wait...you mean 10th amendment...sorry, I get confused when people suggesting constitutional amendments can't keep the first 10 we have straight. You've been called on this before.

The amendment was popular with the people who knew about it. Except that I did not push do to being railroaded on another issue.

2. It gives states the power to impose health and safety regulations. If a state were to ban it, the fact is the state supreme courts would overrule any attempt to ban abortion within a specific state. This I know, cause your side has packed the state Supreme Courts. Now you're saying you don't trust your own side.

3. Actually it is valid. People who join the army under Conscientious Objector status don't have to go into combat. Support for abortion or against it, is not the equivalent of being pro or anti environment. It is the taking of a life just as war is the taking to life. You are comparing an apple with an orange.

4. Ah yes, the famous Bush line of "You're either with me or against me" argument. I think the American people just want both sides to leave them alone. I think the American people want the harrassement from both sides to stop. They want government neutrality. They want the government out of their bedrooms. They don't proabortionists or prolifers dictating their personal lives to them. This amendment is a step in that direction.
While you have a right to an abortion, you do not have the right to force me to pay for it. The matter of funding for other health services is easily remedied. Those groups that recieve federal funds should keep the federal funds in a budget seperate from the group's regular budget. If such groups want to continue to provide abortions, they are still free to do so. They can pay for them with private donations from good pro abortionists such as yourself. And lets not forget that many state governments will continue to provide public funding for abortion, and there is also the fact that the UN still provides public funding for abortion as do many other foreign governments. Abortion providing agencies in third world nations can always get abortion funding from them.
1. I know about it, and it's not popular with me. But then, I'm not one of those who want the government to ban abortion while in the same breath denying that I want that. Not your crowd, I guess.

As for being traumatized by getting "railroaded" on another issue -- too bad, so sad. Seriously, be straight with us, on this if nothing else -- are you or are you not the author of this amendment, and are you or are you not a professional politician? If you are a professional politician, then suck it up, son -- it's called politics. If you're not -- suck it up anyway.

2. And didn't I just finish saying that public health should be regulated by the federal government to maintain a national standard? So, obviously, it's pointless to try and sell me on this idea of the states regulating health and safety.

And I enjoy the way you try to reassure me by saying that nothing will come of all your hasserei because "my side" (cute assumption) has stacked the courts. Well, then why are you bothering? Just to show how powerless you are in the world? Or is this another failed attempt to distract me from the fact that you are proposing a constitutional amendment, not a mere new law. Once more with feeling -- if you amend the Constitution these courts you seem to think are so full of avid baby-eaters will have nothing to say about abortion bans at all, now will they, since Roe is nothing but a court decision, and the Constitution trumps that.

3. And you are comparing apples, oranges and nectarines. Tax allocation is a procedural matter, not a civil rights issue. You may argue about whether taxes themselves are a violation of rights, but the procedures for allocating tax dollars for spending have no more to do with civil rights than your own method of balancing your accounts. The method currently used does not allow for such minute line item controls. If you want to change that, you can present bills specifically for such a change in procedure to Congress, but that has nothing at all to do with abortion.

Further, leaving aside the false argument that abortion is equivalent to murder, there is still the fact that someone else's death does not impinge on your rights. You have no standing to claim that abortion is a violation of your rights because you are not harmed by other people getting abortions. And if your rights are not harmed by abortion, then your rights cannot be harmed by tax dollars being allocated to abortion providers by the government.

4. Yeah, yeah, neutrality, out of the bedroom, blah, blah. You keep saying this, but at the same time you keep advocation putting state government into my bedroom, into my doctor's office, into my womb. If you really care that Americans want the government to stay out of their business, then why don't you advocate there being no laws at all regulating abortion, beyond the general FDA safety controls, so we can have near total freedom, just like we do in practicing our religions? No, that's not on your agenda. Admit it -- you do want government to control abortion, but only those parts of government that you think are more likely to agree with you. As I said earlier, you wouldn't be pushing this if there were not already certain state governments that have tried to severely restrict or outright ban abortion within their states.

Finally, I love your closing sentiment -- the poor can always go beg for money from someone else who has less of it than the government. What a smug bunch of assumptions and implied insults are lurking there. You know perfectly well that eliminating federal funds to services that provide abortion will effectively eliminate abortion from the communities they serve -- and that is exactly what you want, because you also know perfectly well that the majority of Americans don't want more restrictions on abortion, let alone a ban. What you can't get honestly through law and votes, you instead try to get through deception and trickery. What a weak and cowardly way to go about things.

As for being traumatized by getting "railroaded" on another issue -- too bad, so sad. Seriously, be straight with us, on this if nothing else -- are you or are you not the author of this amendment, and are you or are you not a professional politician? If you are a professional politician, then suck it, son -- it's called politics. If you're not -- suck it up anyway.

I did some research on our good pal Whittier(aka Robert Canales) a few days ago. Seems he did make a run at congress in 2000. His campaign website is still up here: http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/

Look at his Jolt profile and mosey on over to his blog if you want some background information. Good reading...

I did some research on our good pal Whittier(aka Robert Canales) a few days ago. Seems he did make a run at congress in 2000. His campaign website is still up here: http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/

Look at his Jolt profile and mosey on over to his blog if you want some background information. Good reading...
Well done, thanks. He's got some resume there. He might want to drop the reference to an "uncharacterized discharge" from the armed forces. That invites characterization. I also find his platform somewhat inconsistent and also difficult to reconcile with the things he says here.

On NS he comes off as much more religious and radical than he does in his campaign presentation. Also, he seems pretty hell-bent to amend the Constitution on several incredibly narrow issues, yet his general views seem quite broad and forceful. I guess I couldn't trust a candidate who's so hard to pin down.

But it doesn't matter. He clearly doesn't have what it takes to be a politician if he can't handle one little railroad job. He should stick to lobbying.

Hey, Whittier, sorry to talk about you when you're in the room, so to speak, but the format makes 3-way conversations somewhat awkward at times.

I was railroaded by the anti abortionists in the Republican Party who were also anti everything else, and wanted to shut down all public schools and deny emergency medical care to immigrants.
As for the uncharacterized discharge, a small part of the reason I joined back up and got shot at today by terrorists.
My time limit is up so I have to wait until tommorrow to respond to the other stuff.

Sutured Psyche's proposal for Section 4 is somewhat agreeable but needs to be cleaned up. I'll post a counter proposal tommorrow.

Sutured Psyche's proposal for Section 4 is somewhat agreeable but needs to be cleaned up. I'll post a counter proposal tommorrow.


Cleaned up? Seems pretty clear to me. No laws regarding abortion allowed by any level of government, from the feds down to the town council. Abortion regulated only by statutes that regulate all medical care and liscensing. In effect, it creates a universal right to abortion (I mean right in the sense that our founders intended), it takes abortion out of the hands of the government and puts it into the sole hands of each individual considering it.

I look forward to seeing your parry -er- counter proposal soon.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on answers to my "red herrings."

Cleaned up? Seems pretty clear to me. No laws regarding abortion allowed by any level of government, from the feds down to the town council. Abortion regulated only by statutes that regulate all medical care and liscensing. In effect, it creates a universal right to abortion (I mean right in the sense that our founders intended), it takes abortion out of the hands of the government and puts it into the sole hands of each individual considering it.

I look forward to seeing your parry -er- counter proposal soon.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on answers to my "red herrings."
Seems clear to me, too, and 100% acceptable. Access to medical care should be and generally is considered a human right, which transcends even civil rights. As abortion is a medical procedure, surely it should be treated with the same standards of both access and regulation as all other medical procedures and treatments. Simply put, this means the (1) the government should subsidize medical treatment for the poor (if not just institute a national plan already), and (2) the government does not get to pick and choose which medical treatments it wants to pay for.

Seems clear to me, too, and 100% acceptable. Access to medical care should be and generally is considered a human right, which transcends even civil rights. As abortion is a medical procedure, surely it should be treated with the same standards of both access and regulation as all other medical procedures and treatments. Simply put, this means the (1) the government should subsidize medical treatment for the poor (if not just institute a national plan already), and (2) the government does not get to pick and choose which medical treatments it wants to pay for.


Man, this is getting off topic, lol. Still, much as I've agreed with ya so far, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that second half of your post, although I'm guessing the disagreement pretty much boils down to our perception of what a "right" is. You seem to read the word "right" in an affirmative sense: in other words, people are entitled not only to access but to distribution. I tend to believe that a right is simply something that is off-limits to government intervention. I believe in freedom of religion but I don't believe that means a church can't refuse you enterence, I believe in a right to bear arms but I don't think the government should have to buy me a gun, I believe in freedom of speech but I don't expect a subsidised speech writer to feed me witty repartee.

Applying these feelings to abortion (or healthcare more generally) would mean that I belive everyone should have access to abortion (i.e., the government can place no barriers in your way) but that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe everyone is entitled to an abortion if they cannot obtain one. Granted, I don't have a problem with the idea of charity or government assistance in the healthcare sector (though I do feel any government funds should be carefully controlled in order to prevent waste and fraud), in fact I'm a big fan. I just don't see subsidies as being built into the concept of a right to healthcare.

Response to Sutured Psyche's red herrings.

1. It is a job of government to protect its people from terrorists. The money planned parenthood spends on security against possible terrorist attacks would be better used on providing birth control and free gynocological services. If a clinic's employees fear a terrorist attack on their clinic, they are entitled to police protection. Protestors have a right to protest anything they want, as long as they remain on public property. Protesting a clinic from public sidewalk is neither a threat to life nor a threat to privacy. Restricting such protests, however, is indeed a great harm to freedom. Clinic bombing on the other hand, is not protesting, but terrorism. There are already myriad laws against terrorism in the US. Laws that aimed preventing such bombings were actually America's first anti-terrorism laws. People who bomb clinics or abduct doctors to kill them should be treated the same way we treat islamic terrorists. Ship them to Guantanamo.

2. The issue did not side track me out of college. It was a hobby. I was too poor to take classes on a regular basis. Something I did extensive research on. And information on the web and at the public library is almost always free. I once did a college paper on how the issue would cause the disintegration of the United States. I put the likely hood of such a split resulting from the abortion issue at 60% at the time. That is how divided Americans actually were. Now the greatest threat to our freedom and to unity of our nation comes not from abortion but from the political parties. That is why, at the time, I moved at the time, to draft an amendment to require the government to be neutral. Giving the states the power to regulate abortion was the only way to get the Republicans to support it. Denying Congress the power to deny groups funding on the excuse of their support for abortion was the only way I could get the Dems to support it. If you reread the amendment, it does not allow Congress to deny people or organizations funding just because of their support or opposition to abortion. If a government funds condom programs, it cannot deny funds to an organization that provides a free condom service just because that organization also offers abortion. According to the amendment, once the organization gets the government funds, it is free to use it as it sees fit as long as it is within the proper use guidelines. Early abortion would be a birth control issue but late abortion would not. Late abortion would have to come from women's health funds.

3. Interesting. I know a lot of people who are not religious but who oppose abortion nonetheless. I beleive they are more common than you have yet seen in your own experience.
May I suggest running for office or at least campaigning for a candidate. You meet lots of people from varied backgrounds. When I was active in the church I knew almost only church activists. When I was in college I knew the people from the churches, and from the college. When I first ran for office I met and came to know some good Republicans and good outstanding residents of Whittier California. Heck, I knew every person on the city council. But my resulting view of the world was narrow because the people I knew were from narrow backgrounds. When I campaigned for my own congressional campaign, it enabled me to meet people of diverse backgrounds, opinions, and experiences. For analogy let me refer to how a poll is conducted. If you stand in front of Walmart asking people a question about something of national interest, you are not getting a representative sample that can be extrapolated to the greater population. Even if you get 10,000 responses (the minimum requirement for a poll to be scientifically valid), if all you did was stand in front of Walmart having people fill out your questionaire, you only get the views of Walmart employees and customers, you have not gotten a picture of the real America. You only got the Walmart subculture of America. Another thing you can do, is join the military because people from all walks of life join the services. In the American military you have former high school students, college graduates with PHDs., construction workers, police officers, firemen, politicians, religious activists, waitresses, strip dancers, nurses, stay at home mothers, hell, you even have former porn stars. All of them fighting for a common cause. I have yet to meet any of them however, who thinks abortion is always a good thing.

4. US News did a special investigative report last summer. They had to go to court to get the government to comply with the FOIA requests. They uncovered a vast corporate/government coverup. They also revealed that most pharmaceutical research was paid for not by the pharms, but by the taxpayers and that the government was allowing the same pharms to take the medicines developed with taxpayer funds and charge the same taxpayers an arm and a leg for them. I have the issue backhome, locked in a warehouse.

5. HMO's are evil. They allow good people to die just so they can save a few pennies. I don't like HMO's and they'll never get sympathy from me. They are billion dollar profit conglomerates whose only concern is making a profit, not saving lives. When an HMO denies a patient life saving care just so they can save $1,000, that HMO is evil incarnate.

6. No. That is wrong. Some abortions are a necessary and others a necessary evil and still others should just be banned comletely. It depends on the circumstance. Partial birth abortion as I've stated previously is not abortion but, in most cases, cold blooded murder. I hold that rights are not a matter of inches or degrees. If a right is fundamental, it is equal with all other fundamental rights. A woman's right to equality does not take precedence over a child's right to life. Nor does a woman's right to life, but rather it is on equal footing with the child's own right to life. No person's rights take precedence over those of another. When the fundamental rights of two people come into conflict, as in the case of abortion, then it is incumbent to take the action that would result in the best positive result. And forcing a woman to carry a child to full term will not always produce a positive result nor will allowing abortions willy nilly produce the best positive result. Therefore, a compromise is required between the two opposing forces to create an equilibrium.

7. Since partial birth abortion is not abortion it cannot be compared to abortion. A more apt comparison would be the atrocities committed by the Nazi government on the children of desirables. Speaking of which, as we all know, abortion is an invention of Hitler's Nazi's which we have aptly adopted in our western society. Of course, you probably weren't aware of that. It was used to prevent jewish and other nonaryan women from reproducing. A law banning partial birth abortion is not a precedent that can be used to justify unjust bans on abortion on moral grounds. The two are so different.

8. I oppose gun control. It's against the constitution.

9. And I believe you are mistaken and quick to judgement. If our visions of freedom are so different how is it possible that we can agree that government should have virtually no power in regards to abortion? How is it we both oppose gun control? In my experience, the ones we think are our political enemies, often turn out to be our only real allies when it comes right down to it. When I first wrote this proposal, I was apprehensive. I knew the history of the pro-choice movement and the lengths to which it went to restrict freedom in the name of abortion. I originally believed that they would be more likely that than the pro-lifers to oppose it. I tweaked the proposal for over two years, before presenting it. Just to make it acceptable to both sides. So I inserted that government could not deny funding to groups on the basis of abortion nor could it punish or reward people for it. They accepted it. The Pro-lifers opposed it as it was.
To get Pro-life support for the amendment I inserted the states' rights section allowing states to regulate abortion. I bent over backwards for both sides. I added the state section and again the pro-choice groups said they would accept it even though they didn't get everything they wanted. I was incredulous when again the influential pro-life christian groups opposed it. It didn't outright ban abortion was the reason they gave for opposing it. They wanted all or nothing. But I know from history that freedom cannot be secured unless everyone is willing to give up something. A successful solution to the abortion conflict required and still requires the religious political activists to give up their quest for a constitutional ban on all abortions. They wanted to ban abortions even in cases where the kid was going to be born dead and the woman would also die. Contrary to what you think of me, I could not and will not agree to that. My proposal faltered not because it would have harmed women, but becuase people like the leadership of Concerned Women for America and other religious groups executed a scorched earth policy to kill it before the American people, such as yourself, could even get a chance to see it for themselves. They made up false and atrocious mischaracterisations of me. Within the party they engageed in the most ruthless character assassination I had seen directed at me at the time. They were even behind getting a member of the party to denounce me and try to make himself the parties nominee. That trick didn't work. I still got way more votes than him. The final vote tally should available on the registrars online database. The guy's name was John Brantuk. His campaign was a total abortion ban, deportation of everyone of mexican ancestry, shutting down schools and banning public education and giving corporations more control over communities. Look up the tally. As you can see, even though I lost that election, I still beat the crap out of that backstabbing son of a bitch and his wacko backers. Plus I got the highest votes of any republican in that district in that decade.

10. Looks like we're close to an agreement. Too bad I can't campaign for it now. Being deployed presents a sort of complication plus there is still the obstacle of influential religious extremist opposition. I've met the people from Concerned Women of America. My first impression and my last impression of them was that they had their elite noses stuck up their asses. I have yet to see a means with which to break their ability to block such an amendment except by appealing directly to the American people. But I have not the resources to make such an appeal.

Post 80:

1. I don't.

2. What the???? Qoute me where I said the reason it wasn't abortion was because it was called "dilation and extraction".

3. RU486 would be abortion if there actually a concieved child. It takes 48 hours for conception to occur. Contrary to popular misbelief, a sperm entering an egg cell is not conception. It is only the start. Conception takes place only when the sperm reaches the center of the egg. The egg is composed of a very complex and very long maze that takes the sperm cell 48 hours just to navigate. Not all sperm are able to complete the journey. That is why some eggs which are fertilized don't result in pregnancy. The sperm in such cases was not able to reach the center of the egg in time. Once a sperm enters an egg a timer is turned on. If the sperm gets lost or otherwise fails to reach the center in time, pregnancy does not result. Nor does conception occur. In most cases, I surmise, from this, that if a couple is unable to get pregnant, it is the man's fault. Men who are thinking they would like to have children someday, ought to be more concerned for the health of their sperm than they seem to be.

4. I have no quarrel with D&X being allowed to preserve the life of a woman if it is necessary. I oppose D&X in cases where the woman wanted the reason then for some reason decided she didn't want it anymore, even though it posed no threat to either her health or her life. Speaking of which, I believe you were the one to bring up PBA.

5. The scientific consensus is that it is indeed a life. The disconsensus is over whether that life constitutes a person. It is the personhood of the fetus that one decides on faith. Not whether it is alive. Cause if you are talking about life, a fetus meets the scientific definition of life. Personhood on the other hand cannot be scientifically defined. But if we were attempt to, with our lack of knowledge of how the fetal brain works, we would have to conclude that a fetus is not person until the the middle of the second trimester.

6. I have yet to see a Supreme Court ruling that touches the issue. I do know that a lot of states, like California, were trying to pass laws to require that all doctors and other health providers in their states to provide abortion whether it violated their right to conscience or not. Its part of the issue. If we are going to have government neutrality, that includes not forcing people to perform or otherwise support abortion against their will.

7. It is the government's job to protect the unfortunate.

8. On point 3, I did not cite the $25,000 figure. I used it as an example of the corruption and greed of the pharmaceutical industry. A prime reason to abolish the FDA or restrict its authority. On point 4, yes they should. The rest I will address later.

9. I proposticate that your proposed change would look better thus:


Section 4: a. The states shall pass no laws favoring or prohibiting abortion.
b. The states shall pass no laws denying funding to groups or persons on the basis of whether they support or oppose abortion.
c. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny states the proper authority to apply routine or emergency health and safety regulations to businesses or charities engaged in providing abortion services.

Section 5: Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving abortion.



The old section 5 becomes section 6. That addresses an earlier criticism brought up earlier in which it was noted that the courts were not mentioned. I had thought that by not mentioning them it would be obvious that they would still be able to hear cases touching on abortion still protect the legitimate rights of women. It is my intentin by adding this that there would be no confusion on the role on what I think the role of the courts should be.

repsonse to 81:

1. I got only one response to that. The infamous one finger salute.

2. Even though you guys stacked the courts, your court puppets can't overturn the constitution. Unless you got someeone like that wacko California judge who declared that the California constitution violated the California constitution. Federal court decisions are supposed to apply the constitution to regular cases.

3. Yet, even though giving tax money to companies that use slaves overseas or to use it to tear down historic monuments are also procedural matters. The current system gives Congress and state houses line item control over where government funds are spent.


4. It is my belief that society is indeed harmed by abortion on demand. I hold that it encourages criminality and irresponsibility.

5. Weak weak weak.


response to post 82:
You should know that page is actually hosted in some online museum. The link that went to geocities now redirects there. They put it up cause they thought my site was a peice of history being one the first websites dedicated to someone's campaign for public office. I believe that there was one or two other people who also had sites. But not as in depth as mine was. Now campaign websites have gone a long way since then and its only been 5 years. The sites in 2004 were a lot more complex and had more stuff than the ones in 2000.
Good reading? There's nothing of interest there. Just thoughts recorded.


response to 83:

1. Something that bothered me at the time was that some veterans groups were referring to me as a veteran. A person who was discharged after 4 months is not what I call a veteran. I was not comfortable with that description. A couple of people called me about it, and I agreed with them. But the groups didn't change their characterization. I guess with them, if you get kicked out of basic, you are a veteran. After the election, one of the reason I joined the Army again was that I figured that if the veterans groups were going to insist on calling me a veteran, I might as well do something to make it true. Now it looks like I'll be vet in the true sense, instead of just in the sense of serving but never going to a war zone. I learn a new word from these Iraqis each week. Most of its hard to remember. I don't think I'll remember much of it when I leave. (Not much opportunity to speak or enmesh in it). Still with all the time we have over here, it is unfortunate that many will go back to know America still not knowing how to swear in arabic.

2. On NS I was an impersonal entity. No one knew who I was. Not any more I suppose. On an anonymous forum you have more freedom to express your real views. Which for me are based on my religion. But Jesus said "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and to God that which is God's". The real Jesus, the real God endorse seperation of Church and State. Having and stating your views is one thing. But when you are dealing laws that is different. You are actually doing something that would impact on people. Though you may hold strong views, you must always err on the side of caution. Take the path that you believe will be least harmful and most beneficial to society. Hence, just as there is a constitutional seperation of church and state, I have put up a protective barrier between some of my beliefs and my actual political agenda. You see, God does not want a theocracy. What he wants commands is seperation of church and state, check the Book of Matthew. I use the founders own writings as a guide. If nothing is available on the subject, I refer to my faith and use my best fallible judgement.
If a doctor wants to perform an abortion, that is for God to judge him, not society and certainly not government.
If a woman seeks an abortion, that is for God to judge her, not the government, not society.
Speaking of which, I see that in one of your earlier posts, you borrowed one of my lines from my website: "Abortion is between a woman and her God."

3. The religious equality amendment is nothing more than a gimmick. The point was to define religious freedom and the role of government. But the amendment proposal became so convoluted that it was and is nothing more than a gimmick to gain support from the religious. I hold that everything in it, ought to be covered by the first.
The amendments I really would have liked to push, were the Canales Amendment and an equal rights amendment that I have posted up somewhere.
The equal rights amendment would have banned states from banning gay marriage cause it would have denied gays equal protection under the law and it would have protected other groups.
My views are practical but forceful. And there is precedent for people being extreme in their rhetoric on the campaign trail but then being moderate when they get elected. Several people I know, campaigned against public education but then voted to fund it once they got elected. Don't mistake it for hypocrisy. Being an elected person, has a moderating impact on people. The reason is that they have access to information they didn't have access to before.

4. My enemies are not meant to pin me down. That's what my tactics are about. In face to face talks I'll tell the average person what I'm about. But with people who could be my opposition, I am deliberately vague and backstepping. Then when I become specific and forceful, it throws them off. That's my version of walk softly and pack a big stick.

5. Actually I beat the railroader but a landslide. But loyalty to Democratic Party overcame my more enlightened platform. It is an unfortunate artifact that a lot of people still vote for the party instead of on the issues. Its also one of the reasons I was railroaded. A small group accused me of disloyalty to the Republican Party and its values. Even though, when you look at the platform, there was quite a few similarities to the national Republican platform. So I was outed by the state but not by the national party which was shocked when they found that the state had kicked me out. An inquiry found that the state committee made its decision based on false and libelous evidence fabricated by my opponents in the party. You know what they used as evidence? An article in the Whittier Daily News where I noted the elitism of the party's state leadership and said that I would consider parting from the party. Then they fabricated some crap about me actually registering as an independent. I remember those times. They disliked my views so much they kept trying to make me reregister. I have often been asked to reregister as a democrat. I didn't feel the need to though. Since both parties are the same. The only difference is the label. Why switch when I'll probably switch back later? The paper's editorial board noted this and asked if I was going to switch to the Democrats. I could never figure out why people were trying to convert me to the democratic cause. I didn't want to support the California Democrats. Their party is controlled by extremists and wackos. Mind that while I agreed with some of the Dems national platform, converting over would have required endorsing leftist extremism which I was not willing to do. The Republican Party had its share of extremists, but at least their state party was controlled by moderates. Even though some local committees at the district level were controlled by radical. Being a moderate requires walking a tightrope.

6. If I had a messenger service that would a solution the problem you noted. Of course, reliable internet access is a luxury over here.


Post 85:
Nothing wrong with the concept. I just improved it to make it look better.
Eh, I don't think our founders ever had to deal with abortion as an issue.

Post 86:
I forcefully disagree here. You have a right to seek medical care but you don't have a right to access to it. Those are two seperate things. The right to life is a right that transcends so called civil rights.
It is not a right to have government pay your medical expenses. However, if the national budget permitted, I would allow that government funds healthcare, not because you have a right to government funded healthcare, but because its the humanitarian thing to do.
2. I thought I saw someone say this in this thread. Actually you are wrong. The government often chooses which medical procedures it pays for. It does so everytime they debate the budget and vote on it.

You have a right to seek happiness but you don't have the right to get it by stealing or harming someone else.

Another analogy is that you have a right to seek sex with a particular woman, but you don't have the right to force or coerce her into sex.

Social Security itself is an entitlement, but it is not a right

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING SLAVERY.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND SLAVERY NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE SLAVERY.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN SLAVERY.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING SLAVERY WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

I modified your text to show why I oppose such an amendment. I support states' rights to a very large extent, but I also believe that no American state should be permitted to violate fundamental human and civil rights. There should be standards to our Union.

As for whether or not such an amendment would overturn Roe, I don't especially care...for me, the only important issue is whether passing such an amendment would violate the rights of 51% of American citizens. And I believe it would. Whether or not it is in allignment with Roe is beside the point.

Man, this is getting off topic, lol. Still, much as I've agreed with ya so far, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that second half of your post, although I'm guessing the disagreement pretty much boils down to our perception of what a "right" is. You seem to read the word "right" in an affirmative sense: in other words, people are entitled not only to access but to distribution. I tend to believe that a right is simply something that is off-limits to government intervention. I believe in freedom of religion but I don't believe that means a church can't refuse you enterence, I believe in a right to bear arms but I don't think the government should have to buy me a gun, I believe in freedom of speech but I don't expect a subsidised speech writer to feed me witty repartee.

Applying these feelings to abortion (or healthcare more generally) would mean that I belive everyone should have access to abortion (i.e., the government can place no barriers in your way) but that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe everyone is entitled to an abortion if they cannot obtain one. Granted, I don't have a problem with the idea of charity or government assistance in the healthcare sector (though I do feel any government funds should be carefully controlled in order to prevent waste and fraud), in fact I'm a big fan. I just don't see subsidies as being built into the concept of a right to healthcare.
I can live with that difference of opinion. I do tend to interpret rights more affirmatively, but on a sliding scale, if you will.

The more the right in question has to do with survival -- such as food, shelter, medical treatment; i.e. human rights -- the more I believe a nation's government has a duty to make sure a minimum standard is available to all of its citizens, and in extreme cases, to non-citizens as well, if possible. I do believe that governments have a greater "good samaritan" responsibility than individuals do, and that if it is feasibly within a government's power to provide minimum requirements for human rights, then it should be crime to refuse to do so. But this is only on matters of survival, and I think the government should only be a safety net, not the first-choice source of support.

When the right does not affect survival -- such as free speech, freedom of religion, etc.; i.e. civil rights -- then I don't think the people should rely on the government to give it to them. Instead, they should only demand that the government not deprive them of it and to write laws that will help them stop other citizens from depriving them of their right (such as anti-discrimination laws).

Abortion may not be a matter of survival in most cases, but reproductive health and control (including abortion) has proven to be a significant factor in the public health of whole populations. Health is a human right and public health is a government responsibility. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to say that the government should not refuse to fund (i.e. subsidize) programs that provide abortion.

But in general, I disapprove of this program-funding thing anyway. If the US, for instance, would institute a national health system, abortion should fall well within the range of covered procedures. Then, if patients find that the anti-choice movement has limited the number of providers in their regions through social or political pressure, they won't be held captive by HMOs that restrict which doctors they can see and still get their coverage. They will be able to afford to see a doctor outside their region.

Doh! How did I click no? It was supposed to be yes.....

Would this overturn Roe v. Wade?

Of course it would. It's an amendment to the Constitution that says basically the opposite of the Supreme Court's decision. Simple. This isn't quite the "all forms of abortion are now and forever banned without exception or provision" amendment that Republicans really want, but this is basically a conservative amendment that Republicans want to pass so that the Red states can outlaw abortion freely.

<SNIPPED TO RESPOND ONLY TO REMARKS DIRECTED TO ME AND BOLDED TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT I'M RESPONDING TO.>

repsonse to 81:

1. I got only one response to that. The infamous one finger salute.

2. Even though you guys stacked the courts, your court puppets can't overturn the constitution. Unless you got someeone like that wacko California judge who declared that the California constitution violated the California constitution. Federal court decisions are supposed to apply the constitution to regular cases.

3. Yet, even though giving tax money to companies that use slaves overseas or to use it to tear down historic monuments are also procedural matters. The current system gives Congress and state houses line item control over where government funds are spent.

4. It is my belief that society is indeed harmed by abortion on demand. I hold that it encourages criminality and irresponsibility.

5. Weak weak weak.


<snipped>

response to 83:

1. Something that bothered me at the time was that some veterans groups were referring to me as a veteran. A person who was discharged after 4 months is not what I call a veteran. I was not comfortable with that description. A couple of people called me about it, and I agreed with them. But the groups didn't change their characterization. <snip>

2. On NS I was an impersonal entity. No one knew who I was. Not any more I suppose. On an anonymous forum you have more freedom to express your real views. Which for me are based on my religion. But Jesus said "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and to God that which is God's". The real Jesus, the real God endorse seperation of Church and State. Having and stating your views is one thing. But when you are dealing laws that is different. You are actually doing something that would impact on people. Though you may hold strong views, you must always err on the side of caution. Take the path that you believe will be least harmful and most beneficial to society. <snip>
Speaking of which, I see that in one of your earlier posts, you borrowed one of my lines from my website: "Abortion is between a woman and her God."

3. The religious equality amendment is nothing more than a gimmick. The point was to define religious freedom and the role of government. But the amendment proposal became so convoluted that it was and is nothing more than a gimmick to gain support from the religious. I hold that everything in it, ought to be covered by the first.
<snip>
My views are practical but forceful. And there is precedent for people being extreme in their rhetoric on the campaign trail but then being moderate when they get elected. Several people I know, campaigned against public education but then voted to fund it once they got elected. Don't mistake it for hypocrisy. Being an elected person, has a moderating impact on people. The reason is that they have access to information they didn't have access to before.

4. My enemies are not meant to pin me down. That's what my tactics are about. In face to face talks I'll tell the average person what I'm about. But with people who could be my opposition, I am deliberately vague and backstepping. Then when I become specific and forceful, it throws them off. That's my version of walk softly and pack a big stick.

5. Actually I beat the railroader but a landslide. But loyalty to Democratic Party overcame my more enlightened platform. It is an unfortunate artifact that a lot of people still vote for the party instead of on the issues. Its also one of the reasons I was railroaded. A small group accused me of disloyalty to the Republican Party and its values. Even though, when you look at the platform, there was quite a few similarities to the national Republican platform. So I was outed by the state but not by the national party which was shocked when they found that the state had kicked me out. An inquiry found that the state committee made its decision based on false and libelous evidence fabricated by my opponents in the party. You know what they used as evidence? An article in the Whittier Daily News where I noted the elitism of the party's state leadership and said that I would consider parting from the party. Then they fabricated some crap about me actually registering as an independent. I remember those times. They disliked my views so much they kept trying to make me reregister. I have often been asked to reregister as a democrat. I didn't feel the need to though. Since both parties are the same. The only difference is the label. Why switch when I'll probably switch back later? The paper's editorial board noted this and asked if I was going to switch to the Democrats. I could never figure out why people were trying to convert me to the democratic cause. I didn't want to support the California Democrats. Their party is controlled by extremists and wackos. Mind that while I agreed with some of the Dems national platform, converting over would have required endorsing leftist extremism which I was not willing to do. The Republican Party had its share of extremists, but at least their state party was controlled by moderates. Even though some local committees at the district level were controlled by radical. Being a moderate requires walking a tightrope.

6. If I had a messenger service that would a solution the problem you noted. Of course, reliable internet access is a luxury over here.

<snip>

Post 86:
I forcefully disagree here. You have a right to seek medical care but you don't have a right to access to it. Those are two seperate things. The right to life is a right that transcends so called civil rights.
It is not a right to have government pay your medical expenses. However, if the national budget permitted, I would allow that government funds healthcare, not because you have a right to government funded healthcare, but because its the humanitarian thing to do.
2. I thought I saw someone say this in this thread. Actually you are wrong. The government often chooses which medical procedures it pays for. It does so everytime they debate the budget and vote on it.

You have a right to seek happiness but you don't have the right to get it by stealing or harming someone else.

Another analogy is that you have a right to seek sex with a particular woman, but you don't have the right to force or coerce her into sex.

Social Security itself is an entitlement, but it is not a right
Re your response to Post 81:

1. I've plainly stated my reading of your tactics and your agenda several times, and I've plainly stated my negative opinion of them several times. Finally, you've returned the favor.

2. Thank you for proving my point. The courts can't overturn the Constitution, so if you amend the Constitution, you will make it impossible for the courts to stop states from banning abortion, despite your unfounded assurances otherwise.

3. To get your way on an issue by coming at it from the money angle is a backward approach to the matter and will not succeed in the long run because it does not address the reasons why money is allocated to the thing you don't like in the first place. If you want the government to stop funding abortion, you have to eliminate the public demand that prompts the government to fund abortion. Your way would simply deny people a service even if they demand to have it -- in other words, you don't want the government to serve the will of the people.

As for the second part of your tax argument, thank you again for proving my point -- you want to move control over abortion to the states precisely because you believe that at least some states will stop allocating funds they receive from the federal government to abortion.

4. You may sincerely believe that abortion harms society but there are many public health authorities and sources of statistics that indicate that you are wrong and that it has no effect, unless, possibly, a positive one. In any event, I am not willing to grant you the right to pass laws that you think will make individual human beings less "irresponsible" since irresponsibility is a subjective value that exists "in the eye of the beholder." For instance, I think you're being irresponsible for trying to amend the Constitution on this issue.

5. I didn't have a 5th item in that post. :confused:

Re your response to Post 83:

1. You could have just said "discharged." If you were worried about misrepresenting your military service, you had an entire web page to explain why you weren't a veteran then. "Uncharacterized discharge" implies there was something wrong with your discharge. Bad politics not to realize that. If I'd been your opponent, I'd have been all over that mistake. I wouldn't even have to make up false stories. All I would have to do is repeat the phrase now and then, and watch you explain to the media over and over why it's a perfectly innocent description.

2. Yet right on your website, you clearly state that you opposed some laws in your state because they violated god's law. It's in your resume/bio in the side bar next to your platform on issues. That sounds to me, as a reader, like you will apply your religion's standards to the law that governs me and that you expect the law to agree with the scripture you believe in. Sorry, but that's not separation of church and state enough for me.

Please give me the post number where I said that, because I don't remember it. I think it may have been someone else. I don't generally use the phrase "her/his/their god" and I don't capitalize the word god. Maybe I was literally quoting you or someone else.

3. Are you saying that you are in the habit of proposing frivolous amendments that you don't really believe in? Who are you, the Boy Who Cried Wolf? This is not the way to get people to take you seriously. Likewise, I don't buy your assurance that we should vote for people even if they seem way too radical because, once they get the job, they'll calm down. Maybe I should buy a car that has a history of catching fire and exploding because, once I own it, I can get it fixed.

4. What about your voters? Are they allowed to pin you down enough to decide to support you? Your web page leaves me wondering where you stand on anything. Your platform contains some internal inconsistencies (for instance you claim to be a Republican but your platform seems far more Libertarian), but the real disconnect is between your platform and your bio. The platform makes you seem like a centrist, secular, populist libertarian, but your bio makes you seem like a right-winger whose focus is on religion and morality. These are not consistent images. The least damage this campaign page does to you is to make you look inexperienced in politics.

5. So rather than play their game and beat them at it, you just gave in. Like I said, not cut out for politics. And do you think they would have been able to play this shell game with your party affiliation if your affiliation had been clear? (See my note #4 immediately above.) It seems you defeated yourself, sir.

Re your response to Post 86:

1. So if I'm poor, and I'm pregnant, and I suffer an attack of diabetes I hadn't been diagnosed with before but which has now turned acute, and my doctors recommend that I abort my pregnancy to save my health and possibly my life, but because of your amendment, I can't get one in my state and my HMO won't pay for any doctors outside the plan, i.e., in another state, then I can just stay pregnant and take the consequences -- and take what comfort I can in you telling me that I have a right to the one thing you are barring me from getting. Because that's what you are saying when you say I have a right to have A or B, but no right to demand access to A or B. Thank you yet again for proving another of my points, namely that you have no interest in women's rights or the rights of the poor; that you are only interested in restricting and/or banning abortion; and that you're being dishonest in your approach to doing that.

2. Your comparisons are false.

Stealing is a crime; abortion is not. An individual's relative lack of happiness does not threaten their life, nor is it a public health matter, therefore there is no right to steal merely to support happiness.

Abortion is also not comparable to rape because the fetus has no will that the woman can violate by aborting it. Your own stated views on abortion agree with this.

Social Security is not necessary to one's life; it is merely a convenience provided by the government, thus an entitlement (i.e. to a privilege). Since I view access to medical care (including abortion) as a basic human right, it cannot then be considered a convenience or a privilege and therefore it is not an entitlement.

By the way, all of these comparisons imply that you in fact oppose abortion and that your statements otherwise are not true. Another inconsistency.

Response to Sutured Psyche's red herrings.

Do you know what a red herring is?! Stop using the term until you've looked it up. I'm asking specific questions that are pertinent to the discussion and parallel examples. Honestly, please quote one red herring from me.

1. It is a job of government to protect its people from terrorists. The money planned parenthood spends on security against possible terrorist attacks would be better used on providing birth control and free gynocological services. If a clinic's employees fear a terrorist attack on their clinic, they are entitled to police protection.<snip for space>...Ship them to Guantanamo.

They have to spend it because in many areas the police either don't care or can't get there in time. The government doesn't do a good enough job and even if it did there will always be people who do not fear incarceration. As long as there are radical pro-lifers the clinics will need private security. Further, I am of the opinion that if someone is intentionally tresspassing they are clearly criminals and clearly mean to do harm, especially if they are involved with terrorist groups. Therefore, clinic security should be armed and should shoot any protester that moves onto private property.

2. The issue did not side track me out of college. It was a hobby. I was too poor to take classes on a regular basis.

While attending Rio Hondo, Mr. Canales ran for Whittier City Council twice. He also began a major study of the abortion issue and its affects on American society. This research sidetracked him from his studies at Rio Hondo.

So are you lying now or were you lying on your website? Just curious.


4. US News did a special investigative report last summer. They had to go to court to get the government to comply with the FOIA requests. They uncovered a vast corporate/government coverup. They also revealed that most pharmaceutical research was paid for not by the pharms, but by the taxpayers and that the government was allowing the same pharms to take the medicines developed with taxpayer funds and charge the same taxpayers an arm and a leg for them. I have the issue backhome, locked in a warehouse.

Show me the citation, "I have it back home locked in a warehouse" doesn't do it for me. Also, tell me what drug costs USD$25,000.00 per dose. I'm not going to trust you on it, cite it or don't.

5. HMO's are evil. They allow good people to die just so they can save a few pennies. I don't like HMO's and they'll never get sympathy from me. They are billion dollar profit conglomerates whose only concern is making a profit, not saving lives. When an HMO denies a patient life saving care just so they can save $1,000, that HMO is evil incarnate.

I don't remember mentioning an HMO, this smells like a strawman to me. Also, what do HMOs have to do with an abortion debate? Or with anything I've mentioned. That, my friend, is the definition of a red herring.

6. No. That is wrong. Some abortions are a necessary and others a necessary evil and still others should just be banned comletely. It depends on the circumstance. Partial birth abortion as I've stated previously is not abortion but, in most cases, cold blooded murder.

So, let me get this straight. some abortions are cold blooded murder and should be banned, but it is ok to ban these abortions because they aren't really abortions. See, an abortion can be called an abortion but that doesn't mean its an abortion, just that it is an abortion that is really a murder. But you think all abortions are murder. Don't you ever get dizzy?

Honestly, you made a claim about what is medically considered an abortion, I explained that there is no such medical procedure as "abortion" but rather a group of techniqes that are considered abortion by lay individuals because they have similar outcomes.

I hold that rights are not a matter of inches or degrees. If a right is fundamental, it is equal with all other fundamental rights. A woman's right to equality does not take precedence over a child's right to life. Nor does a woman's right to life, but rather it is on equal footing with the child's own right to life. No person's rights take precedence over those of another.

Wanna show me some precident backing your position up? The issue here is that the "rights" of the fetus, if it has any, by nature violate the rights of the mother if she doesn't want to carry it. It doesn't matter how cold or hungry I am, I cannot demand a bed in your home and a seat at your table, doesn't matter if you're a farmer or a robber baron, my right to life does not get to infringe upon your right to own your property.


7. Since partial birth abortion is not abortion it cannot be compared to abortion. A more apt comparison would be the atrocities committed by the Nazi government on the children of desirables. Speaking of which, as we all know, abortion is an invention of Hitler's Nazi's which we have aptly adopted in our western society. Of course, you probably weren't aware of that. It was used to prevent jewish and other nonaryan women from reproducing. A law banning partial birth abortion is not a precedent that can be used to justify unjust bans on abortion on moral grounds. The two are so different.

I declare victory by Godwin. Take your Nazi references and come back when you have an argument that can be supported without invoking the the regiemes of one-testicled Austrian schmucks.

8. I oppose gun control. It's against the constitution.

Ok, pardon my french, but what in the fuck does that have to do with anything?

9. And I believe you are mistaken and quick to judgement. If our visions of freedom are so different how is it possible that we can agree that government should have virtually no power in regards to abortion?

Simple, we don't, you're just either dishonest, naive, or foolish.

In response to the tails of your post I'd just like to say that you have a beautiful cross and I'll play some sad violin music for you when I have the time.

Post 80:

1. I don't.

2. What the???? Qoute me where I said the reason it wasn't abortion was because it was called "dilation and extraction".

YOu keep calling it "partial birth abortion." In your post about it(#74) you were explaining why it wasn't really an abortion, right before your link to religioustollerance.org you referred to it as "D&X."

3. RU486 would be abortion if there actually a concieved child.

Yes, I know, thats not the point I was making. I'll slow it down for ya...abortion is a lay term, not a medical one. What we call abortion is really a large class of different medical techniques for terminating a pregnancy. That is why D&X is an abortion, thats why it is called partial birth abortion, because it terminates a pregnancy. That was the point I was making.

4. Speaking of which, I believe you were the one to bring up PBA.

Only in relation to your website. I brought it up because you did on your platform and I saw it as an inconsistency.

6. I have yet to see a Supreme Court ruling that touches the issue. I do know that a lot of states, like California, were trying to pass laws to require that all doctors and other health providers in their states to provide abortion whether it violated their right to conscience or not. Its part of the issue. If we are going to have government neutrality, that includes not forcing people to perform or otherwise support abortion against their will.

Maher v. Roe (1977) held that public health agencies can refuse to fund abortions. Reiterated in Poelker v. Doe (1977), Harris v. McRae (1980) extended the right of refusal of government funds even to abortions deemed medically necessary, Williams v. Zbaraz (1980) reiterated Harris v. McRae, and finally Rust v. Sullivan / State of New York v. Sullivan (1991) extended refusal rights to funds granted under Title X for counselling services. Neither the federal nor state governments can be forced to pay for abortions.

9. I proposticate that your proposed change would look better thus:

Th' hell does that mean? It isn't in any dictionary I own...


Section 4: a. The states shall pass no laws favoring or prohibiting abortion.
b. The states shall pass no laws denying funding to groups or persons on the basis of whether they support or oppose abortion.
c. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny states the proper authority to apply routine or emergency health and safety regulations to businesses or charities engaged in providing abortion services.

Section 5: Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving abortion.

Sounds good at first, but I have a problem with (c). I would change it to:
"c. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny states the proper authority to apply general and routine health and safety regulations to businesses or charities engaged in providing abortion services. "

I feel that wording would head off a lot of harassment and force states to stay within the spirit as well as the letter of the ammendment.

You should know that page is actually hosted in some online museum. The link that went to geocities now redirects there. They put it up cause they thought my site was a peice of history being one the first websites dedicated to someone's campaign for public office. I believe that there was one or two other people who also had sites.

Really? Cause it doesn't redirect for me and I still get the yahoo! Geocities adds on the side.

2. On NS I was an impersonal entity. No one knew who I was. Not any more I suppose.

Boo friggen' hoo. You put up your amendment which is a google search away from your site, you linked to your blogs, you used your last name on the board.

Y'know I'm pro-choice and pro-states rights (well maybe less pro-states rights than anti-elastic clause) but the biggest objection I have is to four. It violates Federal Judicial Supremacy. Of course outside of that I'm hard pressed to oppose any time the govt. ever voluntarilly decides not to legislate or fund something.....

I can live with that difference of opinion. I do tend to interpret rights more affirmatively, but on a sliding scale, if you will.

The more the right in question has to do with survival -- such as food, shelter, medical treatment; i.e. human rights -- the more I believe a nation's government has a duty to make sure a minimum standard is available to all of its citizens, and in extreme cases, to non-citizens as well, if possible. I do believe that governments have a greater "good samaritan" responsibility than individuals do, and that if it is feasibly within a government's power to provide minimum requirements for human rights, then it should be crime to refuse to do so. But this is only on matters of survival, and I think the government should only be a safety net, not the first-choice source of support.

When the right does not affect survival -- such as free speech, freedom of religion, etc.; i.e. civil rights -- then I don't think the people should rely on the government to give it to them. Instead, they should only demand that the government not deprive them of it and to write laws that will help them stop other citizens from depriving them of their right (such as anti-discrimination laws).

Abortion may not be a matter of survival in most cases, but reproductive health and control (including abortion) has proven to be a significant factor in the public health of whole populations. Health is a human right and public health is a government responsibility. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to say that the government should not refuse to fund (i.e. subsidize) programs that provide abortion.

But in general, I disapprove of this program-funding thing anyway. If the US, for instance, would institute a national health system, abortion should fall well within the range of covered procedures. Then, if patients find that the anti-choice movement has limited the number of providers in their regions through social or political pressure, they won't be held captive by HMOs that restrict which doctors they can see and still get their coverage. They will be able to afford to see a doctor outside their region.
I disagree with the view that abortion is not a matter of survival. If it wasn't, then it would be very simple for me to just use dogma to support an amendment to totally abolish abortion. But the fact is that in every case, abortion is a matter of survival. Most often for the fetus, and sometimes for the woman. While the fetus is debated, surely you would not debate against it being a matter of survival for the woman in some circumstances. It is precisely because it can become a matter of survival for the woman as well as the preborn, that I am so willing to reach a compromise on the amendment itself. The life of the fetus is not more sacred than the life of the woman and vice versa.

YOu keep calling it "partial birth abortion." In your post about it(#74) you were explaining why it wasn't really an abortion, right before your link to religioustollerance.org you referred to it as "D&X."



Yes, I know, thats not the point I was making. I'll slow it down for ya...abortion is a lay term, not a medical one. What we call abortion is really a large class of different medical techniques for terminating a pregnancy. That is why D&X is an abortion, thats why it is called partial birth abortion, because it terminates a pregnancy. That was the point I was making.



Only in relation to your website. I brought it up because you did on your platform and I saw it as an inconsistency.



Maher v. Roe (1977) held that public health agencies can refuse to fund abortions. Reiterated in Poelker v. Doe (1977), Harris v. McRae (1980) extended the right of refusal of government funds even to abortions deemed medically necessary, Williams v. Zbaraz (1980) reiterated Harris v. McRae, and finally Rust v. Sullivan / State of New York v. Sullivan (1991) extended refusal rights to funds granted under Title X for counselling services. Neither the federal nor state governments can be forced to pay for abortions.



Th' hell does that mean? It isn't in any dictionary I own...




Sounds good at first, but I have a problem with (c). I would change it to:
"c. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny states the proper authority to apply general and routine health and safety regulations to businesses or charities engaged in providing abortion services. "

I feel that wording would head off a lot of harassment and force states to stay within the spirit as well as the letter of the ammendment.

Your proposal on c is acceptable. If we have an agreement all we have to do is put the new version to a sort of test to see if it is passable.
We can go ahead and drop the rest of the dialouge.

Y'know I'm pro-choice and pro-states rights (well maybe less pro-states rights than anti-elastic clause) but the biggest objection I have is to four. It violates Federal Judicial Supremacy. Of course outside of that I'm hard pressed to oppose any time the govt. ever voluntarilly decides not to legislate or fund something.....
I added a section just to address that.

abortion is really a state issue.
The 11th amendment clearly states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states and their people.
The constitution does not give power over abortion to the federal government.

Abortion is not a specific power. Roe v Wade holds that ALL people have a right to decide what surgeries they undergo and that this includes women who are pregnant, thus including abortion. You wish to prevent this.

If most people were smart enough to realize this, the Canales amendment would not be necessary.

Ha. Amusing.

And as you admitted, the reasons for the passage of Roe v Wade are indeed very very weak. The reason the Pro-life side has not succeeded in challenging it is because they always start off by saying something like "thus saith the Lord" or "abortion is against christian morals". They keep getting defeated cause they keep using religion to try to overturn it.
Roe v Wade could easily be overturned, and in the next court, it is very likely that it will be. Due to the fact that it rests on a very shaky foundation that itself, is highly suspect and questionable as one Supreme Court historian has stated.

You admit you wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and if you really believed state constitutions protect the right of abortion and you really thought it was worth protecting, you would have worded it so no one could prevent women from controlling their own bodies. It's an obvious attempt to allow abortion to be outlawed. You figure you can't win federally so you'll try to win state by state. The problem is the amendment does not change the reasoning for Roe v. Wade or the power of the Supreme court to rule on Roe v. Wade, so your amendment is powerless besides being insulting underhanded.

You pretend to wish to protect the right a woman has to her body, but we both know you are attacking that right. Your claim that Supreme Court should not recognize that right says that you don't believe it to be a right at all.

Actually the state constitutions do protect a woman's right "to choose".
The amendment would set that in stone at the federal level by prohibiting the federal Congress from acting favorably or unfavorably on the act of or quest for abortion.
I hold the protections provided in the state constitutions are more than enough to counterbalance any concerns about the loss of federal oversight. The less government involvement in this issue the better off women will be.

"Regardless, it is a stupid proposal that is simply an attempt to get attention for an old Congressional candidate."
Surely you can do better than that?

Would you really prefer to rely on the will of a group of judges which can be easily overturned by the will of another group of judges?
As long as we leave it to the Supreme Court to protect a woman's right to choose, that right will have its foundation in sinking sand as the court's decision in any woman's abortion case could easily be overturned by a later court and the that revoked by the court doing the overturning.

If there is a constitutional amendment that says that the federal government can neither promote, nor discourage abortions, and the state constitutions already protect a woman's right to choose at the state level, I would think that a woman's right to choose would be fully protected by the stone foundation of our nation, the US constitution.

But I want to know what the women here think. Particularly the American ones, since the proposal would affect them most.

Also, (to everyone else, not to Cat-Tribe), if you are going to say it would overturn Roe v Wade, explain why you think that. Cause I thought about all the possible contingencies I could think of. But if I might missed one or two. So if you can explain why you think it would overturn RvW I might have already thought about it and wrote the proposal this way in order to deal with that particular type of issue.

If you are serious that you thought of all possible contigencies you could think of, I am saddened. This is in direct contention with Roe v. Wade as it treats the right to control one's body as if it were not a right.

Fortunately, people weren't interested in electing you and they certainly aren't interested in advocating your policies in absense of your election. There is no danger this amendment will EVER pass.

Actually according to historical documents, it did not take Roe v Wade to legalize abortion contrary to the view of the under educated. Many states had already legalized abortion before that case even came around.

Having read a special edition of US News, I now believe there is evidence for my views that states will continue to protect abortion rights even after Roe is overturned. You do not need Roe v Wade. The states are better at such issues than the federal government.

On slavery who was the first to start freeing slaves?
Not the fed, it was the states.
A woman's right to vote? Sure as hell wasn't the fed, actually the fed opposed it. It was the states who gave women the right to vote.
Abortion? Not the fed, not the Supreme Court. It was the states. This is a fact.

The only area where you can the states were wrong and the fed right is in the case of civil rights for blacks and that is only one issue in which you will find the fed to be right and the states wrong.

Actually according to historical documents, it did not take Roe v Wade to legalize abortion contrary to the view of the under educated. Many states had already legalized abortion before that case even came around.

The under-educated? The under-educated know that while some states legalized it some didn't. Some is not good enough. The right to decide what surgeries one undergoes is a right of all Americans, not just the ones in the right states. Roe v. Wade was necessary because it finally recognized that abortion IS NOT a legislative issue, but that abortion, under the right to control one's body, is a fundamental right that should not be denied.

Having read a special edition of US News, I now believe there is evidence for my views that states will continue to protect abortion rights even after Roe is overturned. You do not need Roe v Wade. The states are better at such issues than the federal government.

If there is no fundamental difference as you claim then why attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. The states can legislate on the issue now. If you believe it's a right, it should not be denied by even one state, and if you don't believe it's a right, then it's clear what your opinion is of a woman's body.

On slavery who was the first to start freeing slaves?
Not the fed, it was the states.

For the under-educated, some states started, but it was required for the Federal government to pass an amendment that took that right away from the states or it would have been a very long time before slavery disappeared from America.

A woman's right to vote? Sure as hell wasn't the fed, actually the fed opposed it. It was the states who gave women the right to vote.
Abortion? Not the fed, not the Supreme Court. It was the states. This is a fact.

Really? All of the states? You pretend like some states is enough. It's not.

The only area where you can the states were wrong and the fed right is in the case of civil rights for blacks and that is only one issue in which you will find the fed to be right and the states wrong.
False. On every one of these issues there were still states opposed to recognizing these rights. It required a federal action in order for ALL Americans to be granted rights instead of just those in the lucky states. That's the facts, Jack.

You wanna be in my class, sign in and introduce yourself, and I'll teach all about the fact that before all of those federal actions there were some states that opposed recognizing the rights of some of our citizens. One is too many. And this is coming from a libertarian.

Attack the rights of a woman all you like, but quit acting like you're not. Either it's a right or it isn't. If it's a right then it should not be something to be voted on. You wish to make it something to vote on so your view is clear.

I have to commend you on that at least now you're admitting that it is meant to overturn Roe v. Wade. I guess that's a step in the right direction in terms of admitting the real purpose of the amendment.

The under-educated? The under-educated know that while some states legalized it some didn't. Some is not good enough. The right to decide what surgeries one undergoes is a right of all Americans, not just the ones in the right states. Roe v. Wade was necessary because it finally recognized that abortion IS NOT a legislative issue, but that abortion, under the right to control one's body, is a fundamental right that should not be denied.



If there is no fundamental difference as you claim then why attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. The states can legislate on the issue now. If you believe it's a right, it should not be denied by even one state, and if you don't believe it's a right, then it's clear what your opinion is of a woman's body.



For the under-educated, some states started, but it was required for the Federal government to pass an amendment that took that right away from the states or it would have been a very long time before slavery disappeared from America.



Really? All of the states? You pretend like some states is enough. It's not.


False. On every one of these issues there were still states opposed to recognizing these rights. It required a federal action in order for ALL Americans to be granted rights instead of just those in the lucky states. That's the facts, Jack.

You wanna be in my class, sign in and introduce yourself, and I'll teach all about the fact that before all of those federal actions there were some states that opposed recognizing the rights of some of our citizens. One is too many. And this is coming from a libertarian.

Attack the rights of a woman all you like, but quit acting like you're not. Either it's a right or it isn't. If it's a right then it should not be something to be voted on. You wish to make it something to vote on so your view is clear.

I have to commend you on that at least now you're admitting that it is meant to overturn Roe v. Wade. I guess that's a step in the right direction in terms of admitting the real purpose of the amendment.
Excuse me, but two of us in this thread have given credentials. I note that you are not one of the two.
Further, the amendment is not pro or anti woman. It pro government neutrality.
There are 3 areas in which government ought to be neutral: religion, race, and abortion.
4 if you include gender.

No where did I say that this amendment would overturn Roe V Wade. You make that statement without understanding the amendment itself.
You only make such statement with the intent to attack the person who has drafted the amendment.

Excuse me, but two of us in this thread have given credentials. I note that you are not one of the two.
Further, the amendment is not pro or anti woman. It pro government neutrality.
There are 3 areas in which government ought to be neutral: religion, race, and abortion.
4 if you include gender.

Except abortion is not a seperate issue. It's an issue of a woman's right to her body.

And you have no credentials. And I don't have to claim credentials. In fact, when it comes to history, I don't have them. Neither do you. You have an associates degree in business administration. Regardless, credentials are worth the paper their written when your opinions are historically inaccurate and slightly ridiculous.

Government should NOT remain neutral on any of those things. The fourteenth amendment is not neutral in any way shape or form. The federal government is not neutral on religious freedom, it protects it. The federal government is not neutral on racial equality, it protects the rights of all races equally. The federal goverment is not neutral on the right of a women to control her body, it protect it. And it should not remain neutral on equality of the sexes, it protects the rights of the sexes equally as well.

I noticed you avoided addressing any of my points.

I disagree with the view that abortion is not a matter of survival. If it wasn't, then it would be very simple for me to just use dogma to support an amendment to totally abolish abortion. But the fact is that in every case, abortion is a matter of survival. Most often for the fetus, and sometimes for the woman. While the fetus is debated, surely you would not debate against it being a matter of survival for the woman in some circumstances. It is precisely because it can become a matter of survival for the woman as well as the preborn, that I am so willing to reach a compromise on the amendment itself. The life of the fetus is not more sacred than the life of the woman and vice versa.

For the 'under-educated', in the majority of abortions there is not yet a fetus. Women have rights, including a right to survival. An embryo or a fetus does not.

Excuse me, but two of us in this thread have given credentials. I note that you are not one of the two.
Further, the amendment is not pro or anti woman. It pro government neutrality.
There are 3 areas in which government ought to be neutral: religion, race, and abortion.
4 if you include gender.

5 if you include guns, 6 if you include taxation, 7 if you include speech, 8 if you include the press, 9 if you include assembly, need I go on?

Actually according to historical documents, it did not take Roe v Wade to legalize abortion contrary to the view of the under educated.

If Roe v. Wade is unnecessary as you claim then why do you keep acting like the decision is so fragile and people should worry about it's ability to continue? Be consistent, friend.

Now, how about you answer a couple of questions.

You claim both pro-choice and pro-life groups supported your amendment at one time. Can you name all of the groups that support/supported your amendment? I would interested to see what 'pro-choice' group would support women's right to control their bodies as if it's a matter for vote.

If your site is just kept for historical purposes then why does it still collect information on visitors and do a voter survey?

Define the term 'abortion', since you keep claiming things are not abortions. Explain how under that definition PBA's and RU486 do not qualify.

Explain how nazis invented abortion when it has been a natural event in the majority of pregnancies throughout history. It is quite widely held that about half of all pregnancies in the US do not make it to term, more in less modern societies. Spontaneous abortion has been around as long as pregnancies. Induced abortions have been around since history was recorded (according to anthropological evidence), far before the existence of nazis, but if you'd like to explain how they went back in time and created abortion, I'm glad to listen... and, well, laugh.

Explain how when only 16 states had legalized abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade, how Roe v. Wade was not necessary to legalize abortion for the women in the other states and territories? 33 states (all of the states not included in the 16) by 1973 had debated the issue in their congresses and decided not to permit abortion in any instance except to save the mother's life.

Explain how, when the Missouri compromise had just been overturned and there were 4 million slaves in the US in 1859 and the Dredd Scott case had three justices claiming that anyone who had a parent that was ever sold as a slave in the US was not a citizen, federal action to recognize the rights of black people as people and citizens of the US was unnecessary. How many southern states had ended slavery?

But, hey, I'm just the under-educated, so I sit here waiting to be enlightened.

Oh, and here's the 9th amendment, learn it, love it, live it. It's the one that makes your whole "constitutionality of the women's right to control their bodies decision" argument not hold any water at all.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it is not specifically stated in the Constitution does not mean that a natural right does not exists. Some of these rights that are not enumerated but have been protected is the right to marriage and the right to control one's body. You keep mentioning the 10th amendment, but Roe v. Wade didn't invoke a power, it protected a right, fully within its scope and the scope of the federal government.

Except abortion is not a seperate issue. It's an issue of a woman's right to her body.

And you have no credentials. And I don't have to claim credentials. In fact, when it comes to history, I don't have them. Neither do you. You have an associates degree in business administration. Regardless, credentials are worth the paper their written when your opinions are historically inaccurate and slightly ridiculous.

Government should NOT remain neutral on any of those things. The fourteenth amendment is not neutral in any way shape or form. The federal government is not neutral on religious freedom, it protects it. The federal government is not neutral on racial equality, it protects the rights of all races equally. The federal goverment is not neutral on the right of a women to control her body, it protect it. And it should not remain neutral on equality of the sexes, it protects the rights of the sexes equally as well.

I noticed you avoided addressing any of my points.
The difference is that a lot of people voted for me. No one has ever voted for you.
Further, your whole post smells of nothing more than politically motivated liberal attack. And I note that liberals form the vast majority around here.
Fact 1: government is mandated by the constitution to be neutral toward religion. the intention of the authors of the constitution was that the government would neither favor nor restrict religion.
Fact 2: We would not need civil rights legislation if the government had practiced race neutrality to begin with. That is what the founders envisioned for the future of our nation, that is what Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed about when he led his marches. That is part of the reason Abe Lincoln was willing to go to war with the south. The goal of a racially neutral (or :color blind government as some have heard it referred as) has been one that is shared by the vast majority of Americans past and present. And one we will share with our descendents if it has not yet been attained by the time of their existence. If there was race neutrality there would have been no slavery, no jim crow, etc.
Fact 3: If government was gender neutral women would have had the vote a lot earlier than they did. In fact, women were originally able to vote in the US. But because the government was not gender neutral, women lost the right to vote and didn't get it back until 1920.
Fact 4: Abortion is a seperate issue. We not simply just talking about a woman's right to her body. Her rights do not take precedence over those of a child. And it is only through more government funding of scientific research in the area of fetal brain activity that we will ever come close to determining if a fetus is a person. Not through liberal personal attacks. Not through political attack ads on opposition candidates or political groups. Not by establishing a theocracy through Presidential or Congressional decree. The fact is that Roe v Wade was passed at time when we knew absolutely nothing about the fetus. Science has made many advances since then. Some of those advances have debunked the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement and some advances have debunked the propaganda of the pro-abortion movement. Thing is though, is that those advances are slow because people like you and people on the other side of the issue, like the National Right Life Foundation, oppose federal funding of such research. Seems to me that this is one area where the pro-life and pro-choice are working together. To deny funding for scientific fetal brain research.

For the 'under-educated', in the majority of abortions there is not yet a fetus. Women have rights, including a right to survival. An embryo or a fetus does not.
That's still highly debated by our nations best scholars and by the scientific community itself.
Either way, this amendment is neutral on that issue. I say let the scientists sort it out.
I remember that politicians once said that blacks were persons. It took a war to change their minds.

5 if you include guns, 6 if you include taxation, 7 if you include speech, 8 if you include the press, 9 if you include assembly, need I go on?
I agree on most except 6. How do you get government neutrality on taxation?

I disagree with the view that abortion is not a matter of survival. If it wasn't, then it would be very simple for me to just use dogma to support an amendment to totally abolish abortion. But the fact is that in every case, abortion is a matter of survival. Most often for the fetus, and sometimes for the woman. While the fetus is debated, surely you would not debate against it being a matter of survival for the woman in some circumstances. It is precisely because it can become a matter of survival for the woman as well as the preborn, that I am so willing to reach a compromise on the amendment itself. The life of the fetus is not more sacred than the life of the woman and vice versa.
Well, you could use dogma to support your amendment if you wanted to. In fact, you could use dogma to support any political issue you like, but it wouldn't get you very far because, as you yourself have pointed out more than once, we have separation of church and state in the US, and the dogma of your church does not influence the law.

As for whether or not abortion is a matter of survival, a woman may need to abort a pregnancy to save her own life and/or health. Or she may need to abort a pregnancy that was forced on her by violence or abuse. Or she may need to abort a pregnancy because her birth control failed and she is too poor to get proper prenatal and postnatal care. Only in the first instance is the individual woman's physical survival immediately at stake (though it may become an issue in the 3rd instance).

As for the fetus -- it is not a person, and for the first two trimesters at least, it has no life of its own to lose. It has no interests to protect. Nothing is at stake for it.

Actually according to historical documents, it did not take Roe v Wade to legalize abortion contrary to the view of the under educated.

If Roe v. Wade is unnecessary as you claim then why do you keep acting like the decision is so fragile and people should worry about it's ability to continue? Be consistent, friend.

Now, how about you answer a couple of questions.

You claim both pro-choice and pro-life groups supported your amendment at one time. Can you name all of the groups that support/supported your amendment? I would interested to see what 'pro-choice' group would support women's right to control their bodies as if it's a matter for vote.

If your site is just kept for historical purposes then why does it still collect information on visitors and do a voter survey?

Define the term 'abortion', since you keep claiming things are not abortions. Explain how under that definition PBA's and RU486 do not qualify.

Explain how nazis invented abortion when it has been a natural event in the majority of pregnancies throughout history. It is quite widely held that about half of all pregnancies in the US do not make it to term, more in less modern societies. Spontaneous abortion has been around as long as pregnancies. Induced abortions have been around since history was recorded (according to anthropological evidence), far before the existence of nazis, but if you'd like to explain how they went back in time and created abortion, I'm glad to listen... and, well, laugh.

Explain how when only 16 states had legalized abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade, how Roe v. Wade was not necessary to legalize abortion for the women in the other states and territories? 33 states (all of the states not included in the 16) by 1973 had debated the issue in their congresses and decided not to permit abortion in any instance except to save the mother's life.

Explain how, when the Missouri compromise had just been overturned and there were 4 million slaves in the US in 1859 and the Dredd Scott case had three justices claiming that anyone who had a parent that was ever sold as a slave in the US was not a citizen, federal action to recognize the rights of black people as people and citizens of the US was unnecessary. How many southern states had ended slavery?

But, hey, I'm just the under-educated, so I sit here waiting to be enlightened.
1. Political strategists use this tactic a lot. Twisting people's words or putting the stuff in their mouths that wasn't there. I never expressed worry that Roe V Wade would be overturned.
2. The amendment was not and is not about women's right to control their bodies. It is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Its about the fact that the government should be and ought to neutral on the subject of abortion. Let the woman, her God, and a willing doctor figure it all out. You are not there at that moment when she is going through it. You cannot say whether she was right or wrong.
But I do know one thing, because we don't know, we ought to give the woman the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
3. Abortion is a procedure in which a preborn (still completely inside the woman) and concieved fetus is terminated (hopefully in a humane manner like we do for all things we consider nonhuman like the family dog) and removed the woman's uterus. In PBA, the fetus is not completely in the woman's uterus but is mostly outside the woman's vagina. Therefore it constitutes murder. In RU486, given the time period for the pill to work. It is within a period that would prevent conception from taking place.
4. Abortion as we know it is not a natural event. The Nazi's invented methods of abortion such as PBA.
A miscarriage is not an abortion. The first is accidental the latter is deliberate. Big Big difference.
5. The fact that those 33 states were debating the issue is the clue. They would have lifted the ban sooner or later. The fact is that the movement among the states was heading in the direction of legalization.
6. It was not about the southern states. After the civil ended we entered a new era. The south could not go back to slavery. In fact, many historians point out that if the civil war had not occurred and there were no 14th amendment, the south would still have ended up abolishing slavery a few decades later. Because it would have been in the south's economic interest to do so.
And further, note that the 14th failed to bring about equal treatment for blacks.

Oh, and here's the 9th amendment, learn it, love it, live it. It's the one that makes your whole "constitutionality of the women's right to control their bodies decision" argument not hold any water at all.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it is not specifically stated in the Constitution does not mean that a natural right does not exists. Some of these rights that are not enumerated but have been protected is the right to marriage and the right to control one's body. You keep mentioning the 10th amendment, but Roe v. Wade didn't invoke a power, it protected a right, fully within its scope and the scope of the federal government.
Abortion is about more than woman's right to control her body. You arguing from a simpleton's point of view. Abortion is not black and white. Its a very complex issue that should judged on a case by case basis. The rights of a fetus are equal to those of a woman. It is just plain wrong and inhumane to say that the rights of one group takes precedence over the rights of another group. They don't.

The difference is that a lot of people voted for me. No one has ever voted for you.

Ha. Yes, you are better than me by having run for political office. People also voted against you. No one has ever voted against me. It's a silly point and you can try to make your arguments stand on their own or you can claim authority you don't have. You make the choice, but one of those choices is going to damage your credibility.

And by the way, until I made that statement right there, you had no way of knowing if I've ever run for public office or if I've, in fact, ever held public office.

Further, your whole post smells of nothing more than politically motivated liberal attack. And I note that liberals form the vast majority around here.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. I believe that legislation is often better at the state level or even more locally. Your legislation would speak right to my heart if not for the attempt to ignore the basic rights of 51% of our population. Rights are not open for vote. That's not a liberal concept. Most conservatives would get upset if it was recommended that the right to bear arms be removed from the Constitution and that the issue be left to the states to decide. I would agree whole-heartedly with those conservatives. Protection of basic rights is a basic function of the federal government and both liberals and conservatives agree on that.

Now, can you argue your points without commenting on what you claim I am or claim I believe?

Fact 1: government is mandated by the constitution to be neutral toward religion. the intention of the authors of the constitution was that the government would neither favor nor restrict religion.

They are not neutral. They protect freedom of religion and it is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Your brand of neutrality would make the right of religious freedom a state issue like the right to control one's body.

The government is already neutral on the issue of abortion in the same way as it is on religion (which is not entirely neutral). It protects a woman's freedoms and leaves the choice to a woman to decide about abortion AND decide what religious views she chooses to hold.

Fact 2: We would not need civil rights legislation if the government had practiced race neutrality to begin with. That is what the founders envisioned for the future of our nation, that is what Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed about when he led his marches. That is part of the reason Abe Lincoln was willing to go to war with the south. The goal of a racially neutral (or :color blind government as some have heard it referred as) has been one that is shared by the vast majority of Americans past and present. And one we will share with our descendents if it has not yet been attained by the time of their existence. If there was race neutrality there would have been no slavery, no jim crow, etc.

The rights of all people should be protected, and prior to said legislation the rights of minorities were not protected and were left to vote by the states. What should have happened and what does happen were two different things. In the absense of certain federal amendments and statutes, states would not be colorblind as evidenced by history. It was necessary for the government in judicial decisions and law to mention certain rights specifically because someone else tried to violate those rights. The mention of them specifically points to the fact that legislation and judicial decisions ARE NECESSARY to protect those rights. To pretend otherwise shows an ignorance of history and of human beings.

Fact 3: If government was gender neutral women would have had the vote a lot earlier than they did. In fact, women were originally able to vote in the US. But because the government was not gender neutral, women lost the right to vote and didn't get it back until 1920.

But they weren't. And in the absense of laws that require women to be treated equally, some states may still not allow the vote. Women required protections that recognized them as equal because not all men did or do. Again to pretend otherwise is to simply ignore the facts.

Fact 4: Abortion is a seperate issue. We not simply just talking about a woman's right to her body. Her rights do not take precedence over those of a child.

There is no child. At the time of most abortions, it is not even a fetus. And yes, we are simply just talking about a woman's right to her body.

And it is only through more government funding of scientific research in the area of fetal brain activity that we will ever come close to determining if a fetus is a person.

Again, in the case of most abortions there is no fetus. Also, there is plenty of research done. The fetal brain is not capable of activity in the first trimester. The very first synapses only begin to form at the end of the first trimester. At the end of the first trimester the fetus is only capable of reflexive movement, which has nothing to with brain activity. [/QUOTE]

Your claims that more research is necessary to establish this basic fact shows that you haven't explored this topic as extensively as you claim.

Not through liberal personal attacks. Not through political attack ads on opposition candidates or political groups. Not by establishing a theocracy through Presidential or Congressional decree.

Yep, there are only liberal personal attacks. No conservative attacks ever occur. You show your bias, sir.

The fact is that Roe v Wade was passed at time when we knew absolutely nothing about the fetus. Science has made many advances since then. Some of those advances have debunked the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement and some advances have debunked the propaganda of the pro-abortion movement. Thing is though, is that those advances are slow because people like you and people on the other side of the issue, like the National Right Life Foundation, oppose federal funding of such research.

People like me? I haven't opposed any such thing, and I would ask that you stop making assumptions about me. Extensive research has been done on the fetus and embryo and I'm ecstatic about it. When brain activity begins is of great importance to me as I also believe it to be a deciding point for life. It doesn't occur in the first trimester.

Seems to me that this is one area where the pro-life and pro-choice are working together. To deny funding for scientific fetal brain research.

Or perhaps you just miss the fact that the research is occurring and has been occurring unabated since 1973.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but The Economist had a very interesting article lately on why the Democrats should disown Roe v. Wade. This would be a good way to do so.

That's still highly debated by our nations best scholars and by the scientific community itself.
Either way, this amendment is neutral on that issue. I say let the scientists sort it out.
I remember that politicians once said that blacks were persons. It took a war to change their minds.
No it's not. It's debated by anti-choicers trying to give their movement a scientific-looking gloss while all reputable medical professionals have no scientific debate on the subject at all.

And are you now comparing fetuses to black people, and are you comparing abortion to slavery? The classic Godwin wasn't enough for you, eh? Now we're getting variations.

The more we push you, the more your true colors come out.

That is what I am advocating. I'm big on the 11th amendment.This amendment would not be necessary if people would study constitution. Especially the part where it says that "anything not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or their people." If the Supreme Court would enforce the 11th amendment, the Canales amendment would not be needed. But instead we have one ruling on the 11th: where the sitting justices declared that the 11th was an oxymoron and ruled it unenforceable. Therefore we have to have amendments like the Canales Amendment to give the 11th some teeth.
The amendment would force people to look at the issue from the perspective of the state's rights amendment.

As for why states would be better, the states are more responsive to your desires and needs than the federal government is.

Study the constitution? To find what? That the 11th amendment is not what you claim, but that you are talking about the 10th amendment. Next time you call people uneducated, grab a book and make sure you're not going to embarass yourself.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI - The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Now I would like to see any court case where it was decided that the tenth amendment was unenforceable and an oxymoron.

Ha. Yes, you are better than me by having run for political office. People also voted against you. No one has ever voted against me. It's a silly point and you can try to make your arguments stand on their own or you can claim authority you don't have. You make the choice, but one of those choices is going to damage your credibility.

And by the way, until I made that statement right there, you had no way of knowing if I've ever run for public office or if I've, in fact, ever held public office.



I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. I believe that legislation is often better at the state level or even more locally. Your legislation would speak right to my heart if not for the attempt to ignore the basic rights of 51% of our population. Rights are not open for vote. That's not a liberal concept. Most conservatives would get upset if it was recommended that the right to bear arms be removed from the Constitution and that the issue be left to the states to decide. I would agree whole-heartedly with those conservatives. Protection of basic rights is a basic function of the federal government and both liberals and conservatives agree on that.

Now, can you argue your points without commenting on what you claim I am or claim I believe?



They are not neutral. They protect freedom of religion and it is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Your brand of neutrality would make the right of religious freedom a state issue like the right to control one's body.

The government is already neutral on the issue of abortion in the same way as it is on religion (which is not entirely neutral). It protects a woman's freedoms and leaves the choice to a woman to decide about abortion AND decide what religious views she chooses to hold.



The rights of all people should be protected, and prior to said legislation the rights of minorities were not protected and were left to vote by the states. What should have happened and what does happen were two different things. In the absense of certain federal amendments and statutes, states would not be colorblind as evidenced by history. It was necessary for the government in judicial decisions and law to mention certain rights specifically because someone else tried to violate those rights. The mention of them specifically points to the fact that legislation and judicial decisions ARE NECESSARY to protect those rights. To pretend otherwise shows an ignorance of history and of human beings.



But they weren't. And in the absense of laws that require women to be treated equally, some states may still not allow the vote. Women required protections that recognized them as equal because not all men did or do. Again to pretend otherwise is to simply ignore the facts.



There is no child. At the time of most abortions, it is not even a fetus. And yes, we are simply just talking about a woman's right to her body.



Again, in the case of most abortions there is no fetus. Also, there is plenty of research done. The fetal brain is not capable of activity in the first trimester. The very first synapses only begin to form at the end of the first trimester. At the end of the first trimester the fetus is only capable of reflexive movement, which has nothing to with brain activity.

Your claims that more research is necessary to establish this basic fact shows that you haven't explored this topic as extensively as you claim.



Yep, there are only liberal personal attacks. No conservative attacks ever occur. You show your bias, sir.



People like me? I haven't opposed any such thing, and I would ask that you stop making assumptions about me. Extensive research has been done on the fetus and embryo and I'm ecstatic about it. When brain activity begins is of great importance to me as I also believe it to be a deciding point for life. It doesn't occur in the first trimester.



Or perhaps you just miss the fact that the research is occurring and has been occurring unabated since 1973.[/QUOTE]
1. Except that unlike you, I am willing to put my proposals and my platforms up for a vote.
2. This is the first time on NS I've heard you claim to be a libertarian. In your other posts you talk like a liberal and in this post you talk like a liberal. It it talks like a duck, walks like a duck....
3. No they have not been. For years the government has had laws that required businesses to closed on sundays and required people to attend church. It took the 14th amendment to change that. And even then, since that 67 school prayer case, state and local government have been anti religion. Denying religious groups fair and equal access to public grounds such as public school campuses. It took a couple of court decisions in the 90's and Congress' Freedom of Religion Act to change that and make the government truly neutral.
4. As for "brand of neutrality" my attempt at achieving it may have been off. If I denied that, then why is the amendment changed after a couple of posts by Sutured Psyche whose arguments, I must say, make far more sense than yours.
5. No. Government treats abortion differently than it does abortion. A woman's right to choose does not include forcing the government or the people to pay for or support her abortion. Government neutrality does not restrict anti or pro abortion demonstrations on public property.
6. No we are not. Whether it is a person is hotly debated. That is why abortion is the third no no subject after politics and religion that people should not talk to women about if they intend to date those women. Nor should it discussed when you are at a club meeting new people. Abortion, just like politics and religion is an incredibly devisive issue.
7. Wrong. Reflex still requires brain activity in us complex organisms. If you were a worm or a snail, reflex would not require brain activity.
8. At the time the amendment was originally written, the science had not progressed very far and in fact had only started in the 80's. Not in 73. A Supreme Court decision does not count as science. However, since a lot of time has passed in between I will issue a challenge to you on this. You find some sources that support your claims on the advancement of science in this area, and I will find sources that verify or counter them. Unlike you, I am not going to make a die hard statement for or against until I've seen the data.
9. I still believe more research is needed. Political ideology is not science. Religious faith is not science. Only science can be science.
10. Good god in heaven. Make up your mind. Either you are claiming the fetus is not a person or you claiming it is not alive. You don't need a brain to be alive. You do need a brain to be a person.
11. Research was not happening in the 70's and was under attack in 80's by the liberals who sought to keep abortion on demand legal no matter what. Even if science proved that it resulted in the killing of live beings who were actual persons.
What is at the heart of this attack on the amendment is liberal attempt to force the rest of us to support abortion against our will.
The American people don't want to be forced one way or the other. They want government neutrality.

Abortion is about more than woman's right to control her body. You arguing from a simpleton's point of view. Abortion is not black and white. Its a very complex issue that should judged on a case by case basis. The rights of a fetus are equal to those of a woman. It is just plain wrong and inhumane to say that the rights of one group takes precedence over the rights of another group. They don't.
And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen -- the truth at last.

Whittier is an anti-abortion activist who espouses the most extreme line of the anti-abortion crowd. The argument that the fetus has full rights as a citizen and is equal to already born and living people is rejected by the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of people around the world, the majority of churches, and even the majority of opponents of abortion. But not by Whittier!

So, to review:

Whittier's amendment would (1) bypass Roe; (2) make it possible for states to ban abortion outright; (3) prevent anti-abortion state laws from being challenged on constitutional grounds by making it constitutional for them to pass such laws.

Whittier has admitted that all this is true, but in the very same posts claimed that none of that will actually happen.

Whittier admits that states are more likely to respond to political pressure but denies that if the states control abortion then anti-abortion political pressure is likely to be more effective.

Whittier claims to support women's rights but is tireless in his claims for the supremacy of state government control, despite the entire history of our nation, which shows that when the states control rights, then people lose their rights.

Whittier claims to support separation of church and state, yet he clearly stated that if it were not a life/death issue, he could use dogma to argue abortion law -- which would be a violation of separation of church and state.

And finally, Whittier claims over and over that he does not want to ban abortion, yet he also claims that fetuses have equal rights with women (for which we should pity the fetuses, I suppose), that abortion is the killing of a person, and other arguments of the most extreme anti-choicers.

From all this, I think it safe to conclude that the Canales Amendment is designed to overturn Roe and lead to the banning of abortion in the US, state by state. The question of the original post is answered.

No it's not. It's debated by anti-choicers trying to give their movement a scientific-looking gloss while all reputable medical professionals have no scientific debate on the subject at all.

And are you now comparing fetuses to black people, and are you comparing abortion to slavery? The classic Godwin wasn't enough for you, eh? Now we're getting variations.

The more we push you, the more your true colors come out.
Those anti-choicers make up 51% of the American population.
Further, being politically correct does not make a scientist very reputable.
And there is debate on the subject among the medical profession as well.

1. Political strategists use this tactic a lot. Twisting people's words or putting the stuff in their mouths that wasn't there. I never expressed worry that Roe V Wade would be overturned.

Really? Let's look at some quotes. If not worry, it was fear-mongering. Either way, in order for one to consider it an issue as is clearly implied by your points, one must first consider it of import.

Roe v Wade could easily be overturned, and in the next court, it is very likely that it will be.

If there is a constitutional amendment that says that the federal government can neither promote, nor discourage abortions, and the state constitutions already protect a woman's right to choose at the state level, I would think that a woman's right to choose would be fully protected by the stone foundation of our nation, the US constitution.

Seems you claim to support the idea of Roe v. Wade and that the rights of a woman to choose would be upheld by the states. If you agree that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose and obviously the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, then one must conclude that you are afraid it would WRONGLY be overturned.

However, you don't believe that do you? You want it overturned and you don't believe the US Constitution upholds the woman's right to choose (or you don't want it to). I'm sorry. I made an assumption on the basis of you being honest and clear. Clearly, it was a baseless assumption.

2. The amendment was not and is not about women's right to control their bodies. It is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Its about the fact that the government should be and ought to neutral on the subject of abortion. Let the woman, her God, and a willing doctor figure it all out. You are not there at that moment when she is going through it. You cannot say whether she was right or wrong.

The government is there to protect our rights. Women have a right to control their body and they should NOT be neutral on that issue. The quote of you above suggests that you believe the Constitution is not neutral on a woman's right to choose either, so you're not being very consistent.

Your amendment does not restrict the government to neutrality. It says that a woman's right to choose is not a fundamental right and thus should be subject to vote by the states (clearly your wish). Your amendment could EASILY be worded better if it was really attempting to leave the decision to a woman, her doctor and her God. Your goal however is to leave it to a woman, her doctor and her God and, of course, the will of the voters of the state.

But I do know one thing, because we don't know, we ought to give the woman the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Really? You're going to claim that you want to protect a woman's right to choose? Really? Do you think anyone believes this?

3. Abortion is a procedure in which a preborn (still completely inside the woman) and concieved fetus is terminated (hopefully in a humane manner like we do for all things we consider nonhuman like the family dog) and removed the woman's uterus.

False. Most abortions do not involve a fetus. Also, you are only talking about induced abortions. Try again.

In PBA, the fetus is not completely in the woman's uterus but is mostly outside the woman's vagina. Therefore it constitutes murder.

False. Actually, murder requires that the infant breath. If a man punches a pregnant women in the stomach and the baby is stillborn, not murder, if the infant cries before dying, murder.

In RU486, given the time period for the pill to work. It is within a period that would prevent conception from taking place.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboru486e.htm

False, man. I thought you were sidetracked by researching this issue. How could you not know this? RU486 prevents the embryo from emplanting or remaining implanted. It does not prevent conception.

4. Abortion as we know it is not a natural event. The Nazi's invented methods of abortion such as PBA.

The nazis invented lots of procedures that are currently used in the US. A high price was paid for their research and I for one do not think it should be wasted. Abortion procedures have been around for millenia. And Nazi's did not invent all methods of abortion available today. Your claim is another false one.

A miscarriage is not an abortion. The first is accidental the latter is deliberate. Big Big difference.

False. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

http://health.allrefer.com/health/abortion-spontaneous-info.html

Seriously, what do you know about abortion? An induced abortion is deliberate. A spontaneous abortion is not. They are both abortions and, yes, there is a big difference. However, use the terms correctly. It should be relatively easy when one has done so much research and is so credentialled.

5. The fact that those 33 states were debating the issue is the clue. They would have lifted the ban sooner or later. The fact is that the movement among the states was heading in the direction of legalization.

Really? Evidence please. There is not any evidence that this was the case. They had banned the practice and there was nothing suggesting that would change. Your claim that the states would protect that right denies historical data from the vast majority of states. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the vast majority of women did not have the right to choose. Your claim that it was unnecessary is debunked.

6. It was not about the southern states. After the civil ended we entered a new era. The south could not go back to slavery. In fact, many historians point out that if the civil war had not occurred and there were no 14th amendment, the south would still have ended up abolishing slavery a few decades later. Because it would have been in the south's economic interest to do so.

A few decades is a long time if you're a slave. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863. The Civil War was not started over slavery, it started over state's rights. Prior to the proclamation it is quite possible that slavery would have continued after the war. It took a federal act, the proclamation, to end slavery.

And it was the 13th amendment, not the 14th. I recommend you learn the amendments better before you accuse other posters of not understanding the constitution.

Amendment XIII - Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV - Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


The 14th amendment was a civil rights amendment, not the one that ended slavery.

And further, note that the 14th failed to bring about equal treatment for blacks.

Actually, that's exactly what the 14th amendment did (or made possible... and required by law). You are talking about the 13th amendment. Get them straight.

Let the people decide:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463209

Those anti-choicers make up 51% of the American population.
Further, being politically correct does not make a scientist very reputable.
And there is debate on the subject among the medical profession as well.
1. I dispute that statistic. Kindly post some numbers from an objective source.

2. Also, more the United Colors of Whittier -- "politically correct," eh? So any scientist who does not argue that a fetus is a person is just throwing a sop to those self-indulgent, baby-killing women yelling about their so-called rights?

3. It's true that every now and then, the anti-choice movement produces a doctor who found religion and decided to stop performing abortions and now makes speeches and write articles for anti-choice websites all about the slaughter of the innocents. There don't seem to be very many of them and, as far as I know, the rest of the medical profession does not debate with them.

1. Except that unlike you, I am willing to put my proposals and my platforms up for a vote.

Yes, because unlike me, you seek to make your opinion law. I wouldn't state that like it's a good thing. And the result of that vote was you losing by a 3 to 1 margin.

2. This is the first time on NS I've heard you claim to be a libertarian. In your other posts you talk like a liberal and in this post you talk like a liberal. It it talks like a duck, walks like a duck....

Says a conservative. Liberals often call me a conservative. Wanna hear my opinions on Clinton? Start a thread about it and you'll find out how liberal I am. The right to choose isn't liberal. It happens to be a liberal cause, but it is not a view only held by liberals. Your inability to address me as an individual and your need to lump me into groups so you can make up things about me really hurt your argument.

3. No they have not been. For years the government has had laws that required businesses to closed on sundays and required people to attend church. It took the 14th amendment to change that. And even then, since that 67 school prayer case, state and local government have been anti religion. Denying religious groups fair and equal access to public grounds such as public school campuses. It took a couple of court decisions in the 90's and Congress' Freedom of Religion Act to change that and make the government truly neutral.

The fourteenth amendment extended the rights ensured by the Constitution to the states. Your 'evidence' is not evidence of the federal government's lack of neutrality, but more local governments. It kind of argues against your point.

4. As for "brand of neutrality" my attempt at achieving it may have been off. If I denied that, then why is the amendment changed after a couple of posts by Sutured Psyche whose arguments, I must say, make far more sense than yours.

Uh-huh. If my arguments make no sense then why do you feel the need to keep lumping me into group and making up strawman arguments?

5. No. Government treats abortion differently than it does abortion.

Huh? What were you saying about making "far more sense"?

A woman's right to choose does not include forcing the government or the people to pay for or support her abortion. Government neutrality does not restrict anti or pro abortion demonstrations on public property.

Then your amendment should address this and only this, not take away federal protection of a woman's right to control her body. You've made it clear that you are adding in these advantages, which I in fact support, in order to further your agenda of making a woman's right to choose subject to vote.

6. No we are not. Whether it is a person is hotly debated. That is why abortion is the third no no subject after politics and religion that people should not talk to women about if they intend to date those women. Nor should it discussed when you are at a club meeting new people. Abortion, just like politics and religion is an incredibly devisive issue.

I'm not sure what your point is. Because you don't seem to know how to link your comments to mine I'm not exactly sure what 'no we are not' is referring to.

It's not hotly debated among scientists. I've met not one scientist that said a fetus/embryo can be objectively (scientifically) shown to be a person in the first trimester. However, some scientists are religious as I am and believe the fetus/embryo is alive before science can prove it to be so. I refuse to put use government acts to force my faith on others, however.

7. Wrong. Reflex still requires brain activity in us complex organisms.

False. Reflex activity occurs as a result of the spinal cord. You really should do some research on this subject. Reflex activity occurs before the brain has any ability to send signals to ANYTHING.

If you were a worm or a snail, reflex would not require brain activity.

Still false.

8. At the time the amendment was originally written, the science had not progressed very far and in fact had only started in the 80's. Not in 73. A Supreme Court decision does not count as science. However, since a lot of time has passed in between I will issue a challenge to you on this. You find some sources that support your claims on the advancement of science in this area, and I will find sources that verify or counter them. Unlike you, I am not going to make a die hard statement for or against until I've seen the data.

Ha. Are you seriously claiming we've not tried to study the advancement of the embryo/fetus in the womb basically as long as such research was possible?

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history2.html

Hmmm... the invention of the ultrasound prior to 1970? Hmmm... seems like we were already working on studying fetal development. Another false claim debunked by the nation of Jocabia.

Now as far as making a diehard decision, the data is available and has been for some time and you claim to have done extensive research on abortion and the fetus (despite not knowing the actually effect of RU-486, the history of abortion, the definition of spontaneous abortion or abortion itself, the time when an embryo becomes a fetus, the time frame the majority of abortions occur and a plethora of other information core to this topic), yet you know nothing about when the brain develops in a fetus or about how reflexes work in an embryo/fetus? Scary.

9. I still believe more research is needed. Political ideology is not science. Religious faith is not science. Only science can be science.

More research is needed and is occurring. It still doesn't address the fact that you are wrong. Fetal development is an ongoing field of research that has long occurred in the US. The research is not stunted and we have a very clear idea of the actions of the brain in the first trimester. Your claim otherwise shows that you haven't actually researched the subject.

10. Good god in heaven. Make up your mind. Either you are claiming the fetus is not a person or you claiming it is not alive. You don't need a brain to be alive. You do need a brain to be a person.

It is not alive until it meets the biological qualifications for life. Cells being alive does not make it a life. I view the brain to be a qualification for being a human life and being a human life a qualification for personhood. They are not mutually exclusive as you claim. Your lack of understanding on the subject does not make me indecisive.

11. Research was not happening in the 70's and was under attack in 80's by the liberals who sought to keep abortion on demand legal no matter what. Even if science proved that it resulted in the killing of live beings who were actual persons.

Patently false. Research into fetal development has been advancing rapidly since the 60's. Major advances in ultrasound technology and the research capabilities it gave us were ongoing throughout the 70's and 80's.

What is at the heart of this attack on the amendment is liberal attempt to force the rest of us to support abortion against our will.

I have no wish to force you to support abortion. I don't believe federal funding to states should be used to coerce any matters left to the states (this includes speed limits, road networks, drug laws, etc.)

The heart of the attack on this amendment generally NEVER EVEN MENTIONS the funding. The attack on the amendment is that it treats the right to choose as if it were something to be voted on. I will not take away a women's ability to choose the procedure.

The American people don't want to be forced one way or the other. They want government neutrality.
No, you don't. You wish to allow states to vote on the matter of choice. That's not neutrality. You want to insert government into the decision.

Let the people decide:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463209

I like your changes, however, let's not pretend like you didn't just write that. It didn't always say that and definitely didn't say that when I first started arguing these points. Your inconsistency does not equal mine.

How can a 'state' support or oppose abortion if it can pass no laws favoring or prohibiting it?

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

In the absense of your old Section 4 it already extends to all jurisdiction due to the 14th amendment, the same reason religious freedom and such does. Amusingly, you completely flipped your position on allowing the states to decide.

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

There it is ladies and gents.

State your views on this here. Do you think it would over turn Roe V. Wade?
Bear in mind that there have been changes in the law since the time this was written. Hey, lots of things happen in 6 year periods.
And I attempted to take the interests of all sides into consideration, except the government's which really doesn't have any interest.
Here is the amendment, we've been arguing. Don't let him trick into thinking we are opposing an amendment that does not touch abortion rights.

Yes, because unlike me, you seek to make your opinion law. I wouldn't state that like it's a good thing. And the result of that vote was you losing by a 3 to 1 margin.
<snip> etc.
You're good. :)

FYI, I'm the one who brought up HMO's and funding, only to the extent that I think his original amendment would set up these bureaucratic practicalities to become roadblocks preventing women from getting access to abortion services even if abortion itself was not banned. It was part of my argument that his amendment would also hurt the poor, as well as women in general. I don't know why he kept attributing that to you.

You're good. :)

FYI, I'm the one who brought up HMO's and funding, only to the extent that I think his original amendment would set up these bureaucratic practicalities to become roadblocks preventing women from getting access to abortion services even if abortion itself was not banned. It was part of my argument that his amendment would also hurt the poor, as well as women in general. I don't know why he kept attributing that to you.

He's struggling to make me into a liberal demon, because he can't win the argument on points. That's why he created a new thread with a new amendment and put things that we'd said about this amendment in there as if we'd said them about his new amendment that says practically the opposite of the original.

I still see him for what he is. He's attempting to find a way to attack a woman's right to choose and he doesn't think he can do it with current law so he wants to change the law. I nailed him on it in another thread a month or so ago when he first put the amendment on this board and pretended that pro-life and pro-choice groups both supported it.

You notice he has never supplied a list of the groups that support or have ever supported this amendment? No pro-choice group supported an amendment that clearly overturns Roe v. Wade offered up by an obvious anti-choice person.

What I find curious is how someone who can claim having studied so much about abortion can know so little about what it actually is and embryo/fetal development. What an abortion is and how long abortion been around is an important aspect of the issue. The function of RU 486, and various other abortion techniques is also a very important aspect of the issue. The definition of murder, when you're accusing people of it, is a good thing to know. The numbers for the amendments one is citing as the basis for a change in law are good to know, particularly when you are calling the person you are responding to uneducated on Constitutional law. When the brain develops and what constitutes signs of brain functions, now that's a good thing to know when citing as a definition for personhood. When an embryo becomes a fetus and when most abortions are performed another basic aspect of the argument. That Roe v. Wade specifically took the ability of the states to legislatively deny women the right to choose is something one would learn if they were inclined to become educated on the issue (rather than claiming that an amendment intending to give this ability back to the states does not overturn Roe v. Wade). It seems like one would know that 33 states had decided to ban abortion at the time of Roe v Wade, contrary to the assertion that Roe v. Wade was unnecessary as women would have the right to choose anyway. It seems like if one were to become knowledgable about the issue, particularly if one were to become sidetracked by it (indicating the study of the issue took up most of your time) you'd think these would be things one would learn.

He also began a major study of the abortion issue and its affects on American society. This research sidetracked him from his studies at Rio Hondo.

Exactly what were you researching, Bob, that you couldn't finish your studies? You started an argument about abortion and how it should be regulated, so how about telling us what information you are basing this on. It doesn't seem to be a deep knowledge of Roe v. Wade, abortion, Constitutional law or the status of abortion before Roe v. Wade. So on what did you base your amendment? Your wishes to be able to ban abortion maybe?

I like your changes, however, let's not pretend like you didn't just write that. It didn't always say that and definitely didn't say that when I first started arguing these points. Your inconsistency does not equal mine.

How can a 'state' support or oppose abortion if it can pass no laws favoring or prohibiting it?

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

In the absense of your old Section 4 it already extends to all jurisdiction due to the 14th amendment, the same reason religious freedom and such does. Amusingly, you completely flipped your position on allowing the states to decide.
if you bothered to read the whole thread you would have known that the amendment was evolving during the debate. Instead, you seek to demonize me.

Here is the amendment, we've been arguing. Don't let him trick into thinking we are opposing an amendment that does not touch abortion rights.
The only way it touches such a thing is by mandating government neutrality. Something you are opposed to because you seek to force people to support abortion against their will.

He's struggling to make me into a liberal demon, because he can't win the argument on points. That's why he created a new thread with a new amendment and put things that we'd said about this amendment in there as if we'd said them about his new amendment that says practically the opposite of the original.

I still see him for what he is. He's attempting to find a way to attack a woman's right to choose and he doesn't think he can do it with current law so he wants to change the law. I nailed him on it in another thread a month or so ago when he first put the amendment on this board and pretended that pro-life and pro-choice groups both supported it.

You notice he has never supplied a list of the groups that support or have ever supported this amendment? No pro-choice group supported an amendment that clearly overturns Roe v. Wade offered up by an obvious anti-choice person.

What I find curious is how someone who can claim having studied so much about abortion can know so little about what it actually is and embryo/fetal development.
Haha. :D If there's a liberal demon in this 3-way conversation, it would be me -- and I'm less liberal than I seem by comparison with Whittier.

The fact is, like all his posts in all the threads I've ever read, Whittier is just blowing smoke for his cause. He has no facts to back up his claims. He knows only what his favorite propaganda websites tell him and the rest he makes up -- he virtually admitted it some posts back when he claimed that, in maintaining the separation of church and state, he refers to the founding fathers and, where they don't suffice, he refers to his religious faith. He's one of these new-fangled right wingers we see nowadays who just spew any words that pop into their heads without regard to facts or truth, let alone consistency. They say it's red; you prove it's blue; they say they said it was blue all along; and the next minute it's red again and they "quote" you agreeing with them. Have you read Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent essay "On Bullshit"? That's what this is.

The only way it touches such a thing is by mandating government neutrality. Something you are opposed to because you seek to force people to support abortion against their will.
Then why does it talk about abortion?

As for the election it was more like 3 to 2. I beat both the Republican write in and the Natural Law candidates by a landslide.
My demo. opponent had already been projected to win because of the fact the district was 80% democratic. And the people in the district vote almost entirely along party lines. That I was able to convince thousands of dems to vote for me is testament to my goodwill and ability to communicate clear goals when I have them.
The reason I didn't get more is because I was too busy being mr. nice guy. But not anymore. Because good people always get stepped on and treating like shit.
So now, I treat people like they treated me.
Next time, I will win. Cause I won't hold back any punches.

He's struggling to make me into a liberal demon, because he can't win the argument on points. That's why he created a new thread with a new amendment and put things that we'd said about this amendment in there as if we'd said them about his new amendment that says practically the opposite of the original.

I still see him for what he is. He's attempting to find a way to attack a woman's right to choose and he doesn't think he can do it with current law so he wants to change the law. I nailed him on it in another thread a month or so ago when he first put the amendment on this board and pretended that pro-life and pro-choice groups both supported it.

You notice he has never supplied a list of the groups that support or have ever supported this amendment? No pro-choice group supported an amendment that clearly overturns Roe v. Wade offered up by an obvious anti-choice person.

What I find curious is how someone who can claim having studied so much about abortion can know so little about what it actually is and embryo/fetal development. What an abortion is and how long abortion been around is an important aspect of the issue. The function of RU 486, and various other abortion techniques is also a very important aspect of the issue. The definition of murder, when you're accusing people of it, is a good thing to know. The numbers for the amendments one is citing as the basis for a change in law are good to know, particularly when you are calling the person you are responding to uneducated on Constitutional law. When the brain develops and what constitutes signs of brain functions, now that's a good thing to know when citing as a definition for personhood. When an embryo becomes a fetus and when most abortions are performed another basic aspect of the argument. That Roe v. Wade specifically took the ability of the states to legislatively deny women the right to choose is something one would learn if they were inclined to become educated on the issue (rather than claiming that an amendment intending to give this ability back to the states does not overturn Roe v. Wade). It seems like one would know that 33 states had decided to ban abortion at the time of Roe v Wade, contrary to the assertion that Roe v. Wade was unnecessary as women would have the right to choose anyway. It seems like if one were to become knowledgable about the issue, particularly if one were to become sidetracked by it (indicating the study of the issue took up most of your time) you'd think these would be things one would learn.

He also began a major study of the abortion issue and its affects on American society. This research sidetracked him from his studies at Rio Hondo.

Exactly what were you researching, Bob, that you couldn't finish your studies? You started an argument about abortion and how it should be regulated, so how about telling us what information you are basing this on. It doesn't seem to be a deep knowledge of Roe v. Wade, abortion, Constitutional law or the status of abortion before Roe v. Wade. So on what did you base your amendment? Your wishes to be able to ban abortion maybe?
What are you smoking. The new one will do the same thing the original would have done. Government neutrality.

As for the election it was more like 3 to 2. I beat both the Republican write in and the Natural Law candidates by a landslide.
My demo. opponent had already been projected to win because of the fact the district was 80% democratic. And the people in the district vote almost entirely along party lines. That I was able to convince thousands of dems to vote for me is testament to my goodwill and ability to communicate clear goals when I have them.
The reason I didn't get more is because I was too busy being mr. nice guy. But not anymore. Because good people always get stepped on and treating like shit.
So now, I treat people like they treated me.
Next time, I will win. Cause I won't hold back any punches.
Proof, please. Election numbers, please. Surely, you have them saved somewhere, for your memoires.

I'll be willing to bet you $5 that you won't win a future election because you cannot put together a coherent and consistent argument for your platform.

And frankly, if people vote along party lines and the Democrat won, then the Dems are the majority. You're going to have learn to be less hostile towards them if you ever hope to win anything.

Your amendment is a non-starter, Whittier, and so, I'm afraid is your political career.

Then why does it talk about abortion?
Because every time you put a different political party in control of the Congress or white house, they attempt to change government policy on the issue and in some cases succeed. For better or worse.
The fact is that this is a very devisive issue much like slavery was.
You claim that the vast majority of Americans agree with you that abortion is a God given right. What you don't realize is that people who oppose abortion make the exact same claim for their side of the argument and neither or the two sides has anything to back it up.
We have people on one side attacking people on the other and trying to kill them and vice versa. It's reminiscent of the shit that was happening before the civil war.
You put two and two together. A compromise amendment is needed to prevent this from causing a civil war down the line in our future.
It does not matter who is right or who is wrong. I think you are wrong yet the amendment I propose supports your side, not mine.
Because I believe, sincerely, that that is the best way to prevent a future domestic insurrection.
And yes, before you say anything, we are headed toward civil war over this issue. And the increasingly bitter partisanship is just making the climate even more conducive to such turmoil.
With today's modern weapons I do not wish to be alive for a 2nd american civil war. In fact, I would prefer that such a conflict not happen. But the way things are going today, it is inevitable.
The divisions among Americans are becoming too great to hold this nation together unless someone with brass balls steps up and does something about it.

Also, I don't give a shit if abortion is banned by the states or not. All I care about is that this is a good way to secure my place in history.

What are you smoking. The new one will do the same thing the original would have done. Government neutrality.
A. The first version was not neutral. It was anti-abortion, as the analysis by many people in this thread showed.

B. The second one may be neutral, but as Jacobia has said many times, neutrality on rights is not the desired outcome.

Proof, please. Election numbers, please. Surely, you have them saved somewhere, for your memoires.

I'll be willing to bet you $5 that you won't win a future election because you cannot put together a coherent and consistent argument for your platform.

And frankly, if people vote along party lines and the Democrat won, then the Dems are the majority. You're going to have learn to be less hostile towards them if you ever hope to win anything.

Your amendment is a non-starter, Whittier, and so, I'm afraid is your political career.
Hostile? where have I been hostile?
I've tried the less hostile approach to politics. I got shitted on just like all nice guys always get shitted on. I'm using the other approach from now on.

I agree on most except 6. How do you get government neutrality on taxation?

You revise the tax code so that government does not legislate through tax incentives. There is no reason that an automaker should be taxed at a lower rate on their corporate income than a company that makes alcohol, dildos, or bibles. If you are going to have a sales tax, have a sales tax, but do not adjust it in order to try to influence purchases (no sin taxes, no special taxes on tobacco, or alcohol, or sex toys). No tax breaks for people who engage in buisnesses that the government finds favorable, none of that garbabe. You tax based on income or cost or whatever objective variable you decide to take a percentage out of and be done with it.

3. Abortion is a procedure in which a preborn (still completely inside the woman) and concieved fetus is terminated (hopefully in a humane manner like we do for all things we consider nonhuman like the family dog) and removed the woman's uterus. In PBA, the fetus is not completely in the woman's uterus but is mostly outside the woman's vagina. Therefore it constitutes murder. In RU486, given the time period for the pill to work. It is within a period that would prevent conception from taking place.


Major flaw in your logic. Under the definition you are using to call PBA murder any termination of an ectopic pregnancy would also be murder. I know, you don't mean that to be the case, but it is. That is the problem with starting to make limits, unusual or unforseen circumstances always pop up.

Abortion is about more than woman's right to control her body. You arguing from a simpleton's point of view. Abortion is not black and white. Its a very complex issue that should judged on a case by case basis. The rights of a fetus are equal to those of a woman. It is just plain wrong and inhumane to say that the rights of one group takes precedence over the rights of another group. They don't.

Pick a line and stick with it. One minute you are saying that a fetus isn't a human and relating it to a family pet, the next minute you are saying that it has rights equal to a full citizen. Either it is a human with rights or it isn't. And yest, it is that black and white. Abortion is only a complex issue for people who choose to make it so, for people who feel the need to view the law through the lens of some half-dead moral schematic they dragged from a more savage culture in a more savage time.

Abortion is an easy issue, here is why. A fetus seeks to use the uterus of a woman. The woman doesn't want to allow it to. You see a complex issue, I see a simple issue, allow me to explain. Lets say I have catastrophic liver failure and I will die without a transplant. I am of a rare tissue type and you are the only possable donor. If you do not give me a chunk of your liver I will die. Can I force you to give it to me? Can I have you kidnapped so I can take it by force? If I was coming at you with a knife demanding a chunk of your liver would there be a state in the union where you wouldn't be justified in shooting me dead? Doesn't your right to not have someone steal one of your organs trump my right to live? Before you bring up some weak argument about a mother having a responsibility to a fetus or any garbage like that, bare in mind that in most states a parent can sever their parental rights at any time, can give their child to the state, can walk away without any responsibility.

This is neither a red herring nor a strawman, it is a direct parallel to the issue facing a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Someone else is demanding the use of one of her organs and that use not only poses an inconvenience but also serious health risks. Black and white.

10. Good god in heaven. Make up your mind. Either you are claiming the fetus is not a person or you claiming it is not alive. You don't need a brain to be alive. You do need a brain to be a person.

Is a fish a person? How about a poodle? A chimp? All have brains. Hell, all have brains more developed and responive than a fetus.

Haha. :D If there's a liberal demon in this 3-way conversation, it would be me -- and I'm less liberal than I seem by comparison with Whittier.


Ohhhhh! I want to be a liberal demon! Then I can get horns and a tail! :cool:

Who am I kidding...everyone knows libertarians already have horns and tails....

if you bothered to read the whole thread you would have known that the amendment was evolving during the debate. Instead, you seek to demonize me.

You know you're capable of editing the first post to reflect a new version of the amendment. I'm not demonizing you. I'm pointing out that you clearly intended to try and pass an amendment that overturned Roe v Wade. Not talking about on here, you did that in RL. I'm pointing out very clearly mistakes, misinterpretations, misrepresentations and misunderstandings you've had on here that can be quoted. I'm pointing out your lack of knowledge on a subject on which you are trying to legislate. I'm pointing out that you are trying to force your, forgive me for saying so, but clearly uneducated, opinion on us through law. And I'm pointing out that your attempts to claim that others are not educated on a subject when they keep correcting your inane errors is not only laughable but a little sad. It's not demonizing when these are supportable assertions.

Start here for amendments -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html

Then here development of synapses (without which brain activity is impossible) -
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ.html

The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem, which sits above the spinal cord but below the higher, more recently-evolved cerebral cortex. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions--heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.

See that. The above-mentioned reflexes are controlled by the brainstem but not the brain. The earliest movements occur when there are only synapses in the spinal cord.

In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging.

Start here and then we can really discuss the issue.

Then here for abortion statistics -
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

You'll see that the majority of abortions occur before an embryo becomes a fetus and before brain activity is even possible. 59% before 8 weeks from the time of the last period. 88% before 13 weeks (within the first trimester).

Because every time you put a different political party in control of the Congress or white house, they attempt to change government policy on the issue and in some cases succeed. For better or worse.
The fact is that this is a very devisive issue much like slavery was.
You claim that the vast majority of Americans agree with you that abortion is a God given right. What you don't realize is that people who oppose abortion make the exact same claim for their side of the argument and neither or the two sides has anything to back it up.
We have people on one side attacking people on the other and trying to kill them and vice versa. It's reminiscent of the shit that was happening before the civil war.
You put two and two together. A compromise amendment is needed to prevent this from causing a civil war down the line in our future.
It does not matter who is right or who is wrong. I think you are wrong yet the amendment I propose supports your side, not mine.
Because I believe, sincerely, that that is the best way to prevent a future domestic insurrection.
And yes, before you say anything, we are headed toward civil war over this issue. And the increasingly bitter partisanship is just making the climate even more conducive to such turmoil.
With today's modern weapons I do not wish to be alive for a 2nd american civil war. In fact, I would prefer that such a conflict not happen. But the way things are going today, it is inevitable.
The divisions among Americans are becoming too great to hold this nation together unless someone with brass balls steps up and does something about it.

Also, I don't give a shit if abortion is banned by the states or not. All I care about is that this is a good way to secure my place in history.
This entire post proves that:

A. You lie like a rug. A twisted up, knotty, half-unraveled rug. Here you are explaining why your amendment is all about abortion in answer to my post asking why your amendment talks about abortion when you had just said it's not about abortion. Do you think, if you twist your argument enough others won't be able to follow you? Well, I'm still on your tail.

B. In answer to an earlier post of mine you are, in fact, Godwin-esquely, comparing fetuses to black people and abortion to slavery/segregation, thus inevitably casting women in the role of slave owners and church-bombing segregationists. So all your protests about how concerned you are to protect a woman's right to choose are lies, then, eh? And these predictions of war, what are they -- paranoia or threats?

C. And finally, you're arguing that we should amend the Constitution of the United States to satisfy your ego? Well, actually, that's the least surprising thing you've said so far.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot D. (actually A.a) -- Who is trying to kill whom here? I know of some cases where radical anti-choicers have called for the killing of abortion doctors -- and some murderous lunatics have actually committed such murders a couple of times. But when did any pro-choicer ever put out a call for the death of any anti-choicer, eh? How many anti-choicers have been shot, and how many go to and from work wearing body armor?

Hostile? where have I been hostile?
I've tried the less hostile approach to politics. I got shitted on just like all nice guys always get shitted on. I'm using the other approach from now on.
We need a snidely grinning smiley to go with my answer:

Your tone is hostile every time you mention the courts ("your side has packed the courts"); this election you lost ("railroaded" "why would I want to become a democrat" etc.); and anything that prompts you to use the word "liberal."

Ohhhhh! I want to be a liberal demon! Then I can get horns and a tail! :cool:

Who am I kidding...everyone knows libertarians already have horns and tails....
Yeah, but liberal horns and tails come in more colors. :D

Well, I'm off for the night. Don't let the fire go out before I get back. Ta-ta.

Yeah, but liberal horns and tails come in more colors. :D

Well, I'm off for the night. Don't let the fire go out before I get back. Ta-ta.

Feh, color is overrated

What are you smoking. The new one will do the same thing the original would have done. Government neutrality.

False. It overturned Roe v. Wade which says that women's rights are something to be voted on. That's not neutrality. The two amendments are nearly opposite in their approach. One allowed states to vote on abortion and the other didn't. To pretend they're the same is simply laughable.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

Overturns Roe v. Wade.

SECTION 4: a. The states shall pass no laws favoring or prohibiting abortion.

Pretty much the opposite of the first amendment. Well, not pretty much, exactly the opposite.

And I stopped reading the post where you posted your changes to what what was proposed by others when you used the word 'proposticate'. So I didn't realize you agreed to his changes.

9. I proposticate that your proposed change would look better thus:

I'm not sure what proposticate means so I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

The only way it touches such a thing is by mandating government neutrality. Something you are opposed to because you seek to force people to support abortion against their will.

Quote me or stop lying. You keep claiming I want such a thing when I've specifically said otherwise. Strawman and other logical fallacies do not help your argument.

Quote me or stop lying.

How closely have you been reading? That request has been refused more than once.

As for the election it was more like 3 to 2. I beat both the Republican write in and the Natural Law candidates by a landslide.
My demo. opponent had already been projected to win because of the fact the district was 80% democratic. And the people in the district vote almost entirely along party lines. That I was able to convince thousands of dems to vote for me is testament to my goodwill and ability to communicate clear goals when I have them.
The reason I didn't get more is because I was too busy being mr. nice guy. But not anymore. Because good people always get stepped on and treating like shit.
So now, I treat people like they treated me.
Next time, I will win. Cause I won't hold back any punches.

3 to 2? What?

http://www.hispanicvista.com/html/001109sd.html

District 34 is another heavy Latino District with a population of 60 per cent, but a voter registration of 45%. Here two Latinos fought it out. Incumbent Democrat Grace Napolitano versus Republican Robert Canales. Napolitano won with a sizable margin -71% to 23%.

Let's see 71% divided by 3 is... 24. You got beat by more than 3 to 1.

I'd imagine it won't help your campaign for people to know your views on women and on minorities. I wonder what people would think of your statement that teenager mothers are fairly reliable with child support unless they're black or hispanic.

Hostile? where have I been hostile?
I've tried the less hostile approach to politics. I got shitted on just like all nice guys always get shitted on. I'm using the other approach from now on.

Hostile... hmmm... when you called people under-educated because they disagree with you. When you tell people they need to read up on Constitutional law (incidentally while you were claiming the 11th amendment says the thing about reserving rights to the states or to the people). When you twist the views of others to pretend they have an agenda they've never even mentioned (like I'm trying to force people to pay for abortions which I challenge you to find me saying anywhere in my thousands of posts on this site). When you group people into a subclass so you can dismiss them like calling non-liberals, liberals, for example.

Because every time you put a different political party in control of the Congress or white house, they attempt to change government policy on the issue and in some cases succeed. For better or worse.
The fact is that this is a very devisive issue much like slavery was.
You claim that the vast majority of Americans agree with you that abortion is a God given right. What you don't realize is that people who oppose abortion make the exact same claim for their side of the argument and neither or the two sides has anything to back it up.
We have people on one side attacking people on the other and trying to kill them and vice versa. It's reminiscent of the shit that was happening before the civil war.
You put two and two together. A compromise amendment is needed to prevent this from causing a civil war down the line in our future.
It does not matter who is right or who is wrong. I think you are wrong yet the amendment I propose supports your side, not mine.
Because I believe, sincerely, that that is the best way to prevent a future domestic insurrection.
And yes, before you say anything, we are headed toward civil war over this issue. And the increasingly bitter partisanship is just making the climate even more conducive to such turmoil.
With today's modern weapons I do not wish to be alive for a 2nd american civil war. In fact, I would prefer that such a conflict not happen. But the way things are going today, it is inevitable.
The divisions among Americans are becoming too great to hold this nation together unless someone with brass balls steps up and does something about it.

Also, I don't give a shit if abortion is banned by the states or not. All I care about is that this is a good way to secure my place in history.
Are you sure you're not Bill Clinton? There is nothing worse than a politician whose motivation is to go down in history, as his, and apparently yours, was. How about you do what's right and let history be the judge, Bob?

And civil war over abortion? Are you kidding? Evidence please. The majority of people are quite happy to discuss abortion without bloodshed or violence. Your claims to the contrary are unsupported.

Also, regardless of your claims, it is not a compromise to suggest women do not have a basic right to control their bodies. And though you choose not to examine the evidence, evidence that the majority of abortions are performed on an embryo that has not yet developed a brain is VERY strong.

Ohhhhh! I want to be a liberal demon! Then I can get horns and a tail! :cool:

Who am I kidding...everyone knows libertarians already have horns and tails....

Ah, finally someone mentioned me. Careful, if you're not with them, you're against them. According to Mr. Canales, anyone who doesn't agree with the Conservatives 100% of the time is a liberal. There are no libertarians.

Oh, and just a note for you, Mr. Canales. I read your locked second thread and I've got a bone to pick. Please, don't use my name without asking me, it looks like an endorsement and I sure as hell don't remember giving one. I made a revision or two as an intellectual exercise, but I still think that any constitutional amendment regarding abortion is a bad idea. Since you have it in your head that it is necessary, here is my suggestion:

THE SUTURED PSYCHE AMENDMENT

SECTION I: Federal, state, or local legislatures shall make no law restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION II: No executive agent of the government has the authority to to restrict the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION III: No court has the authority to issue a ruling restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION IV: Any individual or group of individuals found to have willfully violated this amendment shall be found guilty of treason and be subject to whatever punishment deemed fit by congress, if it is congress that is found guilty of treason, public execution shall be the penalty. This section does not apply to individuals seeking to lawfully repeal or edit this amendment in whole or in part.

Oh, and just a note for you, Mr. Canales. I read your locked second thread and I've got a bone to pick. Please, don't use my name without asking me, it looks like an endorsement and I sure as hell don't remember giving one. I made a revision or two as an intellectual exercise, but I still think that any constitutional amendment regarding abortion is a bad idea. Since you have it in your head that it is necessary, here is my suggestion:

THE SUTURED PSYCHE AMENDMENT

SECTION I: Federal, state, or local legislatures shall make no law restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION II: No executive agent of the government has the authority to to restrict the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION III: No court has the authority to issue a ruling restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION IV: Any individual or group of individuals found to have willfully violated this amendment shall be found guilty of treason and be subject to whatever punishment deemed fit by congress, if it is congress that is found guilty of treason, public execution shall be the penalty. This section does not apply to individuals seeking to lawfully repeal or edit this amendment in whole or in part.

HA. That's great. I like the public execution of Congress part. I'm not big fan of their activities of late, and by late, I mean the last thirty years or so.

I'd also like to note that according to your definition of abortion, the majority of abortions would not be covered because they are performed an embryo, not a fetus. Also, according to your claim RU 486 would not be included (despite the fact that it causes a miscarriage).

As for the election it was more like 3 to 2. I beat both the Republican write in and the Natural Law candidates by a landslide.
My demo. opponent had already been projected to win because of the fact the district was 80% democratic. And the people in the district vote almost entirely along party lines. That I was able to convince thousands of dems to vote for me is testament to my goodwill and ability to communicate clear goals when I have them.
The reason I didn't get more is because I was too busy being mr. nice guy. But not anymore. Because good people always get stepped on and treating like shit.
So now, I treat people like they treated me.
Next time, I will win. Cause I won't hold back any punches.

Now we are supposed to believe you are Mr. Canales?

Have you been going without sleep again?

EDIT: Canales himself is just crazy enough that you could be him, but that would contradict biographic information you have given out in the past. Such as your alleged military service at Fort Huachuca.

Now we are supposed to believe you are Mr. Canales?

Have you been going without sleep again?

I already posted a link.

Did you, by the way, look at that other thread with the new version of the amendment? It basically flipped completely on the issue of states' rights. Interesting that one would attempt to amend the Constitution of the US and be so committed to that amendment that would have altered the building block of our nation that after a few days of discussion completely flipped a major part of the amendment. It's literally unbelievable that Canales would suggest that anyone would support that kind of candidate.

Because every time you put a different political party in control of the Congress or white house, they attempt to change government policy on the issue and in some cases succeed. For better or worse.
The fact is that this is a very devisive issue much like slavery was.
You claim that the vast majority of Americans agree with you that abortion is a God given right. What you don't realize is that people who oppose abortion make the exact same claim for their side of the argument and neither or the two sides has anything to back it up.
We have people on one side attacking people on the other and trying to kill them and vice versa. It's reminiscent of the shit that was happening before the civil war.
You put two and two together. A compromise amendment is needed to prevent this from causing a civil war down the line in our future.
It does not matter who is right or who is wrong. I think you are wrong yet the amendment I propose supports your side, not mine.
Because I believe, sincerely, that that is the best way to prevent a future domestic insurrection.
And yes, before you say anything, we are headed toward civil war over this issue. And the increasingly bitter partisanship is just making the climate even more conducive to such turmoil.
With today's modern weapons I do not wish to be alive for a 2nd american civil war. In fact, I would prefer that such a conflict not happen. But the way things are going today, it is inevitable.
The divisions among Americans are becoming too great to hold this nation together unless someone with brass balls steps up and does something about it.

Also, I don't give a shit if abortion is banned by the states or not. All I care about is that this is a good way to secure my place in history.

1. Rights shouldn't be compromised. Any "compromise" that allows the enslavement of women is not a true compromise.

2. Many compromises were tried in order to try to avoid the Civil War. Study a little history. The compromises didn't work because the fundamental rights of slaves and the horror of slavery could not be papered over. The same is true of your "compromise."

3. Your last sentence makes clear why you should never hold public office. All you really care about is yourself.

HA. That's great. I like the public execution of Congress part. I'm not big fan of their activities of late, and by late, I mean the last thirty years or so.


I dunno, aside from civil rights and women's sufferage, I'm hard pressed to find a bright spot in the past century.

False. It overturned Roe v. Wade which says that women's rights are something to be voted on. That's not neutrality. The two amendments are nearly opposite in their approach. One allowed states to vote on abortion and the other didn't. To pretend they're the same is simply laughable.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

Overturns Roe v. Wade.

SECTION 4: a. The states shall pass no laws favoring or prohibiting abortion.

Pretty much the opposite of the first amendment. Well, not pretty much, exactly the opposite.

And I stopped reading the post where you posted your changes to what what was proposed by others when you used the word 'proposticate'. So I didn't realize you agreed to his changes.

9. I proposticate that your proposed change would look better thus:

I'm not sure what proposticate means so I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing.
Proposticate means proprose. It meant I was agreeing with his changes. I only worded them better.

Oh, and just a note for you, Mr. Canales. I read your locked second thread and I've got a bone to pick. Please, don't use my name without asking me, it looks like an endorsement and I sure as hell don't remember giving one. I made a revision or two as an intellectual exercise, but I still think that any constitutional amendment regarding abortion is a bad idea. Since you have it in your head that it is necessary, here is my suggestion:

THE SUTURED PSYCHE AMENDMENT

SECTION I: Federal, state, or local legislatures shall make no law restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION II: No executive agent of the government has the authority to to restrict the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION III: No court has the authority to issue a ruling restricting the right of the individual to undergo any medical procedure they see fit, nor the right of the individual to ingest any medication proscribed by a licensed doctor.

SECTION IV: Any individual or group of individuals found to have willfully violated this amendment shall be found guilty of treason and be subject to whatever punishment deemed fit by congress, if it is congress that is found guilty of treason, public execution shall be the penalty. This section does not apply to individuals seeking to lawfully repeal or edit this amendment in whole or in part.

That has less chance of getting in the door than mine does of passage.
It's clearly biased toward one side and only side.

Edit: And since you don't want credit for a change that was your idea, I think I'll take it. Thanks. :D

I ask that you help me pass a UN Resolution called
Seperation of Church and State

Its already been drafted, but it needs support.
It would also be appreciated if you help announce it amoung the people.

I will be greatfully honored if you do... thank you

Proposticate means proprose. It meant I was agreeing with his changes. I only worded them better.

Hmmm... interesting that it's not in the dictionary.

Anyway, your wording defies the fourteenth amendment which makes much of your wording unnecessary.

It has been claimed that fetuses have no brain activity until the second trimester. It has also been claimed that no one in the medical community disputes this. It is also claimed that fetal brain activity was being researched since 1973. Further it has been argued, that the fetus feels no pain. Hell, some people argue that all drugs are bad for the fetus.

But let us look at these.

First off, according to Washington Universe School of Medicine, alcoholic consumption causes brain cell death in fetuses and results in children with slow learning curves. "Brief exposure to small amounts of alcohol or anesthetic drugs can trigger nerve cell death in the developing brain, according to research reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "
According to Duke University Medical researchers, "An anesthetic regimen commonly used during surgery on pregnant mothers appears to have no negative effects on the developing brain of the fetus, according to a new study on sheep conducted by Duke University Medical Center researchers.
Furthermore, the researchers found, the use of this regimen to produce general anesthesia appears to improve the oxygenation of the fetal brain, according to their novel system for measuring cerebral oxygenation in the developing fetus."
Let me take a moment here, to note one of the contributions the fetus makes to the woman's body in return for the food and shelter it gets from her.
According to Science and technology section of Scientific American magazine, some of a fetuses cells migrate into the woman's body and end up inside her brain where they become new brain cells. And they stay there for at least 27 years. Though they have known for years that fetuses give some of their cells to their mothers (to become part of the woman's body) this is the first instance in which they found that a fetus gives its mother a better brain.
Scientists got the ability to study fetal brain activity in 2002, not in 1973 as was claimed by Jocabia.
"For years, doctors who work in maternal and fetal medicine have had no way to detect brain activity in unborn children. Now, for the first time, researchers using a unique scanning device have shown
that they can detect fetal brain activity in response to flashes of light transmitted through the mother's abdomen."

"The work was supported by the National Stroke (NINDS) and appears in the September 7, 2002, issue of "The Lancet." "
According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, before 2002, neither doctors nor scientists had any way to measure the brain activity of a fetus. The 90's falls in the time in which they would have lacked this ability. But the problem with the study is that it is not enough. They only looked at fetuses that were at least 28 weeks old. Another study looked at fetuses that were 36 weeks old.
They didn't go any younger because they feared causing brain damage.

But we know the fetal brainstem is developed at the 7th week of gestation. It is proven fact that by the 9th week, a fetus can engage in activities such as spontaneous movements. Whether this is because of consciousness or not has not been proven.
According to DevBio, there are 5 different views within the scientific community.
The metabolic view holds that there is no boundary marking a change from nonhuman life to human life.
Some scientists hold that personhood occurs when a zygote is created. Though there are problems with this view. Suppose it splits to form two people for example.
Other scientist believe personhood starts at gastrulation. This occurs in the third week of pregnancy.
Another view, one I hold, is the nuerological view. In this view, a fetus is a person once it begins making EEG patterns and this is usually the 24th week at the latest. Some hold that a fetus becomes a person at week 8. Though, I have seen no study or research to show either. But they say that the first neurons appear at week 5. The first synapsis appear at week 6. At week 7 a fetus demonstrates its first response to stimulae. At week 8 the fetus has what it needs for rational thought. Though I have problem with rational thought at week 8. Liberals have proven that 21 year olds aren't capable of rational thought. If a person who is 21 or a 1 year old infant cannot yet think rationally, how can we reasonably assume that an 8 week old fetus could? I believe personhood occurs later than the 8th week.
Some scientists hold the 20th week to be the marker of personhood because that is when the thalamus appears connecting the nervous system. Part of the same school of thought is the fetus isn't a person until after the 3rd trimester
Another school of thought is that a fetus cannot be a person because it cannot exist outside the woman. However the problem here is that medicine can make a fetus breathe on its own after only 25 weeks of gestation. Some laws that use this definition also bar the abortion of fetus that can survive on their own this early in development

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_fetal_brain_scanning_090502.htm

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/preg/a/blwumc040214.htm

http://www.emaxhealth.com/87/1697.html

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

http://www.magres.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/pregnancy/fetalbrain/index.phtml

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_23_39/ai_n8581206

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:tFE6m6LbzWkJ:www.agast.org/newsltr/pdf/agast402_a.pdf+fetal+brain+research&hl=en

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/publications/publications-research_reviews/publications-fetal_pain_summary_report.htm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001939B-A724-1353-A72483414B7F0000

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053349.htm

http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-640.html

As you can see no research has ever been conducted on fetuses younger than 25 weeks. All statements regarding their brain activity is pretty much just theory. Not proven fact, but speculation.
Federal funding of fetal brain activity research would fix this. It is very interesting to note that the researchers didn't experiment with fetuses younge than 25 weeks out of concern for harming the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, as implied here in this thread, then why be concerned about harming. Dissecting a fetus that young should be no worse than dissecting a frog. Unless you hold that a fetus is human being?
I say lets create lots of embryos and experiment on them. And have government pay for the experiments.

That has less chance of getting in the door than mine does of passage.
It's clearly biased toward one side and only side.

Edit: And since you don't want credit for a change that was your idea, I think I'll take it. Thanks. :D

Bwah-ha-ha. There is only one side. You either believe in a woman's right to her body or not. Let me ask you, sir, when do you give up rights to your body and your right to make your surgical decisions. If it doesn't protect the rights of a woman then it says she has none.

Hmmm... interesting that it's not in the dictionary.

Anyway, your wording defies the fourteenth amendment which makes much of your wording unnecessary.
Cause I just made it up. But eventually someone else will hear or read and pick it up. Next thing you know someone will claim that I never made it up. Just as happened recently with a term I coined in the 90's which pro-lifers were not using at the time. In the 90's pro-lifers were using the term unborn just like the pro-choicers.

I ask that you help me pass a UN Resolution called
Seperation of Church and State

Its already been drafted, but it needs support.
It would also be appreciated if you help announce it amoung the people.

I will be greatfully honored if you do... thank you

????

That's not related to the topic here.

Bwah-ha-ha. There is only one side. You either believe in a woman's right to her body or not. Let me ask you, sir, when do you give up rights to your body and your right to make your surgical decisions. If it doesn't protect the rights of a woman then it says she has none.
There is always two sides to every issue. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.
Of course if this were red china, you would not have to worry about people debating a "right" to abortion cause abortion would be mandatory by national law.

1. Rights shouldn't be compromised. Any "compromise" that allows the enslavement of women is not a true compromise.

2. Many compromises were tried in order to try to avoid the Civil War. Study a little history. The compromises didn't work because the fundamental rights of slaves and the horror of slavery could not be papered over. The same is true of your "compromise."

3. Your last sentence makes clear why you should never hold public office. All you really care about is yourself.
This in no enslaves women. Federal neutrality is not enslavement. Forcing to people to pay for someone else's abortion. Banning anti-abortion protests just because you disagree with them. That's enslavement.

This in no enslaves women. Federal neutrality is not enslavement. Forcing to people to pay for someone else's abortion. Banning anti-abortion protests just because you disagree with them. That's enslavement.

Your proposal is hardly neutral.

Regardless, any proposal that allows states to ban abortion enslaves women. Your proposal creates such a possibility.

As for general taxation being enslavement, you have a pretty poor argument. Just because I don't like how every penny is spent by the federal government does not make me a slave.

As for "[b]anning anti-abortion protests just because you disagree with them," you are talking out your ass. No such thing happens now.

You, sir, have a credibility gap. You routinely skew the facts and make things up -- including about who you are.

It has been claimed that fetuses have no brain activity until the second trimester. It has also been claimed that no one in the medical community disputes this. It is also claimed that fetal brain activity was being researched since 1973. Further it has been argued, that the fetus feels no pain. Hell, some people argue that all drugs are bad for the fetus.

But let us look at these.

First off, according to Washington Universe School of Medicine, alcoholic consumption causes brain cell death in fetuses and results in children with slow learning curves. "Brief exposure to small amounts of alcohol or anesthetic drugs can trigger nerve cell death in the developing brain, according to research reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "

I showed that the brain starts to form at six weeks. It does not function at that point however. There are no synapses at that point and there is no activity until much later. None of the further cited sources scientifically disputes that brain activity does not begin until the second trimester.

According to Duke University Medical researchers, "An anesthetic regimen commonly used during surgery on pregnant mothers appears to have no negative effects on the developing brain of the fetus, according to a new study on sheep conducted by Duke University Medical Center researchers.
Furthermore, the researchers found, the use of this regimen to produce general anesthesia appears to improve the oxygenation of the fetal brain, according to their novel system for measuring cerebral oxygenation in the developing fetus."

Developing brain is not a functioning brain. Again, doesn't support your point. My links show there is a developing brain at six weeks.

Let me take a moment here, to note one of the contributions the fetus makes to the woman's body in return for the food and shelter it gets from her.
According to Science and technology section of Scientific American magazine, some of a fetuses cells migrate into the woman's body and end up inside her brain where they become new brain cells. And they stay there for at least 27 years. Though they have known for years that fetuses give some of their cells to their mothers (to become part of the woman's body) this is the first instance in which they found that a fetus gives its mother a better brain.

Huh? So that forces her to forego her right to choose. Who is arguing that the fetus is only a bad thing? Many of us consider it to be a miracle. However, my opinion will not be made into law and subjugate the will of a woman.

Scientists got the ability to study fetal brain activity in 2002, not in 1973 as was claimed by Jocabia.

Didn't say that now did I? Your lies are getting tiresome. I said they were studying fetal development. Take your strawmen elsewhere. Quote me or quit lying.

"For years, doctors who work in maternal and fetal medicine have had no way to detect brain activity in unborn children. Now, for the first time, researchers using a unique scanning device have shown
that they can detect fetal brain activity in response to flashes of light transmitted through the mother's abdomen."

"The work was supported by the National Stroke (NINDS) and appears in the September 7, 2002, issue of "The Lancet." "
According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, before 2002, neither doctors nor scientists had any way to measure the brain activity of a fetus. The 90's falls in the time in which they would have lacked this ability. But the problem with the study is that it is not enough. They only looked at fetuses that were at least 28 weeks old. Another study looked at fetuses that were 36 weeks old.
They didn't go any younger because they feared causing brain damage.

Amusing. Your proving my point. Fetal developmental studies have been conducted for some time. We know a lot about fetal development and have been studying it for decades.

But we know the fetal brainstem is developed at the 7th week of gestation. It is proven fact that by the 9th week, a fetus can engage in activities such as spontaneous movements. Whether this is because of consciousness or not has not been proven.

Ridiculous. At the 9th week the brain is not developed enough to control the body. It has been shown that these movements are reflexive and similar to the movements of coma patients with an intact brain stem and no brain activity. The brain stem is not conscious.

According to DevBio, there are 5 different views within the scientific community.
The metabolic view holds that there is no boundary marking a change from nonhuman life to human life.

Life is life. Any argument that human life should have a special definition is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue.

Some scientists hold that personhood occurs when a zygote is created.

Being a scientist does not make all of your views scientific. There is no scientific reason to define the beginning of life differently for only one species.

Though there are problems with this view. Suppose it splits to form two people for example.
Other scientist believe personhood starts at gastrulation. This occurs in the third week of pregnancy.

Again, there is no scientific reason for this view. An embryo does not meet the scientific requirement for life.

Another view, one I hold, is the nuerological view. In this view, a fetus is a person once it begins making EEG patterns and this is usually the 24th week at the latest.

Long after the majority of abortions and deep into the second trimester. And your "at the latest" is debatable.

Some hold that a fetus becomes a person at week 8. Though, I have seen no study or research to show either. But they say that the first neurons appear at week 5. The first synapsis appear at week 6. At week 7 a fetus demonstrates its first response to stimulae.

False. They are incapable of responding to stimuli at that point. The movement is not with intent. Responding to stimuli requires it to respond as a entity. My heart cells can respond to stimuli at the same level a 9-week fetus can.

At week 8 the fetus has what it needs for rational thought.

Really? Is rational though possible without brain synapses? I would love to see any scientist that can support this view.

Though I have problem with rational thought at week 8. Liberals have proven that 21 year olds aren't capable of rational thought. If a person who is 21 or a 1 year old infant cannot yet think rationally, how can we reasonably assume that an 8 week old fetus could? I believe personhood occurs later than the 8th week.
Some scientists hold the 20th week to be the marker of personhood because that is when the thalamus appears connecting the nervous system. Part of the same school of thought is the fetus isn't a person until after the 3rd trimester
Another school of thought is that a fetus cannot be a person because it cannot exist outside the woman. However the problem here is that medicine can make a fetus breathe on its own after only 25 weeks of gestation. Some laws that use this definition also bar the abortion of fetus that can survive on their own this early in development

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_fetal_brain_scanning_090502.htm

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/preg/a/blwumc040214.htm

http://www.emaxhealth.com/87/1697.html

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

http://www.magres.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/pregnancy/fetalbrain/index.phtml

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_23_39/ai_n8581206

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:tFE6m6LbzWkJ:www.agast.org/newsltr/pdf/agast402_a.pdf+fetal+brain+research&hl=en

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/publications/publications-research_reviews/publications-fetal_pain_summary_report.htm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001939B-A724-1353-A72483414B7F0000

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053349.htm

http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-640.html

As you can see no research has ever been conducted on fetuses younger than 25 weeks.

False. Tons of research has been conducted earlier in gestation. Research on the brain is not limited to measuring brainwaves. You are talking about one specific type of research. What do you think they were doing when they created the ultrasound? Trying to make pretty pictures or studying fetal and embryonic development? The answer is obvious and your attempts to suggest otherwise are sad.

All statements regarding their brain activity is pretty much just theory. Not proven fact, but speculation.

False. We can be completely certain that brain activity is impossible when no synapses have formed in the brain. We can be completely certain that there is no evidence of the operation of the brain at 9 weeks and little evidence after that point and I got news for you, brain activity has been evident at the 25-week for a very long time.

Federal funding of fetal brain activity research would fix this.

Evidence? Another ridiculous assertion. What level of funding does fetal research get now? Nationally by both private and public sources?

It is very interesting to note that the researchers didn't experiment with fetuses younge than 25 weeks out of concern for harming the fetus.

Because if a child is later born. They don't want that child to be born brain-damaged.

If the fetus is not a person, as implied here in this thread, then why be concerned about harming. Dissecting a fetus that young should be no worse than dissecting a frog.

They do dissect fetuses. They also dissect full-grown human beings. Your point is simply ridiculous.

Unless you hold that a fetus is human being?
I say lets create lots of embryos and experiment on them. And have government pay for the experiments.
Why are changing the argument? Who was arguing against this? When did anyone argue this shouldn't be funded? Get off your soapbox, no one here is gonna vote for you.

Do you think people can't see your attempts to smokescreen your lack of knowledge on this subject? Does this ever work? You think we didn't notice how you pretend like we said something we didn't and when we ask you to quote us, you just move on? Do you think we don't notice that when we ask you to show us all of these groups that supported your amendment, you just move on? Do you think we don't notice how you leave something behind so often and then come back to it when we stop challenging you on it? We see you and so does everyone that enters this thread.

There is always two sides to every issue. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.
Of course if this were red china, you would not have to worry about people debating a "right" to abortion cause abortion would be mandatory by national law.

HA. Does that ever work? You've compared our side to Nazis, Red China... what's next? Caligula? Are your points so weak you keep having to lie about our points or compare them to villians? Try making an argument that follows a line of logic.

By the way, Red China is taking away a woman's right to choose just as you are. Both you and they treat women like their bodies are subject to the will of the government. I disagree with you both.

Cause I just made it up. But eventually someone else will hear or read and pick it up. Next thing you know someone will claim that I never made it up. Just as happened recently with a term I coined in the 90's which pro-lifers were not using at the time. In the 90's pro-lifers were using the term unborn just like the pro-choicers.

You made something up? Shocker. Let me guess, you invented the internet as well? Your credibility is pretty much shot to hell so I'm gonna need a little more than your assertions to buy anything you say.

Proposticate means proprose. It meant I was agreeing with his changes. I only worded them better.


In what language? It is found in neither my Oxford unabridged nor my Webster unabridged, a google search comes up with two hits on a message board, yahoo has zero, and dictionary.com doesn't recognize it.....

That has less chance of getting in the door than mine does of passage.
It's clearly biased toward one side and only side.


Yup, the libertarian side. You know, the one which holds that the government doesn't have the authority to tell any citizen what they can do with their own bodies or ingest so long as they choose to do so.

Here is the problem with most people who seek to edit the constitution, they all want their little pet issue enshrined for eternity. That isn;t what the constitution is about. Look at the bill of rights, how many of those first 10 amendments are narrow? The constitution is for drawing bold lines where government authority ends. You amendment covers abortion and abortion only. My amendment covers medical choice in general, as well as individual determinism. It is also elastic enough to cover future eventualities, like any transhumanistic technology that might become an issue in the future. With one amendment I have addressed abortion, body modification, transhumanism, medical choice, the badly decided Raich v. Gonzalez, prohibition, and who knows how many other issues that I won't live long enough to have the context to forsee. Just as importantly, my amendment is written in plain, concise language that makes it a reviewable subject not only for legal scholars but for anyone with an 8th grade reading level.

Now, you do have a point, it IS biased, I freely admit that. Then again, thats kinda the point of the constitution. The first amendment is clearly biased in favor of individual expression at the expense of government authority, social order, or public comfort. The second amendment is biased in favor of armed revolution at the expense of a strong central government. The thrid amendment is biased in favor of property rights at the espense of an elastic government. The fourth amendment is biased in favor of privacy at the expense of public safety. The fifth amendment is clearly biased in favor of the individual over the group, efficiency, and public safety. I could give you 22 more examples if you'd like.

Constitutional rights aren't for opening the door to mob rule. They aren't for letting the people decide. They aren't for states rights or democracy. The bill of rights (and by extension all non-procedural amendments) is about recognizing certain things as so important that democracy doesn't apply. The will of the people is shit in the face of the constitution. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of voters in a given jurisdiction think it is a crime for me to wear a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" in public during a war in a courthouse with women and children present, the first amendment says I can and if you don't like it the burden is on you to avert your gaze.

It has been claimed that fetuses have no brain activity until the second trimester. It has also been claimed that no one in the medical community disputes this. It is also claimed that fetal brain activity was being researched since 1973. Further it has been argued, that the fetus feels no pain. Hell, some people argue that all drugs are bad for the fetus.


Not by me. I don't care if the damn thing is the second coming of christ writing a dissertation on russian literature, if the mother hasn't given it permission to use her uterus she has every right to evict the little shit. Clear enough for you?

I just want to be sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from. I don;t care if it has brain activity, I don't care if it has consciousness, I don't care if it has pain response, I don't care if it is a person, I don't care if it has a soul, all of these things are irrelevant to the line of logic that has lead me to a pro-choice position. I believe that an individual has absolute sovereignty over their own body. Period. If you want to debate, fine, but those are the terms. The only way you will get me to move is if you address the issue of personal sovereignty. If that is not a road you are prepared to go down, then you need to go home.

Cause I just made it up. But eventually someone else will hear or read and pick it up. Next thing you know someone will claim that I never made it up. Just as happened recently with a term I coined in the 90's which pro-lifers were not using at the time. In the 90's pro-lifers were using the term unborn just like the pro-choicers.

Interesting...how do you feel about ebonics and spanglish in the classroom?

Federal neutrality is not enslavement.

It is if it leads to slavery in the US. What you propose is that the federal government tie it's hands. You can give a thousand shitty reasons why it would be a good thing, but god and everyone can see why you like the idea. If the federal government is taken out of the argument, pro-lifers will have an easier time banning abortion in their little enclaves. Come out and say it directly, at least then you'll get to hold onto your dignity.

I showed that the brain starts to form at six weeks. It does not function at that point however. There are no synapses at that point and there is no activity until much later.



Developing brain is not a functioning brain. Again, doesn't support your point. My links show there is a developing brain at six weeks.



Huh? So that forces her to forego her right to choose. Who is arguing that the fetus is only a bad thing? Many of us consider it to be a miracle. However, my opinion will not be made into law and subjugate the will of a woman.



Didn't say that now did I? Your lies are getting tiresome. I said they were studying fetal development. Take your strawmen elsewhere. Quote me or quit lying.



Amusing. Your proving my point. Fetal developmental studies have been conducted for some time. We know a lot about fetal development and have been studying it for decades.



Ridiculous. At the 9th week the brain is not developed enough to control the body. It has been shown that these movements are reflexive and similar to the movements of coma patients with an intact brain stem and no brain activity. The brain stem is not conscious.



Life is life. Any argument that human life should have a special definition is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue.



Being a scientist does not make all of your views scientific. There is no scientific reason to define the beginning of life differently for only one species.



Again, there is no scientific reason for this view. An embryo does not meet the scientific requirement for life.



Long after the majority of abortions and deep into the second trimester. And your "at the latest" is debatable.



False. They are incapable of responding to stimuli at that point. The movement is not with intent. Responding to stimuli requires it to respond as a entity. My heart cells can respond to stimuli at the same level a 9-week fetus can.



Really? Is rational though possible without brain synapses? I would love to see any scientist that can support this view.



False. Tons of research has been conducted earlier in gestation. Research on the brain is not limited to measuring brainwaves. You are talking about one specific type of research. What do you think they were doing when they created the ultrasound? Trying to make pretty pictures or studying fetal and embryonic development? The answer is obvious and your attempts to suggest otherwise are sad.



False. We can be completely certain that brain activity is impossible when no synapses have formed in the brain. We can be completely certain that there is no evidence of the operation of the brain at 9 weeks and little evidence after that point and I got news for you, brain activity has been evident at the 25-week for a very long time.



Evidence? Another ridiculous assertion. What level of funding does fetal research get now? Nationally by both private and public sources?



Because if a child is later born. They don't want that child to be born brain-damaged.



They do dissect fetuses. They also dissect full-grown human beings. Your point is simply ridiculous.


Why are changing the argument? Who was arguing against this? When did anyone argue this shouldn't be funded? Get off your soapbox, no one here is gonna vote for you.

Do you think people can't see your attempts to smokescreen your lack of knowledge on this subject? Does this ever work? You think we didn't notice how you pretend like we said something we didn't and when we ask you to quote us, you just move on? Do you think we don't notice that when we ask you to show us all of these groups that supported your amendment, you just move on? Do you think we don't notice how you leave something behind so often and then come back to it when we stop challenging you on it? We see you and so does everyone that enters this thread.

Actually I was showing that there was division with in the scientific community. I remember that someone in this thread stated that scientists and doctors were in 100% agreement on the issue of when a fetus becomes a person. I showed the inaccuracy of that statement.

You, again, state here as in the other post, that fetal research using sonograms has been going on for decades. Bouncing sonar waves off a fetus is not the same as studying its brain activity. There was no way to study brain activity until the beginning of the 21st. These studies of fetal brain activity did not exist when I made the amendment. When I assumed a fetus was a person at 20 weeks, I did so on a guess, knowing that no data on the subject was available. That is why I supported more funds for such research.

In what language? It is found in neither my Oxford unabridged nor my Webster unabridged, a google search comes up with two hits on a message board, yahoo has zero, and dictionary.com doesn't recognize it.....




Yup, the libertarian side. You know, the one which holds that the government doesn't have the authority to tell any citizen what they can do with their own bodies or ingest so long as they choose to do so.

Here is the problem with most people who seek to edit the constitution, they all want their little pet issue enshrined for eternity. That isn;t what the constitution is about. Look at the bill of rights, how many of those first 10 amendments are narrow? The constitution is for drawing bold lines where government authority ends. You amendment covers abortion and abortion only. My amendment covers medical choice in general, as well as individual determinism. It is also elastic enough to cover future eventualities, like any transhumanistic technology that might become an issue in the future. With one amendment I have addressed abortion, body modification, transhumanism, medical choice, the badly decided Raich v. Gonzalez, prohibition, and who knows how many other issues that I won't live long enough to have the context to forsee. Just as importantly, my amendment is written in plain, concise language that makes it a reviewable subject not only for legal scholars but for anyone with an 8th grade reading level.

Now, you do have a point, it IS biased, I freely admit that. Then again, thats kinda the point of the constitution. The first amendment is clearly biased in favor of individual expression at the expense of government authority, social order, or public comfort. The second amendment is biased in favor of armed revolution at the expense of a strong central government. The thrid amendment is biased in favor of property rights at the espense of an elastic government. The fourth amendment is biased in favor of privacy at the expense of public safety. The fifth amendment is clearly biased in favor of the individual over the group, efficiency, and public safety. I could give you 22 more examples if you'd like.

Constitutional rights aren't for opening the door to mob rule. They aren't for letting the people decide. They aren't for states rights or democracy. The bill of rights (and by extension all non-procedural amendments) is about recognizing certain things as so important that democracy doesn't apply. The will of the people is shit in the face of the constitution. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of voters in a given jurisdiction think it is a crime for me to wear a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" in public during a war in a courthouse with women and children present, the first amendment says I can and if you don't like it the burden is on you to avert your gaze.



Not by me. I don't care if the damn thing is the second coming of christ writing a dissertation on russian literature, if the mother hasn't given it permission to use her uterus she has every right to evict the little shit. Clear enough for you?

I just want to be sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from. I don;t care if it has brain activity, I don't care if it has consciousness, I don't care if it has pain response, I don't care if it is a person, I don't care if it has a soul, all of these things are irrelevant to the line of logic that has lead me to a pro-choice position. I believe that an individual has absolute sovereignty over their own body. Period. If you want to debate, fine, but those are the terms. The only way you will get me to move is if you address the issue of personal sovereignty. If that is not a road you are prepared to go down, then you need to go home.



Interesting...how do you feel about ebonics and spanglish in the classroom?



It is if it leads to slavery in the US. What you propose is that the federal government tie it's hands. You can give a thousand shitty reasons why it would be a good thing, but god and everyone can see why you like the idea. If the federal government is taken out of the argument, pro-lifers will have an easier time banning abortion in their little enclaves. Come out and say it directly, at least then you'll get to hold onto your dignity.
That's because I comletely made it up, just like, when I drafted the amendment, I redefined a lot of the terms to make them make more sense.

Thanks to your comments which I bolded, I can now say I understand where you truly are coming from. Science and human rights be damned eh?

That's because I comletely made it up, just like, when I drafted the amendment, I redefined a lot of the terms to make them make more sense.

Thanks to your comments which I bolded, I can now say I understand where you truly are coming from. Science and human rights be damned eh?
Just making shit up all day long, huh, Congressman Humpty-Dumpty? You're making me feel better about laughing when I read your posts -- now that I know it's fiction.

And about the comments of Sutured Psyche's that you bolded -- He's not tossing aside science. His comments have nothing to do with science at all. I'm surprised you didn't recognize that, since your arguments have nothing to do with science, either. He's not tossing aside human rights, either. In fact, that's exactly what he's carrying on about -- human rights -- for women -- not for fetuses. But I guess we're learning now that, in your view, fetuses have more rights than women. Maybe, in your view, women aren't human. That's the message I get when he argues for women's rights and you complain that he's ignoring human rights.

Just making shit up all day long, huh, Congressman Humpty-Dumpty? You're making me feel better about laughing when I read your posts -- now that I know it's fiction.

And about the comments of Sutured Psyche's that you bolded -- He's not tossing aside science. His comments have nothing to do with science at all. I'm surprised you didn't recognize that, since your arguments have nothing to do with science, either. He's not tossing aside human rights, either. In fact, that's exactly what he's carrying on about -- human rights -- for women -- not for fetuses. But I guess we're learning now that, in your view, fetuses have more rights than women. Maybe, in your view, women aren't human. That's the message I get when he argues for women's rights and you complain that he's ignoring human rights.

Pfft... you should see his statements in other threads. Human rights for women is something he argues against often and with vigor.

Pfft... you should see his statements in other threads. Human rights for women is something he argues against often and with vigor.
;) Shh. I know that. I'm just amused at the way he thinks nobody else does. Doesn't he know that we can read all the posts, that he's argued with same people several times here?

I never pulled the wings off a fly when I was a kid. I never kicked a dog in my life. But hounding guys like Whittier -- that I can do all day long. :D

Actually I was showing that there was division with in the scientific community. I remember that someone in this thread stated that scientists and doctors were in 100% agreement on the issue of when a fetus becomes a person. I showed the inaccuracy of that statement.

Quote that person or quit lying. That person, me, said that scientists are iin consensu in what the biological qualifications for life are and that an embryo does not meet them. The fact that some people who happen to be scientists unscientifically believe that humans should have a special definition for life that does not apply to any other species is not something I denied. However, those views have no scientific support. Humans are creatures like every other creature. For scientists to consider it to be a life ALL creatures must meet the qualifications for life.

The argument you are pointing to is about personhood, not when an embryo/fetus scientifically qualifies as a life. You act as if they are the same and have tried to state that anything else is inconsistent, but one is an opinion and one is a scientific principle.

You, again, state here as in the other post, that fetal research using sonograms has been going on for decades. Bouncing sonar waves off a fetus is not the same as studying its brain activity. There was no way to study brain activity until the beginning of the 21st. These studies of fetal brain activity did not exist when I made the amendment. When I assumed a fetus was a person at 20 weeks, I did so on a guess, knowing that no data on the subject was available. That is why I supported more funds for such research.

So what? We were talking about fetal research which you claimed did not go on in the 70's and was stunted in the 80's. Now, you've changed your claim and acted like we were talking about that all along.

Sonography tells us when the brain begins to development and we can be unquestionably certain there is no consciousness before the first synapses form in the brain. We can be unquestionably certain through sonography that all movement in the first trimester does no require brain activity.

The fact that you pretend like brain activity must be measured to collect evidence regarding it is evidence of your lack of knowledge on this subject.

I'm not measuring Mura's brainwaves right now, but I'm willing to put my credibilty on the line that I can scientifically demonstrate that Mura is conscious and his/her brain is active without measuring brainwaves. In fact, I'm willing to bet on it. Wanna bet?

As in other threads we've encountered each other in, you've been constantly caught by others, myself included, lying about things they've said, misinterpreting scientific evidence, misinterpreting your own amendment, changing your view mid-discussion and acting as if we were discussing your new view all along, etc. Your style leaves much to be desired and I recommend you work on it, if you wish to have an credibility here. As it stands right now, you could tell me the sun is out and I'd go check before believing you.

Thanks to your comments which I bolded, I can now say I understand where you truly are coming from. Science and human rights be damned eh?


Science has nothing to do with it. As for human rights, I belive in the absolute sovereignty of the individual over their own body. I don't think anyone should have the power to hijack my body for a purpose I don't support. You can try to shame me for that if you like but you'll fail. Personal sovereignty is the lynchpin of my worldview, it is the basis of my religion, the inspiration for my philosophy, and the doctrine upon which I base my life. Without personal sovereignty every other "human right" is rendered utterly worthless.

Tell me, what scientific basis can you find to trump the right of an individual to decide how their body can be used? You have yet to quote one. You can bring a laundry list of scientific evidence that points to your beliefs about what a fetus is, but science cannot provide you with the answers to philosophical questions. At the end of the day, science is only a tool that can be used to support a subjective opinion.

That leaves human rights. Human rights do not exist in a vacuum, they are constantly coming into conflict. If you are to build a just society you must establish rules for deciding whose rights trump the rights of another and under what circumstances. Because of this, I would like to ask you a direct question and I would prefer it if you answer instead of parry"

If you support restrictions on certain abortions because you believe the fetus is a person and thus has a right to live, would you then by the same logic support mandatory organ donation in the case of patients who have a 0% chance of survival if they do not recieve an organ. Do you believe that individuals should be forced to open their homes to the homeless? Do you believe that theft of food and other essentials should not be prosecuted? Where exactly does your respect for "human life" and "human rights" end and why?