What the hell is wrong with you people?

I've added a new category, because obviously this issue is not going away. The abortion issue, that has divided us and been responsible for some of the most divisive rhetoric ever, will continue to be an issue for quite some time. It will build in nastiness and stupidness until the Court hears whatever cases it is going to hear and decides whatever it is going to decide and then...we'll probably start all over again. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Yesterday, AnkleBitingPundits had a link to this article. (Registration is required, but I went and did it for you and so you can sign in using member id twobabes2  Password reader.)

I don't know. Maybe ABP was right; maybe the NY Times was trying to educate women in ways to induce an abortion if and when abortion becomes illegal. I really have no clue why they would print that article. But I have almost no clue why either side does anything it does when it comes to the issue of abortion.

I used to think that abortion was truly one of those difficult issues where people were so morally invested in their view of what was right that they couldn't compromise on it politically without compromising their core beliefs. I respected both sides for their willingness to hang it all out there for what they believed, even when it was unpopular.

I can see both sides of the issue. I understand and sympathize with the life begins at conception belief. I am the mother of three kids. I saw each and every one of them on an ultrasound monitor when I was eight weeks pregnant and the doctor pointed out the heartbeat.

After that, it is hard to deny it is something.

I understand and sympathize with the controlling ones body argument as well. I am a woman. I have a daughter. I want women to retain legal control of their bodies. I do not want anyone's right to my body to supercede my own.

That is what would happen if abortion were to become illegal, no matter how you spin it.

But this debate isn't about that stuff anymore. It is simply about power and who wins.

The Democrats who voted against Roberts did so because of abortion and the conservatives who are complaining about Miers are doing so because they don't know where she stands on the abortion issue. Oh they'll tell you it is about judicial philosophy and activism from the bench, but it isn't. It is all about Roe v. Wade.

As if laws passed or repealed could solve all the ills of the world.

What is wrong with you people?

You who think abortion on demand is the answer to unwanted pregnancies; it's not. Exercising self-control, abstaining and practicing safe sex is the answer to most unwanted pregnancies. Combine that with economic opportunity, good health care and affordable child care and you reduce the number of abortions significantly.

You who think that making abortion illegal will stop women from terminating pregnancies; it won't. Long before Roe v. Wade there were abortions through many means. Making it a crime won't stop it. It will however cause women who decide to have one afraid to seek proper medical treatment. It will, through a series of missteps and bad calls, cause deaths.

If you all put half the amount of energy as you do into arguing about this and calling each other names into educating people about how to prevent pregnancy, didn't insist on only teaching abstinence, made birth control readily available, made it easier to support a child once he or she were here, there would be very few abortions and almost no need for the screaming from both sides.

Does anyone care how Chief Justice Roberts and the future Justice Miers will decide anything else? How about how they will decide the cases pending that have to do with the Patriot Act? How about the case I'm sure will be brought due to the Able Danger mess? Does anyone care about anything else?

Again, what the hell is wrong with you people?

Chris

Miers on abortion.

NARAL on Miers.

Conservative Outpost does the abortion thing.

Lorie Byrd at Polipundit has this. She seems to be the only one making sense...

Comments

[ltcoldevildogret]

Chris,

Last time I looked I found nothing wrong with me...well, maybe I could get off my dead okole and start PT'ing again...but that is another issue.

[catastrophile]

Chris: Your question is pretty existential, and triggered a response on my part which is far too long to post here, so I filled it out into a rant of my own and posted it here:

http://catastrophile.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-hell-is-wrong-with-you-people.html

The short answer is that everybody's obsessed with Roe because that's the issue that's always being dangled in front of us, because it's easier to keep us interested in a single hot-button issue than to educate us about the scores of less-sensational ones that actually impact our daily lives.

[Chris]

LT COL--wasn't really a direct question for you...more of a general cosmic use of the word you...and I never heard of the word okole--can you define it? We are always looking for a word of the day...:)

[Iggy]

During last year’s election, many of my "Red or Die" family stated they were voting souly and firmly on the abortion issue alone. You see, here in Indiana we don’t have to see the whole picture to vote.

I’ve said time and time again there will be NO politician that will touch that topic!

For the Conservatives -
Leaving it status quo with a promise of change is instrumental in securing votes. Why lose that platform? It sure as shit worked for Bush – at least in Indiana.

For Democrats –
Leaving it status quo with the promise of protecting the law as is would be the instrumental tool for securing votes from the left. Why lose that platform?

The Abortion issue will always remain status quo – to touch it in any way would be the political kiss of death.

[ltcoldevildogret]

I know Chris. But I try and never be serious about much of anything. Life too short.

Okole-Hawaiian for your backside.

[ltcoldevildogret]

and by the way..call me Bill...just plain ol' Bill.

[Shari]

You people??? What's this?

I want abortion put back to the states. Pure & simple. The Supreme Court has decided that abortions must be performed by states with minimal restrictions. The abortion issue is a hot button issue because when you get an idea of how someone will vote on that, you will get an idea of their judicial philosophy. R v W was wrongly decided. It was and remains a policy issue that should be decided by the people. Will judges determine policy with their decisions or not? That's the question.

And you are wrong about Miers. It's not ALL about abortion. It's about qualifications. If she wasn't the president's friend, would she have got the nomination? NO!

And, yes, I care how they will decide other cases. Follow the constitution without inserting their personal policy philosophy into it is how I want them to decide it.

[Sandi]

Lt Col,

What a surprise to read "okole" in the middle of an English language post. I usually only run into Hawaiian words in conversations with my siblings. Thanks for the taste of home this morning.

Sandi

[Chris]

Shari--again it was more of a cosmic you--not directred at anyone specific--just directed at the cacophony of loonies who can only see the abortion issue. I disagree with you that the abortion issue will tell you a persons judicial philosophy. I think Roe was wrongly decided and you don't care for my judicial philosophy...abortion is the issue that feeds the conservative base, along with gay marriage and other sexual/moral issues. I think the conservatives wrap themselves in the judicial philosophy argument because it is easier to sell that you don't like how a case was decided rather than you want to decide for everyone what the values of an issue should be. The conservatives are going to be forced to eat this Miers nomination. You all say she isn't qualified because she wasn't a judge, but that isn't one of the requirements. If she wasn't a judge but you knew her to be aligned with you on philosphy you wouldn't have a problem with her. You guys want a litmus test. You want assurances that she will decide cases your way and you don't get to have that. Argue anyway you want against her, but the bottom line is you can't do it without giving credence to the Dems who voted against Roberts and enhancing the Democratic Party's standing in the eyes of the American people. Your party/movement is having a bad couple of months. They need to stop the bleeding or you guys are going to find yourselves out of power quick...

please don't be offended by the title...it really wasn't directed at anyone specific.

Chris

[Matt Hurley]

Let me clarify my position on Meirs one more time.

My issue with Meirs isn't her qualifications or lack thereof. My concern is that the debate that we should be having about the direction of the Court will be sidelined in favor of a debate about cronyism. That's just pointless.

Meirs deserves an up or down vote...and I'm sure she'll get it.

I am positive that whatever the case the Court decides to take on the issue of abortion will be evaluated on the merits of the case.

Personally, I think this is a states issue, not a federal issue and that's where I would really like to see abortion's fate lie. And I really don't think that puts me out of the mainstream of anything, but your mileage may vary......

The politics of abortion is another whole argument and I don't really want to get in to that just yet...suffice it to say that Iggy's perception of the politics of this issue is right on the money...literally...

[Shari]

abortion is the issue that feeds the conservative base, along with gay marriage and other sexual/moral issues

***

Uh, it also feeds your side of the aisle too. And it's not the be all, end all of conservatives.

And I already know she is probably pro-life. Doesn't change my qualms about her a bit. Sorry, you're wrong on that front. And I've seen others stating the same.

[Chris]

You are right. It drives many on my side too, which I know I stated in the post. I know what they are saying, but I don't believe them. Sorry, it isn't a convincing argument. Everytime the interpretation of the Constitution is discussed it is coupled with Roe v Wade or the Pledge of Alliegence of Gay Marriage or one of those kinds of issue...I think she is fine. I though Roberts was fine. They are both smart and will probably make fine Justices even when I disagree with them. If I can say that, why can't you guys? Why can't you accept that you won't always get what you want and allow for the fact that there is room for intelligent people to disagree and still be qualified and good at what they do? She won't withdraw her nomination. bush won't let her. So, if you want to beat her, you will have to vote against her making President Bush the lamest duck President ever and then you will loose Congressional seats and have a party divided going into the 2008 election. I'm cool with that? Are you? Oh and if you make President Bush that lame--the troops will be coming home from Iraq--while I think that is the wrong thing to do, I can live with it, can you? You don't get to have it all, all the time. So what is this seat on the Court worth to you? You guys don't vote for her and Sandra Day OConnor gets to decide all the cases that are pending this year and the Dems will stonewall your next nominee and filabuster the hell out of him/her. The American people will be resentful that the Republicans couldn't get anything done,will view not confirming Miers as a power play and will start to wonderif the next nominee is an ideologue...how much are you willing to surender over this seat on the Court?

[Matt Hurley]

I've lied to you folks...not intentionally, mind you, but it is a lie nonetheless.

I've said that I have no litmus test for judicial appointments. That's not really true. I do have one thing that I pay close attention to that will make or break a nominee in a heartbeat...

A nominees views on whether or not international law should have any bearing on the SCOTUS case load can sink the most conservative or liberal of nominees.

The Supreme Court works because of the system laid out in the Constitution and the code of laws as enacted by Congress of the United States. I am not interested in supporting any nominee that cares what France thinks.

This sort of ties in with the judicial activism argument because I don't think it is wise for SCOTUS to put things in to the Constitution that isn't there. If there is an argument to be made that is based in US law, then I'm behind it the ruling (the Abu Ghraib photos, for instance) even if I think the law should be changed...that isn't what the judiciary is supposed to do.

We all have a "litmus test" of some sort... I just thought I'd correct my earlier assertion about a litmus test.

[dr wnc]

Chris you said:
I can say that, why can't you guys? Why can't you accept that you won't always get what you want and allow for the fact that there is room for intelligent people to disagree and still be qualified and good at what they do?

I can accept that I won't always get what I want (1992,1996) however in 2004 I voted republican so I would have a better opportunity to get what I want...remember voting matters.
Why does CA have to have Gay marriage when the people voted it down, Democrats cannot accept that they do not always get what they want, and when they don't they go to the courts which have been stacked the past 40 years by Democrats and get "law written".
What the Hell is wrong with you people, you are losing control of the courts, have lost the house and senate...now your agenda cannot be dictated but must be won at the ballots....SCARY!
Shari: is an intelligent woman! :)

DR: Shari: is an intelligent woman! :)

ME: WOW! Thanks! :)

[ltcoldevildogret]

Sandi,

Mahalo. me tree year near Makai on windward side Oahu, yah. on K-Bay, MCB. 92-95. Little daughter marry big Moke from Kailua town.

don' know why leave. evar day go by, wan go home to little grass shack.

miss lau-lau, plate lunch. smell frangi-pangi on morning breeze. ya know, da kine.

[Jane]

.

[Jane]

.

[Jane]

.

[Jane]

.