FOLKS, I went APESHIT last night. For nothing!!!!

[FizzFuzz]

I just got the matter resolved --Skinner PM'd me, on his own because he heard I was upset about this. Tip O' The Hat to Skinner...(I hadn't thought to PM him, and was not ready yet to sit down and compose an email in my usual pedantic and loquacious style, though I planned to ASAP. Well, OK, I didn't know HOW to PM him. I'm computer illiterate. But I digress....)

The Reason My Photo Essay Got Deleted:

I broke the rule requiring a WARNING on graphic pics.

Period.

I forgot about that rule.

That's the reason folks. I went apeshit and caused an upset for nothing. That's why my rant threads about it here at FG got deleted too.

So, gang, no evil lurkers or double standards.

I will redo that photo essay and repost later, but I need to do stuff around here now.

:blush: :dunce: :blush: :dunce: :blush: :dunce: :blush: :dunce:

huh. huh huh. huh huh. Butthead. :party:

[BlueIris]

1. Oh. Good to know. But, I suspected the worst, too.

So, are you allowed to put the thread back up then?

I know that...well, not to share anything too personal or off-topic, that when my own life experiences forced me to look less abstractly at the reality of medical choice, abortion rights, and abortion as the affect women in America, I was loathe to ever again speak flippantly about those issues. Before certain experiences hit me the way they did, even as a pro-choice voter, I hadn't ever seriously considered that there are just some things you shouldn't speak flippantly about. Ever. I think some posters on DU need the exposure your thread provided so that they can have a chance to check themselves in a similar fashion.

[FizzFuzz]

2. I agree. The abstract attitude is way offbase IMO. And yes, I will repos

repost the pic-essay, with the Warning; graphic pics on it.

This isn't a political game, it is a seige against women.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Actually,

in light of Justice O'Connor's retirement, and the surge of anxiety about protecting reproductive rights, it might be helpful if one were to consider that the legal status of Roe v. Wade is so entrenched as to be untouchable. It is hardly going to be affected by any one Justice.

There's a great discussion of this specific perspective in today's Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/9hy6b

Justice O'Connor did a great job of putting Roe v. Wade beyond the reach of those who would deny women the right to do as they wish with their bodies. I'm proud to have been a member of the same profession as Justice O'Connor.

So, while your concern is understandable, I hope this assuages it.

[BlueIris]

4. O.L.L., THANK YOU.

I've been trying to get this through to DU (sort of, I was waiting for someone with, you know, a JD and some experience to try to explain it before posting and getting flamed). I think a total panic over her retirement, particularly with regard to privacy and Roe is a tad unnecessary. For other reasons than the ones you posted about, but the ones you mention are key. I may have to PM you later.

But I do think people need to be much more sensitive, respectful and careful or at least AWARE of what they are posting about when they post about issues related to personal, private medical choice, especially when they are talking about pregnancy, the ending of pregnancy and other subjects with a ton of emotional content for many. I am frankly HORRIFIED at some of the things I thought and said before I had my perspective on those topics enlightened a couple of years back, and I know how many people are as ignorant as I was, even as a liberal, pro-choice Democrat.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Yes, it's awfully hard

People get worked up before they stop to consider the actual facts. The recent Supreme Court decision in the eminent domain matter - Kelo - sent people reeling, and then some of them were able to slow down long enough to read the opinion. That helped them see that nothing had changed about the law except jurisdiction.

Now it's Karl Rove being sent to prison for being the source of an alleged leak even before the grand jury returns (or doesn't return) any indictments. People get worked up.

Feel free to PM me, of course, if I can be of any kind of help. It's an area that's important, but there are other, far more important matters that need tending to, as I see it. It would be my pleasure.

[FizzFuzz]

8. Well I think I'm going to keep an eye on this thread.

Looks like two different trains of thought, and I really don't know how the legal system or gov't system works. No law degree here, that's for sure.

Hmmmmm.
............

just thinking about the photo essay I wanted to do, and hadn't thought of this angle. And whether using sensational, or maybe better to say, True and emotionally heavy pics to make a point is a good idea or not.

The jury is out.....

[spooky3]

5. I don't find the WaPo article persuasive. The author is arguing that

there is little popular support for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and provides evidence of that. That suggests there will be little legislative push for change. But that evidence does not speak to the central issue which how the *judicial* stance may change, that is, whether the philosophy a Sup. Ct. justice would bring to an interpretation of abortion cases, which are not decided by popular opinion, might change the precedent. For example, Scalia votes in ways that are contrary to many other popular opinions, and finds some way to weave a legal argument that he thinks justifies his vote, even though other justices disagree. There is nothing to stop a new justice from doing exactly the same thing and with Scalia and 3 others joining him/her, that's all it takes.

[FizzFuzz]

7. *gulp*

Hey, that Activist Action thread up now....

Do you think coordinated mailings to Senators would help encourage them to push? Would that have any effect?

[spooky3]

9. I'm not a political strategist and I know that my own RW Senators

(John Warner and George Allen) won't change their minds if they got the most beautiful letter ever written (or thousands of them). But my guess is that for most people with more moderate or left leaning Senators, it would be better to wait and see who is nominated, check his/her record carefully and THEN write. It's possible that Warner would be persuaded to help avoid a filibuster since he is one of the 14 compromisers. On the other hand, maybe some very talented people could prevail on him in advance to talk to Rove and friends about nominating a more moderate person in the first place.

What do you think?