NYT: Changing Senate Looks Better to Abortion Foes

[DeepModem Mom]

Changing Senate Looks Better to Abortion Foes
By ROBIN TONER

Published: December 2, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - Abortion opponents have long considered the Senate to be a daunting roadblock for new abortion restrictions and conservative judicial nominees, halting many of the initiatives of a sympathetic House and a president committed to "a culture of life." But now, both sides in the abortion struggle agree, the Senate is changing.

As a result of November's election, the next Senate will have a bigger, more conservative Republican majority and several new opponents of abortion - including some of the most intense abortion foes in politics, like Tom Coburn, a doctor and newly elected senator from Oklahoma, who campaigned as "a committed defender of the sanctity of life in all of its stages."

With those additions, on top of their gains in the 2002 election, anti-abortion leaders say several abortion restrictions previously introduced on Capitol Hill have a better chance for full consideration and passage.

These include an array of incremental, carefully focused restrictions, like a measure to make it a federal crime to circumvent state parental consent laws by transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/politics/02abortion.html

[Somawas]

1. Passing crap like that

reminds me of a story told by a friend who served in Virginia's House of Burgesses for a couple terms in the late 60's, early 70's. Yet another Jim Crow bill was on the floor. My friend was arguing passionately that the bill, if passed, was unconstitutional. An older member requested my friend to yield for a brief statement. The old guy said, "Mr. Speaker and Members of the House: All I can say about this is that the General Assembly of Virginia can pass unconstitutional laws one hell of a lot faster than some goddam federal judge can strike 'em down."

[xchrom]

2. i think they read it right

sadly.