Tell the media to Google "abortion Dred Scott"

[Gman]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=abortion+dred+scott&btnG=Search

And you get in the first 10 returns:

http://prolife.liberals.com/articles/casey93.html

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0703/0703state.htm

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/greenberg_roe.html

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roevwade.html

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

And much more. Bush wasn't just babbling along again about something he doesn't know anything about. Bush was telling his base in code he will appoint justices to the SCOTUS that will vote to overturn Roe v. Wde.

This needs to get out. Its hard to do this on Saturday evening.

[aquart]

1. What made you think of Googling Abortion Dred Scott?

And why would his base do it?

[teach1st]

3. The fundies are already aware

The fundies are already aware of using the Dred Scott decision in the arguments for overturing Roe V Wade.

[Gman]

4. Read this:

http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dred_scott_roe_.html

From the above article:

Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal beliefs, rather than a (fairly) constricted constitutional interpretation because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists" in the Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.

Read some of the other articles as I'm still digesting it too. But there is definitely something here.

[beaconess]

18. They equate the fetus with slaves, women with slaveholders . . .

and claim that it is just as wrong to deny a fetus equal protection of the laws as it was to deny such to slaves. Of course, there is a big difference: the Constitution grants full citizenship rights to all "persons born or naturalized in the United States" and guarantees equal protection to all "persons" within its jurisdiction.
Certainly an unborn fetus is, by definition, not a person "born or naturalized" and, thus, is not entitled to rights of citizenship. Moreover, while a slave was without doubt a person for all intents and purposes EXCEPT when it came to the realm of constitutional protection, unborn fetuses are not considered "persons" for any purpose in our society or laws EXCEPT when it comes to right-to-lifers attempting to confer constitutional protection upon them in order to justify banning abortion.

[Kimber Scott]

20. What's more ironic is most of these people would own slaves were they

allowed, but instead they used the abolition of slavery to try to bolster their argument.

I always wonder why right-to-lifers (and just so my position is clear, I believe the same way Kerry does - I don't like abortion, but I don't feel it's my place to tell someone else they can't have one - I can't imagine any woman taking the decision lightly and if she does, she shouldn't have kids, anyway) are so pro-death penalty and so pro-war. I don't get the contradiction.

[beaconess]

22. It's called rank hypocrisy...

These are the same people who insist that abortion is the murder of a human life, yet they are willing to make exceptions in the case of rape and incest, which means they're ok with a woman murdering her fetus if she got pregnant through no fault of her own.

In other words, they're opposition to abortion has nothing to do with their belief in the sanctity of life, but is based upon the subjugation of women.

[Kimber Scott]

23. Makes perfect sense to me. I loved Kerry's answer about parental

notification. (The rape thing made me think of it.) He said he was against parental notification because he wasn't going to make a girl who got pregnant after her father raped her tell her father she wanted to get an abortion. Some people think of noone other than themselves and THEIR beliefs. Which reminds me of when Kerry said he had to be president to ALL the people, not just be ruled by the beliefs of some of the people. (Something Bush never even thought of.)

[beaconess]

25. Kerry's answer WAS great, wasn't it?

But the best answer I've ever heard on this topic was from Barack Obama, in an interview on This Week in August.

I'm a Christian. I attend church regularly with my family, and that faith informs what I do. But I think what we have to do is argue about the nature of our faith in a pluralistic society. You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt that says that I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in God, but I also recognize that part of my job as a Christian is to recognize that I may not always be right. That God doesn't speak to me alone, and that the only way that I can live effectively with people who have different beliefs and different faiths is if we have a civil society, that is, in fact, civil. And, you know, that really is a central difference between myself and Mr. Keyes on a lot of these issues, whether it's abortion or gay rights, you know, Mr. Keyes, I think, feels the certainty of a prophet, you know, somebody who's got a direct line into what God thinks, and I guess I think to myself, you know, I have to struggle a little bit more and admit a certain human fallibility and not assert my, my unyielding confidence that I always know the truth.

[Kimber Scott]

27. Awesome. Perfect answer! And goes right to the heart of the whole

matter. I really like that guy.

[AVID]

35. WOW - did Obama tap into Kerry, Kerry into Obama, or

have I been missing someone out there speaking on this matter with such eloquence?

[seaj11]

41. Interesting...

I wouldn't have thought of it that way. Personally, I believe that conservative Republicans, albeit some do believe that a fetus is, in God's eyes, a person, are more concerned with keeping sexuality under wraps and maintaining the status quo. The same could be said for the issue of gay marriage . Sexuality has become far more open than it was when Roe v Wade happened. It threatens the security of social conservatives. So homosexuality, although it has existed for milennia, is suddenly a threat to society, and fetuses are suddenly persons with all the rights of someone who's actually born.

[George_S]

44. Exactly! Good catch

It took over an hour to google a decent opposing view using those terms. I tried adding "war" and/or "death penalty" and that didn't even help.

Did find a link that needs Googlebombed though:

http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/031119Blumenthal.shtml

They won the "partial birth abortion" spin, and I have to admit, that one was ugly to me. Maybe it's time for a compromise.

This was indeed speaking in code to his base, and it is completely uncontested.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

2. What a steamin' pile o' horseshite

I was just remarking last night how eerily medieval it feels to have BOTH candidates believing in the full humanity of the zygote.

Um, sorry, but why do we need to "tell the media"? What is our point? Not challenging--just bewildered. :shrug:

[Peanut Gallery]

5. kick

[LynneSin]

6. Man that's freaking scary

One of the articles I read was about how they feel that Harry Blackum was another "Judge Tanney" (Dred Scott guy) who basically stripped away the rights of an entire class of 'people' (if you regard a fetus a person.

Man, anyone who thinks Bush was pulling something out of his butt on that one should be worried. He basically said he won't appoint a judge who will support Roe V. Wade. That's the terminology out there in anti-choice land.

BTW, that first link was from democrat former governor candidate & son of a governor Bob Casey Jr. You can understand why I worked to get Ed Rendell elected in Pennsylvania

[msongs]

7. the point is: mentioning dred scott was deliberate and targeted to

the right wingers in the base. most people just thought, dred scott, how odd of him to say that, and not say it very well by the way.

there was a reason for the season...ing hehe

Msongs
Riverside CA

[wiswrong]

8. Other things "strict constructionists" believe

It came out during the Judge Bork confirmation hearings that because he was a strict constructionist, he didn't believe in a "right to privacy" because it was not in the constitution. (There's a difference between spying and "searching.") The next administration will likely hear a number of challenges to the so called Patriot Act. Many of its provisions would be thrown out on an imputed right to privacy, and without that right, the government has a lot more ability to spy.

[newyawker99]

39. Hi wiswrong!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[beaconess]

37. It was also designed to fool liberals and African Americans into

thinking that what he said was really quite innocuous since he was condemning one of the most outrageous and vilified decisions in Supreme Court history.

[msanthrope]

9. It' all about the 14th amendment......

Dred was overturned by statute--the 14th amendment. (slaves/blacks morph into persons, as defined by law)

If you extend the 14th amendment's due process clause to mean that a fetus is a person--

then, Roe v. Wade is overturned.

This has long been a strategy of the right wing, and is clearly spelled out in the dissents of Roe, and Casey.

Of course, thereis no caselaw that defines the fetus as a person--so the rightwing has been busily trying to chip away at Roe by building case after case....

Mentioning Dred was deliberate.

[aquart]

10. Actually, isn't that what the law prosecuting the killer

of a pregnant woman for TWO murders is about?

[msanthrope]

14. You got it--the chipping away at the definition of fetus---

a backasswards argument, but a start towards builing precedent to overturn Roe.

[progdonkey]

33. not completely

I'm sure the RW views it as a chipping away at the legal defintion of a person, but I'm pro-choice and I view it as a matter of violating the woman's rights. Being pro-choice means just that: you hold the issue to be a matter of the right of the woman to choose whether to keep or end the pregnancy. If someone murders a pregnant woman, or injures her to the extent that it induces a miscarriage, the perpetrater is robbing the woman of her right to keep or end the pregnancy.

Just as it would be wrong to force a woman to have a baby (in the pro-choice morality), it would be equally wrong to force her to end the pregnancy, which is what the perpetrater is doing.

There are three possible causes of termination of a pregnancy: natural miscarriages/stillbirths, etc. ; abortion by the mother; and "external" termination (ie. against the will of the mother). Anti-abortionists accept only the first; pro-choicers accept only the first two.

Prosecuting a murderer for killing a fetus should therefore satisfy both pro- and anti-choice supporters; the anti-abortionists because they view ending a pregancy as murder, the pro-choicers because the murderer ended a pregnancy that, barring natural causes and the wishes of the mother, would have resulted in a human.

edit: screwed up third paragraph

[beaconess]

42. I think Pacoyogi is right

This is part of an attempt to gradually and quietly insert indications into our laws that Congress does indeed view a fetus as a person in order to lay the groundwork for a constitutional interpretation of "persons" as including the unborn. If they can get a reference here and a reference there, that's all a Scalia or Thomas need to say, "there is a clear precedent in federal law for protecting the rights of the unborn and such protections would only have been conferred if Congress intended to view the unborn as homan beings."

[flying_blind]

29. The Major Issue so few seemd to notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[Carolinian]

11. Well. That was an eye opener. I believe you've hit on something here.

I copied all the sites & will distribute print outs to the ladies at work.

[Dark Jedi]

12. Chimpy Knows How to Use Codes! Eye-Opener

THANKS for pointing this out. This certainly is very interesting and ALARMING, too.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. as if he knew the first thing about it......come on

you know the Manchurian Candidate was programmed HARD to get those words, in just that combination, out there for the consumption of the four MILLION ubertroglodytes that DID NOT vote for Bush last time

THAT is the KEY strategy for Rove: to get the votes out from that demographic....that's their version of our own GOTV efforts

[depakid]

13. As if the media cares. I hate to sound cynical, but

this kind of analysis is way over their lowest common denominator heads- and they're not about to give airtime to it- anymore than they've said word one about Bush's nominee Janice Rogers Brown embracing one of the most infamous decisions in all of American jurisprudence: Lochner v. New York.

See: http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1780.html

Note: The far right has google bombed many keyword searches on the subject to promote their twisted views, but those of us who know a little something have reason to worry. The Lochner era was a very evil time in American history, not at all dissimilar from Jim Crow.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Lochner_v._New_York

[sundancekid]

16. SCARY link for Dred-Roe connections to reverse Roe - hello, media??

take a look at their twisted-sister logic from the National Right to Life website ... (and ALL RWnuts know this CODE language)!!!!!

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

~snip~
Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

One of the more frequently used arguments to defend abortion goes like this: The United States Supreme has settled the issue. Because the Court has ruled that abortion is legal, it must therefore be a correct and moral act beyond challenge.

In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery. Where would Blacks be today if that reasoning had not been challenged?

The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same "beings of an inferior order" that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago.
~snip~

We've got to spread the REAL reason behind smarmysmirk's mention of Dred Scott case -- ANOTHER perfect example of their bait-and-switch -- they want us to be baited with their "compassion" toward injustices of slavery, BUT they plan to SWITCH to justify cheneying with Roe decision.

[depakid]

17. So, how many people do you think could understand much of it?

My recent experience suggests not very many. It will end up sounding like a conspiracy theory. To be perfectly (brutally) honest, I don't think many DU'rs understand the analysis- but to our credit, at least we're willing to listen, think critically and test the connections.

Mostly.

[Piperay]

34. I admit I didn't get it

I thought the guy have gone ape-shit crazy but this is worse ... it's really scary. :scared:

[texasmom]

19. Kick

:kick:

[evilqueen]

21. From out in Left Field...

This may be completely off topic or whatever, but it just occurred to me that:

Isn't the natural occurrence each month of a woman's menstrual cycle also "killing" the egg's chances of survival?

Isn't the natural occurrence of a man's ejaculation also "killing" the sperm's chances of survival?

If we carry the pro-life stance to it's logical conclusion, should we then artificially intervene to stop the two above physiological processes so that no egg or sperm is "killed"?

Extremist, I know. But that's my point.

I also can't fathom how anyone who is pro-life can be pro-war or pro-death penalty; and if they were to follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, every single pro-lifer should be marching down to the local military recruiter to enlist.

[Gman]

24. kick

[DELUSIONAL]

26. Holy Crap -- the dumb idiot was speaking to his base

Mike Webb had a black caller Friday night who was concerned about bush referring to the Dred Scott decision.

At the time I assumed that bushita was just throwing out the first Supreme Court decision that came to his mind.

I think we need to alert the Kerry advisers -- the DNC -- our own democratic leaders -- any media who might be friendly. Oh -- all of the Air America talks how hosts -- Randi Rhodes -- Mike Malloy -- Majority report -- etc etc etc.

Good detective work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gardenista]

28. This goes to show you. Bush's nonsequitors are clues to the true agenda.

Bush occasionally blurts out these weird statements about rape rooms, OB-GYNs, Dred Scott, etc.

These are invariably clues to the secret agendas of the Bush administration, and it may sometimes be code speak to his fundie supporters.

This is truly frightening.

[Dark Jedi]

30. The Fundy Threat

Fundies are even more sly than I thought. We should not underestimate them. We must show up in full force this Nov. 2 and ensure that they cannot win. Freedom is too precious to be complacent about.

[gardenista]

31. The Fundies are very sly, very patient, and very, very focused.

They will never, ever give up. Kinda like some other group I know...

The sad thing is that many of them are earnest, well-meaning true-believers. People like Bush know how to play them.

If only the real Bush could be exposed to them.

[DeepModem Mom]

32. kick

[Gore1FL]

36. What was the most biZzare about the Dred Scott reference

Was that he said there was no basis in the Constittuion for the decision -- which sort of makes Amendment 13 unnecessary by W standards...

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who actually knew a little about the Constitution?

[Gman]

38. kick

[Tesibria]

40. Google "Roe v Wade" and "Dred Scott" -- and you get more

4,700+ articles.
Columns by Cal Thomas, George Will, Republican speeches.

This is serious stuff !

[Gman]

43. kicking again

in hopes some lurking blogsters and/or media folks will see this and publicly examine the issue some more.