OK, to you Anti-Choice Forced Birthers here on the DU....

[Hepburn]

....answer me this:

So how do you justify a woman being a second class citizen to a fetus?

[cynatnite]

1. what is an "anti-choice forced bither"...

I know you meant birther, but still what is that and what makes you think there are anti-choicers on DU?

[Greyhound]

3. Their posts. n/t

[cynatnite]

10. What posts?

I don't know a DUer who is anti-choice. I know plenty who are anti-abortion, but still wants the choice to be left up to the woman...but overturn Roe V. Wade anti-choice...nope, I have never seen anyone like that.

[Kalyke]

4. There are a few.

They pop in from time to time.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Just the ones making excuses for the last group of folks thrown

under the bus.

[Hepburn]

6. Read the threads on the Stuuuuuu-pecker Amendment and then come back...

...and tell me you saw no support from anyone.

[cynatnite]

11. I have read those threads...

no one there is advocating overturning Roe V. Wade or wanting the government to make a woman's decision for her. I have not seen that.

[Hepburn]

13. Riddle me this.....

....how is abortion safe and legal and a Constitutionally protected right when it is put financially out of the grasp of a woman who wishes to have this medical procedure done?

It is not merely the law that makes the right ~~ it is the fucking access thereto.

[jberryhill]

17. Freedom of the press is great too... If you own a press

[cynatnite]

18. I am not denying the problems with access and how they're made more diffcult...

The potential for that amendment does cause problems, but keep this in mind. Only 13% of all abortions are submitted to insurance companies in the first place.

Just because I don't see the point in wringing my hands over something that is a long way from being law does't make me anti-choice. Far from it. Even if it does become law...it will be challenged in court. You can count on that.

I think the rhetoric on this is overdramatic.

[Hepburn]

19. Who cares....

...what percentage are denied rights. Large, small or in between ~~ the figure is irrelevant. If any are denied rights...it's an affront to all.

Rights apply to EVERYONE ~~ not just to those who can afford to exercise them.

[cynatnite]

24. No one's rights has been denied over this...it's not even a law...

It's far from it.

The facts speak for themselves which a few here at DU seem to willingly ignore in favor of dramatics.

Where was all the bitching and complaining when Oklahoma decided to force women to have their private information posted on the internet? Where were all the threads when access continually is made more difficult across the country.

You and a few others are going off on this as if it's going to happen tomorrow when in fact majority of this won't go in effect until 2013...and that's only IF it gets to Obama's desk.

I see more complaining about this one amendment than I ever have since I've been at DU when it comes to anti-choice laws. There are repukes trying to get personhood laws passed and working to challenge Roe V. Wade right now. That's where the fight is right now.

[jberryhill]

28. "Rights apply to EVERYONE ~~ not just to those who can afford to exercise them"

That is hardly ever true.

The government doesn't buy presses or build churches.

[Hepburn]

29. LMBO....

....the government does NOT build churches????

Did it escape your notice that churches collect money and do NOT pay taxes?

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

36. That's got nothing to do with religious freedom

They don't pay taxes because they are non-profits. Lots of charities and non-profits don't pay taxes and have nothing to do with religion. The National Organization for Women doesn't pay taxes.

Planned Parenthood doesn't pay taxes, and contributions to it are tax deductible. It's not because it is a religion.

Wait wait, don't tell me... you want to tax non-profit women's health clinics? Because they aren't taxed now.

Did you notice that newspapers are covered by the same First Amendment and DO pay taxes?

You have a right to:

Read or publish newspapers;

Exercise religious freedom;

Own property;

etc., etc. ... the government is not paying for any of those rights.

[Hepburn]

37. Churches are non-profits....

...that's your reasoning?

[jberryhill]

39. No, it is THE reason why they aren't taxed

It has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.

Churches aren't taxed for the same reason that Planned Parenthood is not taxed - which is the same reason why non-profit women's health clinics aren't taxed.

You seem not to realize that the same First Amendment, which you believe is the reason why churches aren't taxed, protects freedom of the press.

So, explain it - why are newspapers taxed and churches are not, if the reasoning lies in the First Amendment?

Because newspapers are for-profit businesses.

Bottom line remains - the government does not pay for the exercise of most rights. By statute, we exempt certain scientific, educational, charitable, and religious entities from taxation, but that has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. That's simply a matter of the tax code.

[Hepburn]

41. Repeat....

...just HOW do you think religion is non-profit.

Let's talk reality, OK?

[jberryhill]

44. You seem to confuse "collecting a lot of money" with "non-profit"

The Red Cross takes in bazillions, as does the United States Olympic Committee - neither of which is taxed.

Quite simply, churches are non-profits because they aren't paying dividends to shareholders.

Absolutely, let's talk reality. If you find a church organized in your state as a for-profit corporation, then I'd love to hear about it. But I'm not sure you understand the reality of what is a "non-profit" organization.

The reality is that non-profits are tax exempt, and the government does not in general underwrite the exercise of all kinds of rights.

Still haven't figured out the difference between a newspaper (for-profit, taxed) and a church (non-profit, not taxed), have you?

[ljm2002]

14. Deleted n/t

[Greyhound]

2. Waiting...

:kick: & R

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Kickety kick (and of course Recommend)!

[sharesunited]

8. Are you an absolutist on this? Open season until delivery?

Roe went for a compromise.

[Hepburn]

12. IMO: When there is any choice between a woman and the fetus...

...the woman wins. To decide otherwise makes a woman a second class citizen to a fetus.

I don't give a shit what you think Roe stands for. There is NO compromise on the issue of privacy. PERIOD.

[sharesunited]

21. Reconcile NO compromise on privacy with compelling state interest?

Hey, I didn't write the opinion. But I HAVE read it.

[Hepburn]

30. And... you agree with it? n/t

[sharesunited]

33. Do I agree that the state has a compelling interest in the life of the unborn?

I would say it is inconsistent with the bright line the law draws in another area such as age of consent.

In age of consent, the legislature gets to declare that you are magically transformed into an adult on your 18th birthday (or whatever age the statute contains).

By contrast, the state's compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn is literally treated as a growing concern because, according to the language of Roe, it happens gradually as the fetus develops. (First, second, and third trimester benchmarks are set forth in the opinion, but they obviously are incapable of the same precision as identifying your 18th birthday).

To be consistent, born and breathing would be the magic moment all rights accrue. And the rights of the mother are intact and undiminished right up until that moment.

So why start treating the unborn as a person and mom as secondary at any time during gestation?

The answer must surely be, sentimentality toward babies!

[Hepburn]

35. You may have read it...

...but you OBVIOUSLY do not understand the principles involved in a compelling state interest.

I don't know where you went to law school, but where I went, I learned a fetus had no consitutional right. So tell me, how does one find a compelling state interest viz the protection of something with -0- const rights balanced against an entity totally entitled to the same.

[sharesunited]

38. Isn't a compelling state interest a juducial perogative? I Know It When I See it?

Does the state have a compelling interest in the existence of a future citizenry? What if ALL pregnancies were terminated?

What do you think of this Wikipedia article which comes up when you search for compelling state interest?

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

[Hepburn]

40. Wikipedia???

Ummmm....that is not where I would go for info.

So...you think the state could MANDATE future births?

[sharesunited]

42. Could or should?

Until gestation to viability outside a human womb is made a technological fact, the state has a compelling interest in treating women as incubation vessels.

That is, if you accept that the state has a compelling interest in the existence of a future citizenry.

What would the counter argument be?

All expectant mothers have the right to abort at any time, and the state has no authority to ensure its future in contravention of female sovereignty over their own bodies. (I am actually more comfortable with this view. But it does make for a very stark dichotomy!)

And hey, don't be an information snob. Wikipedia is a blessing. If that article is wrong, correct it. If it is an insufficient summary, add to it whatever you feel is missing to make it complete yet still appropriate for a general audience.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. "Open season"... very nice

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Sad. nt

[Hepburn]

15. Oh, I see one of the Anti-Choice Forced Birthers did an UnRec...

...and some say there are no such people on the DU?

Tell me what progressive objects to a woman's rights versus a fetus being protected?

Hmmmmm....

[Bicoastal]

16. meh, self delete

hrmph

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Because half of fetuses are male, silly

[stray cat]

23. You prefer health care for no one?

No health care for the poor, the sick. Keep the status quo. If you can't have free abortions you don't want others to have any access to health care?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

25. Another nutty post with twisted logic.

[Hepburn]

31. Another anti-choicer, forced birther....

...your point...assuming you have something to add other than the nonsense you already added.

Edit to add: What a shock ~~ the jerk who does not support women's right to safe and legal abortion is a male.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Not to worry it's just a "compromise" on women's rights. Some day..maybe..you might have equality.

If it doesn't interfere with politics as usual.

[havocmom]

27. And is the reason tax $ to kill babies is Iraq is OK, but not so for US fetuses

that the ones over there are brown? I just wish the forced birther crowd would at least be honest about motives.

[Hepburn]

32. +1....

...amen! :thumbsup:

[tekisui]

43. knr!~