The "your" in "It's kind of hypocritical to complain that the government is in your business and telling you how to live your life and then try to control another's reproductive rights" does not refer to your article in any way. I was referring to the politicians who professed that they would get the government out of the voter's personal business. I agree that each of the three consequences you warn of are very real and do pose a serious threat; I am just taking a more optimistic view.
I forgot to mention before that in order to take away reproductive rights they would have to convince the courts to overturn Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. Despite both of those cases been under constantly targeted, neither have been overturned and pro-life advocates do not have the votes in the Supreme Court to achieve that goal. I admit that one flaw in my logic, which is pointed out in the blog post I sent you, is that while the Supreme Court will not ban reproductive rights they will restrict them. Several other attempts were saved by John Paul Stevens brilliant logic, who unfortunately is not a justice anymore.
Speaking of Mr. Awesome Russ Feingold, my professor in my grad school class tonight made the comment that it's easy for a congressman to vote in favor of something so heavily politicized as the War in Iraq and asked if we knew a politician who actually stood up to what they believe in when it was politically unpopular. To which I responded that Feingold stood up to the War in Iraq and the PATRIOT ACT (which no other Senator did in 2001).
Comment Reply
The "your" in "It's kind of hypocritical to complain that the government is in your business and telling you how to live your life and then try to control another's reproductive rights" does not refer to your article in any way. I was referring to the politicians who professed that they would get the government out of the voter's personal business. I agree that each of the three consequences you warn of are very real and do pose a serious threat; I am just taking a more optimistic view.
I forgot to mention before that in order to take away reproductive rights they would have to convince the courts to overturn Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. Despite both of those cases been under constantly targeted, neither have been overturned and pro-life advocates do not have the votes in the Supreme Court to achieve that goal. I admit that one flaw in my logic, which is pointed out in the blog post I sent you, is that while the Supreme Court will not ban reproductive rights they will restrict them. Several other attempts were saved by John Paul Stevens brilliant logic, who unfortunately is not a justice anymore.
Speaking of Mr. Awesome Russ Feingold, my professor in my grad school class tonight made the comment that it's easy for a congressman to vote in favor of something so heavily politicized as the War in Iraq and asked if we knew a politician who actually stood up to what they believe in when it was politically unpopular. To which I responded that Feingold stood up to the War in Iraq and the PATRIOT ACT (which no other Senator did in 2001).
November 15, 2010 - 11:22pmThis Comment
Reply