RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
The states vs. Planned Parenthood
Instead of complying with new state laws that place restrictions on abortions, Planned Parenthood has decided to stop offering abortion services in three Arizona cities. As of Aug. 19, women could no longer seek abortions through Planned Parenthood in Prescott Valley, Flagstaff, and Yuma.
Planned Parenthood’s decision came a week after an Arizona state appeals court allowed key parts of a 2009 state law restricting abortions to take effect. The pro-life measures require women to see a doctor in person the day before an abortion to learn about risks and alternatives. Plus, healthcare workers are permitted to refuse to participate in abortions for moral or religious reasons.
Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, said the group likely would appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Arizona laws are part of a wave of pro-life measures that state legislatures across the country have recently passed in an effort to reduce the number of abortions. These other state laws include the banning of late-term abortions and preventing abortion coverage in new insurance exchanges. More than half of the states now require waiting periods for abortions, typically 24 hours. A larger number require some type of counseling beforehand, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Kansas, two abortion providers are challenging new regulations for facilities performing five or more elective abortions a month. A North Dakota law, also being challenged, would prevent the state’s only abortion business from performing medication abortions.
North Carolina’s General Assembly cut funding for Planned Parenthood through a provision in this year’s state budget, but last week Judge James Beaty Jr. ruled that the state cannot withhold funding until a lawsuit over that provision is resolved. The next step in the lawsuit will depend largely on whether the state appeals Beaty’s injunction. Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed the budget but the legislature was able to override the veto.
In arguments before Beaty earlier this month, state lawyers defending the General Assembly said the budgeting decision doesn’t unfairly punish Planned Parenthood because the group could apply directly to the federal government for family planning funds.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
back to top114 Comments to “The states vs. Planned Parenthood”
And all the Conservative Republicans cheer loudly as a business is regulated out of existance.
HYPOCRISY WRIT LARGE.
With just a hint of theocracy. They can’t wait to get around to re-enforcing the sabbath, regulating all the media for showing too much flesh, and using too many profane words, glorifying Allah as opposed to God. Then they can move on to enforcing prayer in schools, theatres and every public meeting. Then requiring the use of “god” on every state project. Then they can get around to more federal support for righteous causes…
Report comment to moderator
You will leave your liver to science, Arcadia, won’t you?
Report comment to moderator
How long before we start imprisoning doctors and women? Somebody please tell me.
Report comment to moderator
How long before “regulators in clerical garb” are stationed at every ob-gyn office and OR in the land to insure religious correctness. How long before a certificate of virginity is required before a marriage license? After the “spiritual counseling” of course?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Just my spleen, wrapped in velvet, encased in glass as a relic left on a church doorstep.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed Arcadia, discouraging the murder of innocents will lead to religious domination in government. I agree with your logic that we should kill as many defenseless innocents to prevent this from happening.
Report comment to moderator
Stuff and nonsense, Arcadia. Theocracy has nothing to do with it. Germany is a unabashedly secular nation and they have mandatory 72 hour waiting periods and counselling sessions before abortions. Here in Canada, where there is no abortion law, abortions are performed as a surgical procedure, which means they are subject to all the regulations of surgery, which means informed consent, only regulated health professionals performing and assisting with the procedure, and the standards of sterile technique observed. Any hospital or clinic that had the low standards that are reported at various abortion clinics in the states would be shut down, fast.
Report comment to moderator
It appears that such state intrusion into the private sphere is unconstitutional;
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/31/texas.abortion.sonogram/
Apparently, forcing a woman to see a sonogram or hear a heartbeat constitutes gov’t mandated speech and is hence unconstitutional. I imagine any laws mandating any type of counseling will fail for similar reasons.
And hereiin lies in the natural contradiction between classical liberal capitalism and moral conservatism. And also the internal contradiction of the Republican party — you cant force the gov’t out of the economic sphere but force gov’t into the social sphere and succeed.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Arcadia, we theocratic, conservative Republicans are truly radical. True confession: we care about the health and safety of women and children and think that innocent life should be protected by any means possible. We also think that sexual exploitation of girls – including felony statutory rape and sex trafficking of minors – is truly evil and anyone who participates or abets in these crimes should be prosecuted. We are also appalled at the lax oversight of abortion clinics and the serious injuries and deaths of women that have resulted from shoddy abortion practices.
Are you shocked at our radicalism?
Report comment to moderator
Beth:innocent life should be protected by any means possible
Do you support more liberal laws permitting malpractice lawsuits so that survivors victims of loosely regulated medical practitioners of all kinds can be made whole?
How about more strict regulations on polluters or drug makers who kill?
How about requiring even safer cars?
All of these unquestionably protect innocent life. But I doubt you care.
Report comment to moderator
Beth: by any means possible.
There’s your problem. Only a god can issue such an edict. And you presume to speak for him/her/it. That’s theocracy.
Worse yet, he/she/it had a chance to issue a clear prohibition of abortion. None was issued.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, forgot to terminate the italics after line 1.
Report comment to moderator
Thou shalt not murder.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
When I went to a clinic to have wisdom teeth removed, it was required that I have:
1. A pre-appointment with the doctor prior to the day of surgery
2. A list of the risks involved
3. A follow-up phone call that same day to check on my condition
4. a post-appointment with the doctor
Not only that, but the clinic is regularly checked for sanitation and safety conditions and the doctor has to have emergency procedures in place and admitting privileges at a local hospital.
My question to you is: Why should abortionists and their clinics get a pass?
Report comment to moderator
“How about more strict regulations on polluters or drug makers who kill?
How about requiring even safer cars?
All of these unquestionably protect innocent life. But I doubt you care.”
Deflection is not an argument for your case.
Why do you hate children? WHy do you hate having healthy women?
Why do you hate having doctors that must abide by proper safety and clinical regulations when administering medicine or surgical services?
Why do you hate?
I doubt you care really.
You’d rather FIFTY MILLION CHILDREN DIE and THOUSANDS OF MOTHERS, than a few businesses have to clean up their practices.
Do you use bleach at night to wash those blood stained hands of yours?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: That’s not deflection. The issue here is REGULATION which Republicans purport to hate.
Do you support more regulation of polluters who kill?
Do you support more regulation of products which kill?
If you support more regulation of abortion providers who (you claim) kill, then why not those other regulations?
Report comment to moderator
Louise: But why not, thou shalt not abort? Especially given the other clear evidence that even living children were not considered fully human, or at least very important back then.
By the way, Louise, one of the problems with the modernist “thou shalt not murder” as opposed to “thou shalt not kill” is that it opens the door to the question of whether killing on behalf of a god is murder. It undoubtedly also opens the issue of killing on behalf of a state.
Report comment to moderator
Ms. Arcadia, you need to answer the questions by Kathy and Thorn.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s not deflection.”
It is deflection. You wish to talk about oranges, instead of the apples we are currently discussing.
You are no better for only wishing to talk about the oranges, while ignoring the apples, even if it’s not deflection.
“If you support more regulation of abortion providers who (you claim) kill, then why not those other regulations?”
I’m an ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. I AM A REGULATOR.
You know what that means?? I have no problem discussing environmental regs and how good and useful and needful than can be on a case by case basis, esp in regards to saving lives.
And I have to deal with the part per billion risk assessment issues. It is not a cake walk.
When there is an environmental thread, we can talk about it.
This thread is about abortion services and the regulation there of.
Report comment to moderator
“By the way, Louise, one of the problems with the modernist “thou shalt not murder” as opposed to “thou shalt not kill” is that it opens the door to the question of whether killing on behalf of a god is murder. It undoubtedly also opens the issue of killing on behalf of a state.”
But you support, without any assumed rigid world view backing (relgious or not) that killing on the behalf of the mother, AT THE MOTHERS RISK TO HERSELF AS WELL, that it’s just fine and dandy?
H Y P O C R I T E.
If the state has no authority, if God has no precedent, then some measly human female has none either. Especially one who spends their time in arcadia, rather than reality.
All your doing is attempting to exchange theocracy for arcadiaocracy. And you can’t even stay consistent to your own measure.
So sad.
Report comment to moderator
And Louise, I posted a couple of questions which you have ignored.
Thorn.This thread is about abortion services and the regulation there of
I repeat, it is about regulation. Read the article. Just as an article about environmental regulation is about regulation. Only in this case most of the Republicans seem to be FOR more regulation.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Lay off the gratuitous ad hominems please.
I don’t understand your 2nd paragraph.
Even if you are claiming that these regulations are intended to protect the mothers, you still have additional regulations. And, I suspect you are also aware of the intellectual dishonesty of this position.
Report comment to moderator
Yes Arcadia, killing babies on behalf of a state or a god is murder.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
But why not, thou shalt not abort? Especially given the other clear evidence that even living children were not considered fully human, or at least very important back then.
Check your history.What you say was true of other groups. But one thing that set the early Christians apart was the fact that they rescued infants from the heinous act of infant exposure.
BTW you haven’t answered my earlier question about about “abortion services and the regulation there of”.
Report comment to moderator
The pro-life measures require women to see a doctor in person the day before an abortion to learn about risks and alternatives. Plus, healthcare workers are permitted to refuse to participate in abortions for moral or religious reasons.
—
Hmmm, sounds to me the Planned Parenthood is afraid that women may hear the truth. which may lead them to choice life for a child over death.
Report comment to moderator
for a little while a child’s life is saved.
Report comment to moderator
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law ABRIDGING,” HRW, so I’d wait for the appeal.
Report comment to moderator
These laws, such as requiring a woman to see a doctor (it is a medical procedure) mean that abortion providers will incur more expense. This is not about women’s rights, it’s about profit. It always has been for the majority of abortion providers. Many women have suffered physical harm during a abortion. These regulations should be welcome by all who care about women.
Report comment to moderator
I would venture to say that every Christian and every conservative believes in regulation. We call them laws, and support laws that protect and benefit society. The question is, where do you draw that line. We (Christians and conservatives) draw it at a place where abortion falls behind the line of protection, just as laws against murder, rape, and abuse do.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it wonderful that Bill Clinton’s ideas for abortion may finally be coming to pass. He wanted them to be SAFE, legal and rare.
Report comment to moderator
Leo, that’s right!
Report comment to moderator
Leo: Liberals can and do regularly set forth proof that many people suffer and are injured as a result of other business practices. Yet regulations based on that evidence are just about universally opposed by business groups and by Republicans. (Spare me the necessity of finding hundreds of Congressional votes and Republican speeches supporting this).
Now here based on what have in the past seemed to me to be fairly flimsy evidence of widespread injury to women, you and they whole-heartedly support this regulation.
That is not consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia #32 – As much as you know about your side of the argument, I find it difficult to believe you have no information about the number of women that have been injured by abortion. IN addition, since it is such an odious procedure, neither of us should be surprised that some of the cases never get reported, such as happens in rape cases.
When there is a medical procedure performed, and one of the people in the procedure comes out dead, there certainly needs to be regulation. The majority of the dead victims, I’m sure you know this, are women.
What’s not consistent is to support regulation on insurance companies, financial institutions, oil companies, etc., because someone might be hurt, and to neglect regulating an industry where someone is hurt, even killed, every time.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Are you perhaps missing the point that we don’t support these regulations in an effort to CONTROL abortions, we want them to PREVENT abortions.
Report comment to moderator
“Now here based on what have in the past seemed to me to be fairly flimsy evidence of widespread injury to women, you and they whole-heartedly support this regulation.
That is not consistent.”
How do you not see your own blantant hypocrisy.
So lets reword what I just quoted from you.
‘Every where based on what have in the past seemed to be solid evidence of widespread injury to women (and people), you (Arcadia) have whole heartedly supported regulation.’
YET, when it comes to these regs on abortion clinics which help prevent widespread inury to women, you reject them. Not by the regs themselves either, for your argument hasn’t been over the regs, but your projection of Christian disagreement when it comes to various regs.
This is why, you are a hypocrite. You challenge christians by a measure you can’t even handle yourself.
You should be at the forefront attempting to protect these women with good regulations that reduces the risk of them losing their lives.
Do you hate Christians so much that you can’t agree with them on your own principles to protect life even if it’s only one area of life?
At least be consistent with your own principles.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that Arcadia is personally arguing against these regulations. I believe she is just arguing that we, as Christians and conservatives, are being hypocritcal by supporting them.
Report comment to moderator
LSHAFFER, I think she knows very well that people who care about all women really want to keep them all alive from conception, instead of killing some who are not wanted.
Her anger that truly puzzles me is wanting to kill the women who were conceived by force, as if it were the fault of the girl babies who have their own identity from the first.
Arcadia also does not seem to grasp the value in adoption over the murder of abortion. Lots of women who are incapable of giving birth to their own children would love to adopt from someone else.
Report comment to moderator
How long before we start imprisoning doctors and women? Somebody please tell me.
Is there something special about doctors and women to imply they shouldn’t be sent to prison?
I suspect if abortion is ever criminalized in this country the penalty for mothers won’t be imprisonment. At least not for attempting to obtain an abortion. Most likely it’ll be mandatory counseling or something. If the woman was apprehended post-event then prison might be an option.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you Buddy. I don’t see a reason to go after the girl.
Kinda like it’s much better to go after the drug dealer, than the drug user. Send the drug dealer to jail, send the druggie to counseling and rehab.
Report comment to moderator
And the circus begins again. There is no hypocrisy in opposing the government regulation of things that are not the governments business. The Constitution does not mention protecting snail darters, it does however mention “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, somewhere, I think
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I don’t think Arcadia hates Christians. I think Arcadia has one big problem with God Himself.
Report comment to moderator
That would be the DOI, Ibno.
Report comment to moderator
“Thorn, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that Arcadia is personally arguing against these regulations. I believe she is just arguing that we, as Christians and conservatives, are being hypocritcal by supporting them.”
Oh sure she is. On both accounts. She doesn’t want these regs, because she fears the christian theocracy. Look at all the drama queen world is gonna end antics above.
And of course she wishes to find us hypocrites. How else would she ever be able to live with herself, if we aren’t hypocrites too.
Yet women need protecting here, and instead of championing these regs as saving many women’s lives, she dives right into partisan politics claiming Republicans are hypocrites.
Report comment to moderator
Yep…caught myself. How about promoting the general welfare? Or providing the blessings of liberty to our posterity (I would think they would need to be alive…)?
Report comment to moderator
The Founder of Planned Parenthood,Margaret Sanger was a Eugenics Believer and Racist. She was also an advocate of the Nazi project T4 where women were forced to have abortions. Her belief was that if poor black babies were aborted, that the population would decrease. Most Planned Parenthood facilities are to this day located in poor black communities.
Report comment to moderator
What Arcadia says bluntly I tried to state somewhat more politely, and to no big surprise the blunt voice garnered the attention.
Phos correctly points out in Canada there is no abortion law only that it be treated like any other medical procedure and thus subject to the same rules and regulations as taking out your appendix, which is probably more than some abortion clinics in the states. Would some here be satisfied with that level of regulation? Somehow I doubt it — lets be open most here would like to regulate Planned Parenthood out of business — and quite frankly if PP is running a shoddy business I have no problem with that.
However, I’m also consistently in favour of regulating any shoddy business that does harm to individuals and the “commons” something most evangelicals in their support for capitalist economics would not be. Thus, its quite hypocrtical to suppor regulation of the abortion industry if you don’t support regulation of the pesticide industry for example or regulating air pollution across the industries.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Forgive me I don’t know the significance of “Abridging” …
I do think if a law was passed forcing people to watch an infomercial on the positive aspects of Obama you would be against it — the state cannot force people to read a particular book, watch a video or in anyway control your right to view or not to view.
I don’t want to watch my own colonoscopy nor should I be forced to by the state similarly the state can’t force a person to watch a sonogram even if its intentions are good.
Report comment to moderator
There’ a big difference in killing bugs and killing babies, but don’t let morality get in your way.
Report comment to moderator
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
Explain to me how a law requiring full disclosure for informed consent ABRIDGES speech.
Report comment to moderator
“What Arcadia says bluntly I tried to state somewhat more politely, and to no big surprise the blunt voice garnered the attention.”
Feeling neglected? I didn’t know Canadians were so needy.
Your argument:
“And also the internal contradiction of the Republican party — you cant force the gov’t out of the economic sphere but force gov’t into the social sphere and succeed.”
Is a strawman. No conservative argues that the government has ZERO role in either of these areas. Having currently too much bad regulation in the economic sphere, and/or the social sphere, doesn’t mean that any conservative wants it completely forced out.
Watch the Rubio speech posted on the blog.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, using your own argument, then can we say that regulation crazy liberals who are against these regulations are equally hypocritical?
Report comment to moderator
Just goes to show that my college professor was correct. You cannot have a rational conversation about abortion no matter which side you are on.
I am sort of a hybrid myself. I am anti-abortion but in favor of keeping it legal. As long as it is safe, legal, and rare we can continue to discuss if it is the right option for a woman. As it stands even NOW a woman really cannot obtain a SAFE abortion because she cannot go to her own OB/GYN who can look at her medical history and determine if this is the right MEDICAL decision to make. (I am purposely avoiding the moral implication here so just bare with me).
I still believe that there are enough ways to PREVENT pregnancy that abortion should not be considered a method of BIRTH CONTROL!
Report comment to moderator
“Explain to me how a law requiring full disclosure for informed consent ABRIDGES speech.”
And the other side of the coin is also that it is an elective service.
No one is mandating an abortion, that’s for sure.
“Phos correctly points out in Canada there is no abortion law only that it be treated like any other medical procedure and thus subject to the same rules and regulations as taking out your appendix, which is probably more than some abortion clinics in the states. Would some here be satisfied with that level of regulation? Somehow I doubt it — lets be open most here would like to regulate Planned Parenthood out of business”
Depends, most Christians want ZERO abortions to occur, and all life to have the freedom to live. So in that broad sense, no, we won’t be satisfied.
However, lack of satisfaction doesn’t negate esp from the nonchristian pro abortion side of things, that they should be more satisfied when the mother is better protected. In that sense, shouldn’t they be championing such a move to require that level of regulation?
The PPs that dropped abortion practices are no longer a concern. They are no longer abortion providers in that case. Thus the regs no longer apply either. They have now avoided regs and christian concern and continue on with providing just helpful services without a plan Death. Fine by me.
“Thus, its quite hypocrtical to suppor regulation of the abortion industry if you don’t support regulation of the pesticide industry for example or regulating air pollution across the industries.”
Straw man.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with safe, legal, and rare is that the pro-abortion crowd will fight any effort to make them safe and rare.
Report comment to moderator
As a matter of fact, they seem to be willing to sacrifice safe to avoid rare.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with safe, legal, and rare is that the pro-abortion crowd will fight any effort to make them safe and rare.
Not really. They’d support program designed to reduce the financial cost of carrying a child to term and/or supporting that child to adulthood. I’m guessing they would support free or subsidized day care, free or subsidized maternity care, free or subsidized delivery, more time off after delivery, compensation for lost income during recovery, free health care for all children, etc.
Report comment to moderator
#54 I know. I also know that a friend of mine almost died in childbirth. Her body (for other medical reasons) could not have sustained another pregnancy. I would want her to have been able to go to her regular doctor for surgery should she have become pregnant.
On the other hand, I have never met a woman who had a child who would have chosen herself over the child. I had a client once whose daughter discovered she was pregnant and had cancer about the same time. She and her husband wanted a baby. They doctors wanted to abort. She chose to carry the baby to tern then treat the cancer.
Report comment to moderator
NJL/Thorn
So the gov’t cannot limit your choice of speech/viewing but can mandate your speech/viewing??? So you did not oppose Obama’s address to school children since it obviously didn’t limit free speech it only mandated that children listen to a particular speech?
If the gov’t mandated that every individual watch television from 6:00 to 6:30 to watch mandated public service announcements I hope you will agree with me that this would be a violation of human rights?
Report comment to moderator
Environmental^^^^^^Engineer.
HRW,
Do you also understand that most regulations for pesticides are based on risk?
Concentrations vs. exposure, acute and chronic lines, and in most cases not only for human exposure but environment as well.
This is why a cap/trade on carbon is just a tax, there is not a direct health risk from carbon. Which is why you’ll never see EPA come up with exposure numbers. For different emmissions like NOx, it has exposure issues, smog issues, that are easily measurable.
In abortion, the baby dies. It’s not a measure of risk. Acute exposure is death. Also, the mother’s risk is significantly increased to many medical and health problems, some acute, some chronic. Risk of complications may vary, but they go up.
For pesticides or air pollution the regulations are based on risk. Typically EPA and the regions vary from a risk level of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in a million as far as exposure to people. Region 3 and 4 adopt 1 in million in most cases.
It is not hypocritical to suggest a tougher standard on a case by case basis. Nor is it hypocritical to take a harsher stance (such as MCLs) on more detrimental chemicals.
Abortion, kills. That’s what it does. Desiring a tougher stance on abortion, is not an attempt to ignore chemicals that may cause health issues or death as well in other areas of life.
Simply because I think CO2 is not a major health threat, SCIENTIFICALLY, doesn’t mean I ignore the problems with DDT.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
Given the obvious disintegration of free market capitalism in 2008 and the corruption of free market banking as evidenced by my link to BOA in today’s WV, the Republican call for less regulation in the economic sector makes it apparent they don’t favour any form of effective regulation. However as this article indicates, they do favour more regulation in the social sphere to appease a wing of their party.
Pesticides have been known to harm people and especially pregnant women. If the state demands counseling and 24 hour cooling off period prior to the use of pesticide,then there is regulatory consistency. This is not a strawman but a parallel situation.
Report comment to moderator
56. Then why do they fight Crisis pregnancy centers who often provide things like that.
Report comment to moderator
59
Yes the fetus dies that is after all the whole point to an abortion, however, the rationale behind many of the counseling type rules is the protection of the female patient not the fetus. IF its about the female patient, her risks are not any different than risks one encounters through the use of pesticides, living next to toxic waste, etc should not then similar regulations be in effect for environmental threats.
Again if the rules and regulation are about the female patient would the pro-life crowd be satisfied with rules and regulations similar to an appendix removal? If not then the basis for these rules and regulations are not the ones publicly stated.
Report comment to moderator
“So the gov’t cannot limit your choice of speech/viewing but can mandate your speech/viewing???”
Can they mandate that you don’t murder anyone?
Yes.
So there is a level of wisdom applied here.
Further, abortion is an elective service.
“If the gov’t mandated that every individual watch television from 6:00 to 6:30 to watch mandated public service announcements I hope you will agree with me that this would be a violation of human rights?”
You aren’t mandating that everyone has to get an abortion. This isn’t China.
Television from 6:00 to 6:30 also does not impose a health risk in and of itself, and is elective to watch. Even if most channels are all the president giving a speech. I can go read a book.
The president, can require public schools to carry his speech. I don’t care. It’s a government school.
“disintegration of free market capitalism in 2008″
The free market disintegrated when HOover took over and Communisim arose.
You realize Coolidge cut the budget in the early 20s from 18.5 billion down to a little over 3 billion in just a couple of years. Amazing. Came right out of a bad depression too.
“corruption of free market banking”
Which means it not really the free market then if someone is corrupting it, esp if the government is involved.
“Pesticides have been known to harm people and especially pregnant women. If the state demands counseling and 24 hour cooling off period prior to the use of pesticide,then there is regulatory consistency. This is not a strawman but a parallel situation.”
They do. For hunting you have to have a safety course. To drive a car you have to be approved.
Most dangerous and higher level risks have warnings that you must read and agree to before participation. Many of these don’t require government intervention though as well.
A pesticide manufacturer has to place disclaimers, if it spills over 55 gallons it has to report the spill. You can’t exceed certain concentrations for home use.
Many of these regs are just fine and dandy.
There are other env regs like the attempt at carbon trade, that are pointless from a protection, safety, and risk standpoint.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes the fetus dies that is after all the whole point to an abortion, however, the rationale behind many of the counseling type rules is the protection of the female patient not the fetus. IF its about the female patient, her risks are not any different than risks one encounters through the use of pesticides, living next to toxic waste, etc should not then similar regulations be in effect for environmental threats.”
The risks are different.
Your knowledge of how regulations for risk esp for chemicals and how they are developed is lacking.
The health risk to a mother, in an abortion, is more like the risk in DRINKING A BOTTLE OF ROUND UP.
Air pollution exposures from a industry stack, is far far less. Your talking permissable limits orders of magnitude lower in risk.
10% of women have complications, 2% are major issues
http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/
That means for every 100 cases, 10 get hurt, 2 severely.
That’s 1 in 50!!!!
The risk is far more substantial than pesticide exposure.
Report comment to moderator
Now look at who’s pulling out strawman??
Can they mandate that you don’t murder anyone?
Driving a car is optional as is owning a gun. Can the gov’t mandate you watch a two hour film on how the automobile culture is ruining the planet or how guns can kill people? I see reading downward that you approve of licensing etc thus we are arguing about the extent and type of regulation involved. I suppose you are in favour of waiting periods for guns and cars as well as abortions.
The free market is inherently corruptible — witness only the nations with rule of law have “clean” markets. Corrupted markets indicate a lack of law not too much law.
Report comment to moderator
Living next to toxic waste depends on the exposure to that toxic waste. Simple inhalation will still require substantial concentrations of exposure to reach the level of risk that women face from abortion. You’d have to bathe in it practically.
No one, is asking to DE REGULATE landfills, so we can dump toxic waste anywhere either.
Are you kidding me with this deflection?
Report comment to moderator
Obviously you have biased stats — wikipedia disagrees with you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_complications#Complications
there are footnotes which reference medical journals if you wish to chase down wiki’s stats
But lets say abortion is as risky as you claim — then would you be satisfied with making it safe, legal and rare. Canada has no abortion law at all except according to the Canada Health Act it has to be performed a state approved facility and can only be charged to the province (no extra billing or surcharges). Would you be happy with this type of regulatory framework, it limits abortions, it alleviates the risk, it eliminates the profit motive (which can allow for some shady entrepreneurs pretending to safeguarding women’s rights) and subjects the actual operation to informed consent laws.
Report comment to moderator
“thus we are arguing about the extent and type of regulation involved.”
HELLOOOOO!! YESSSSS!!
I wasn’t raising a strawman. You keep insinuating that conservatives wanna dump the entire government, as if “less government” means that.
So i started with a DUH example in murder.
And built from there.
” I suppose you are in favour of waiting periods for guns and cars as well as abortions.”
We have those. You can’t drive till your 16 in Mississippi, elsehwere it’s 17 or 18. This is called a waiting period.
You must be tested by a state official too.
So I have no problems with reasonable regulations, for dangerous activities, ESPECIALLY BY THE STATES.
The feds aren’t the ones administering your driver’s license in America. Nor do they handle the local hunting policies.
“The free market is inherently corruptible — witness only the nations with rule of law have “clean” markets. Corrupted markets indicate a lack of law not too much law.”
People are inherently corrupted. Sin. No nation has a clean market.
However, a free market, where the government seeks to protect that freedom (rather than partake for their own pocket), gives people the greatest opportunity.
The law does nothing but expose and condemn. It doesn’t keep anyone from breaking it or avoiding it.
Regulations should be built around protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not around manipulation, market control, or population control.
Walls are good for protecting your people, but when those walls become a prison, you will only crush your people.
Report comment to moderator
66 Obviously you haven’t heard the Koch brothers railing against regulations
Report comment to moderator
The government mandates warnings all the time. Moreover, many a malpractice claim has been filed for a doctor’ failure to provide sufficient relevant information so that a patient can make an informed decision.
I do think if you are going to cite to the 1st Amendment you should read what it says. It talks about ABRIDGING speech. So, again: Explain to me how a law requiring full disclosure for informed consent ABRIDGES speech.
Report comment to moderator
Since we both agree regulation is necessary, what remains is what principles guide these regulations and to extent should
As you state they should be built around protecting life hence safety and environmental laws should be paramount. To protect liberty, I would argue sonogram laws are too intrusive but informed consent laws similar to any other surgery are not. Open information both in social and economic spheres is necessary but not mandatory reading.
Report comment to moderator
Then why do they fight Crisis pregnancy centers who often provide things like that.
Couple of reasons:
1. They allege that these organizations lie about or unreasonably exaggerate the risk and side effects of abortion.
2. They allege that these organizations misrepresent or hide the fact that they don’t provide referrals to facilities that provide abortions.
3. Because of #2 the centers are detrimental to providing women with a truly informed choice.
4. They allege the centers attempt to “guilt” into not having abortions.
If they were just providing objective, accurate and complete information and distributing resources to women in need then I don’t think they’d face any opposition.
Alternately, they could also avoid criticism by morphing their focus such that they’re just “Prenatal Resource Centers”. Make it abundantly clear that they exist only to provide services to women who are pregnant and plan to continue to be pregnant. In this case the decision not to provide abortion referrals could not be said to be disingenuous since it would be outside the scope of their mission (i.e. to meet pregnancy/childbirth related needs.)
Now I don’t agree that all the accusations thrown at crisis pregnancy centers are accurate (either factually or in “degree”), but if they were true then I can see how someone with a pro-choice position could oppose them while still wishing abortion to be “rare”. It’s a means vs. end thing. The end, in this case, is “making abortion rare”. It is not automatically hypocritical for someone who seeks this end to be unwilling to achieve it via certain means.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
If you think the state should be allowed to mandate specific viewing, I don’t think you would oppose Obama’s back to school speeches (if I recall correctly you did). Informed consent of risks is not the same as a sonogram viewing.
Report comment to moderator
Why is it necessary to support *more* regulation of “polluters who kill” et al when it is already the case that if they kill, they are doing so *in violation of existing regulations?* When was the last time that anyone died in an industrial accident or as a result of pollution because there *were no regulations* governing the situation in question, as opposed to someone being in violation of the regulations?
What’s being advocated here is that abortions be regulated on a level comparable to oral surgery, and your response is that it’s hypocritical to advocate that unless we also insist that *already heavily regulated industries* be *more* regulated.
That’s just nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
“66 Obviously you haven’t heard the Koch brothers railing against regulations ”
And they’re posting on this site in favor of abortion clinic regulations, are they? Or is that just completely irrelevant to what we’re talking about here?
Report comment to moderator
BTW, #74 was directed to Arcadia.
Report comment to moderator
IBNO, just tweak it a bit: the constitution does talk about “life, liberty, or property.”
Report comment to moderator
“Obviously you have biased stats — wikipedia disagrees with you.”
Where do they disagree with me? The safer the surgery, the safer the patient.
For the listing that .567 in 100,000 die. That’s 5 every 1 million, in the wikipedia under “safe” abortions.
Is that too many for you?
Notice, I didn’t say death earlier, i said 1 in 50 experience severe health issues. That doesn’t necessarily mean death.
Having repeated abortions is going to substantially raise that risk as well.
Much like if you kept taking that bath in the toxic waste dump…
“But lets say abortion is as risky as you claim — then would you be satisfied with making it safe, legal and rare.”
Didn’t I answer this already? Why would a christian ever be satisfied, even with rare.
I want ZERO.
Just like I want ZERO to ever die from DDT or PERC exposure.
Report comment to moderator
“To protect liberty, I would argue sonogram laws are too intrusive but informed consent laws similar to any other surgery are not.”
How is that intrusive?
It’s a wand they rub on your skin gives you a simple image.
My OSHA physicals are more intrusive!!!!!!!
Please.
Report comment to moderator
Since we both agree regulation is necessary, what remains is what principles guide these regulations
Yes. I view mandatory sonograms prior to abortion to be similar to those grotesque pictures of cancer-ridden lungs that are soon going to appear on cigarette packages. The idea being there’s a lot of public ignorance on the actual consequences of a particular activity, so the state is passing regulation to keep the public informed. In the case of abortion, the idea is that women aren’t really educated about the extent and pace of fetal development.
It’s kind of a Catch-22. If you argue that women really are educated about the extent and pace of fetal development than requiring sonograms should have no effect on whether they subsequently decide to abort. Since the sonogram won’t have provided any useful information. If, however, you think that requiring sonograms will result in a significant number of women declining to abort who had previously intended to do so, then you imply that the sonograms provided them with useful information.
That said, I do resonate with the criticism of pro-choice folks who criticize pro-life legislators for trying to “regulate away” abortion by rendering it irritatingly inconvenient.
Report comment to moderator
“Open information both in social and economic spheres is necessary but not mandatory reading.”
It’s a 40 hour class you have to take to participate in ANY OSHA regulated workplace.
A yearly 8 hr refresher is required.
Report comment to moderator
“I view mandatory sonograms prior to abortion to be similar to those grotesque pictures of cancer-ridden lungs that are soon going to appear on cigarette packages.”
I’ve never heard a mother compare her sonogram image to that.
You ever seen one buddy?
Smoking cigs gives you black lungs, possible cancer from the benzene over time too.
Know what a child in the womb gives you after 9 months? A CHILD!!!!!
Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
Since you want abortion rate to be ZERO you would (or should be) favor regulating it out of existence. Thus for us to argue about analogous situations is quite redundant as you would not want to regulate other industries and surgeries out of existence. In fact, pro-choice are quite right to be afraid of any regulation proposed by pro-life as a Trojan Horse.
Sonograms could be seen as similar to explicit warnings on cigarette packages. Would a capitalist economist support those latter warnings as mere informed consent or as a hindrance to trade?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never heard a mother compare her sonogram image to that.
You totally missed the point. Sonograms serve to enforce the “reality” and “humanity” of a fetus, thereby making it apparent what you’re killing when you abort. Just like the photos on cigarette packages ram home the “reality” of what smoking does to your lungs.
Report comment to moderator
OK. Buddy Glass, I will agree with you. My father in law died from emphysemia. In first grade they showed my child photos of a smoker’s lungs on one of the Cancer Society’s Anti-Smoking Campaigns where they are allowed in the schools to warn children of the evils of smoking. She came home and cried for two or three nights because her Nana still smoked and she was afraid Nana would die like Pop. If they can show those images to a first grader then surely it ought to be OK to show a fetus to someone who is old enough to become pregnant. OH the HORROR!!!! OH the NIGHT<ARES!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Let’s have a show of hands, who’s against regulating pesticides?
Nobody, well let’s get past that.
If abortions were treated like any other medical operation, that would be a good start!
Minors in ALL states would have to tell their parents.
Taking them across states lines (without parental consent) would be a crime.
Doctors would inform the patients of all the risk.
Abortion Clinics would be held to the same standards as other medical clinics.
Second opinions would be normal and accepted.
We wouldn’t have to make special laws making doctors inform their patients.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd — I have no problem with that (but I don’t think second opinions should be mandated only suggested). In fact that is the situation in Canada — abortion is treated as a standard medical procedure with no other limitations. Would you accept this? I doubt it and thus pro-choice people are right to suspect any regulation as a Trojan horse aimed at reducing abortion to zero.
Report comment to moderator
Kim — I’ve taught health to primary school children and the anti-smoking unit can be tough because of parents or grandparents who smoke. As a teacher you want to be honest about the risks but you don’t want to send the 6 year old home in tears. I usually stay away from graphic images until middle school.
Report comment to moderator
This is hilarious (from 67): “Obviously you have biased stats — wikipedia disagrees with you.”
No, the pro-abortion side would not be happier with less expensive prenatal care, etc.–elements that make pregnancy/ children more attractive. Pro-abortion people are anti-pregnancy and anti-child, not anti-expense. And BTW, the only way to decrease all these costs, practically speaking, is for someone else to pay for them–and this system, socialism, doesn’t actually work. (It also ends up being even more anti-child than the one we live in, in at least some cases.) No, it’s much better to decrease the approval of premarital childbearing; married, responsible fathering is a much better way to make the cost of children affordable.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
In Canada can a minor get an abortion without the parent’s permission?
Here we have teachers taking children across state lines to states that don’t have notification laws!
Report comment to moderator
Pro-abortion people are anti-pregnancy and anti-child
Then how do you explain pro-choice parents with 3+ kids?
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd — I have no idea but I doubt it — all medical procedures for children under 16 need parent approval, no parent notification is required for over 16. Going across provincial bourndaries is a bit of a challenge in some places due to geography.
Report comment to moderator
Chreryl I’m a bit confused with your post
Stats show that maternity has far higher mortality rate than abortion (for the mother) and thus Thorn’s stats are a bit questionable. I think pro-choice or pro-life would like to reduce these stats — America has the highest rate of death due to maternity in the OECD, lowering that rate would probably lead to a lower abortion rate as it would reduce risk to the mother as a legitimate abortion excuse. Perhaps America should put more money in pre and post natal care to encourage mothers to keep their kids. In fact, make all maternity part of medicare and thereby eliminate expense as an excuse to have an abortion.
Right now America has one of the higherst abortion rates in the world and the highest maternity death rate, lowering both these rates can be accomplished by greater access to health care.
All the rules and regulations, pro-life use to lower the rate are less effective than simply making maternity part of medicare. If the Canadaian experience is instructive, this will lower the abortion rate substanially.
Report comment to moderator
Why does the author refer to Judge Beaty as “Beaty”?
In ALL instances, federal judges are to be referred to using their proper titles. I suspect that Smith is a racist and believes that Judge Beaty–an African-American–is not entitled to be referred to by his proper title. Absolutely disgusting!
Report comment to moderator
What’s disgusting is the way the race card is constantly in play by the left….Or it would be disgusting if it hadn’t become downright boooooring.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, I assume you never took Journalism. (I took it in both high school and college.) First use of a person’s name, you use the full name, including titles (President Barack Obama); after that, use of only the last name is correct. Such was done in this piece.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, 93, no, abortion is not safer for the mother. (Some statistics may indeed say that, but maternal deaths caused by abortion complications are notoriously underreported.) Furthermore, strident feminists aren’t really looking for safer childbearing; they are looking for women to be freed from children altogether. So no, they would not see it as a worthy cause to make childbirth safer and thus more desirable. (There is also lots of money for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in abortion; they have no desire at all to decrease their desirability.)
And again, having the government pay for family responsibilities (childbirth and care of children) is counterproductive on many levels, including its promotion of single parenting instead of marriage. No way do I want “more” of that.
Report comment to moderator
abortion is not safer for the mother. (Some statistics may indeed say that, but maternal deaths caused by abortion complications are notoriously underreported.)
From what I could find the maternal mortality rate for childbearing in the U.S. is in the 9-12 per 100k births.
The maternal mortality rate for abortions is about 0.6-1.0 per 100k abortions.
So it would need to be spectacularly under-reported in order for a single abortion to be more likely to result in death than a single delivery. Where is the evidence this happening?
I found a number of studies that show a higher risk of death in the 2 years following an abortion (compared to during the 2 years following childbirth), but there was very little detail. I can easily see this disparity explained by demographic differences between “women who have abortions” and “women who carry children to term”.
Honestly the issue of which is “more dangerous” is neither her nor there. But the stats are on HRW’s side here unless you can produce some evidence that the stats re: abortion are grossly inaccurate.
Report comment to moderator
“Since you want abortion rate to be ZERO you would (or should be) favor regulating it out of existence.”
In utopia that might work. Problem is, you can’t regulate it out of existence.
You can’t regulate improper usage of pesticides out of existence either.
Simply because you can’t, doesn’t mean it’s a justification for making it legal.
You can’t prevent murder from ever occurring by regulations, yet we would not make it legal as if that would “reduce” the occurrence.
Yes, my fear is that by making it equivilant in medical practice regs and safety, you are one step away from acknowledging health insurance coverage and legality. So I don’t necessarily find it to be the best idea. I’d rather it be illegal and we just go after the administer of the services.
“Sonograms could be seen as similar to explicit warnings on cigarette packages. Would a capitalist economist support those latter warnings as mere informed consent or as a hindrance to trade?”
But they are NOT similar. A warning on a cigarette package expresses the RISK for CANCER. A sonogram, shows you the LIFE GROWING inside you.
Killing babies is not a trade.
Warnings are required to be placed on any health risk item. It’s not a specific, singling out between cigarettes or alcohol or food even. It is the health risk that hinders trade, and a health risk will hinder the sales of any product that has a health risk.
Now if you were only requiring a warning on cigarettes, and not on that bottle of DrainO, you’d have a case.
Report comment to moderator
“You totally missed the point. Sonograms serve to enforce the “reality” and “humanity” of a fetus, thereby making it apparent what you’re killing when you abort. Just like the photos on cigarette packages ram home the “reality” of what smoking does to your lungs.”
Sonograms don’t depict the aborted baby though.
You aren’t showing images of shock for a chopped up baby post abortion.
Although, they probably oughta see that too…
Report comment to moderator
“Then how do you explain pro-choice parents with 3+ kids?”
Welfare? hahaha yes, that’s a joke, mostly…
Report comment to moderator
“Stats show that maternity has far higher mortality rate than abortion (for the mother) and thus Thorn’s stats are a bit questionable.”
Are you kidding me?
Those stats, cite ONE PAPER, by ONE GUY. And I can’t even get the full link or a summary anywhere as it’s a paid site. So you are just picking Wiki for the heck of it, cause it suits your view.
I wasn’t comparing the risk between live birth and abortion.
I was explaining the difference between abortion risk and pesticide risk, and why 5 per 1 million is still HIGH, by pesticide standards. Originally, I was only discussing health issues, not just death either!
It doesn’t matter if they are inaccurate, if that’s the “low” end especially.
It is likely higher, and major health issues are going to be under reported when it comes to abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
if you admit you can’t regulate abortion out of existence just like you can’t regulate murder out of existence why not change your approach to lower the abortion rate.
Right now America has one of the highest abortion rate in the world. Why do other countries have a lower rate?
1. Less teen pregnancies. Thus you need to lower teen pregnancy rates — studies have demonstrated that various social indicators co-relate to lower teen pregnancies; this includes lower inequality, better education, larger middle class, etc.
2. Lower cost to maternity and child care. With universal medicare and a generous social support of children, there’s less cost involved in raising children. Lower the cost of maternity care and children and you lower the financial incentive of having an abortion.
3. Lower maternity health risks. The US has the highest maternity mortality rate in the OECD. Lower the health risk associated with pregnancy and you eliminate one more reason to have an abortion. Thus improve and more finiancially accessible health care for pregnant women is needed.
Thorn, I’m glad you admit to a need for regulatory warnings applied equally across different industries. Unlike some of the Republican party, you don’t want to reduce gov’t to a size of a bathtub.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, I have no sources in front of me proving the non-safety of abortion. But let’s put it this way: Every death in childbirth is clear; most mothers are in the hospital giving birth, and there is no question about the cause of death. But every mother who didn’t make it to the hospital and died, it’s also clear what she died of. (If anything, deaths in childbirth would be over-reported, not under. Childbirth is likely to bring to the fore whatever health issues the woman has; if she has a weak heart or she has cancer and has chosen not to treat it to give the baby a chance to live, she may be reported as dying in childbirth, not dying of cancer or a heart attack.)
In contrast, abortion “doctors” often operate in secret, under the radar . . . and so do their patients. Clinics are notoriously reluctant to send patients to the hospital, lest it reflect badly on them. And they are performing a dangerous thing on the mother. Furthermore, the mother herself usually feels a need to hide the shame of her abortion. She may be reluctant to go to the hospital if she has complications, and if she does go, she may be reluctant to tell the whole story of what took her there. (This particular sequence has been proven in many cases; what we don’t know is how often it happens and isn’t discovered.)
Without an autopsy, the abortion-caused death is unlikely to be known. And abortion-minded folks have it in their best interest to keep such deaths secret, and to fiddle with the numbers; it’s part of their mythology that it’s “safer.” (BTW, it’s also possible that some who die in childbirth die after a previous abortion caused uterine problems. Many women who die in pregnancy/childbirth do die of such causes, and an abortion-related problem isn’t impossible. Thus some deaths probably overlap categories.)
In other words, the very “best” we can say is that the number of abortion-related deaths cannot possibly be known in anything close to their actual numbers. It’s like asserting that “more people die in fatal car crashes after drinking than after doing this drug” when in fact that drug is not tested for after a crash. I have seen evidence that an abortion is more dangerous than childbirth, that most abortion-related deaths never get reported as such, and it makes sense that it would be so (it’s violently unnatural “surgery” and it’s also shameful), but the truth is it’s impossible to get such numbers.
So at the best we simply cannot say “Abortion is safer than childbirth” (besides the fact that one “patient” dies in each successful abortion!) because we simply cannot know. But almost definitely it is not true, and speculations that probably are untrue are best left unsaid. And again, I have seen evidence that the opposite is true.
Report comment to moderator
“if you admit you can’t regulate abortion out of existence just like you can’t regulate murder out of existence why not change your approach to lower the abortion rate.”
Principle. Murder is wrong, so is abortion. Both should be illegal.
How are you regulating it out of existence by giving it equivalence to other medical surgeries and practices? Sure, it requires parental notification, consent, and waiting, which may be a deterrent, but in exchange you’ve attempted to take away the fact that it’s wrong in the first place.
“Right now America has one of the highest abortion rate in the world. Why do other countries have a lower rate?”
Less black people?
Poor black women have the highest rates in these areas. Why? Especially in a country where Dems are championing their help to these people, yet they are so far behind.
“Thus improve and more finiancially accessible health care for pregnant women is needed.”
It already is very accessible. I think you are a bit naive if you think the problem is solely one of money or accessibility.
“Thorn, I’m glad you admit to a need for regulatory warnings applied equally across different industries.
…you don’t want to reduce gov’t to a size of a bathtub.”
A warning should be based on the health risk or danger associated. It should be common sense that you don’t put an electrical appliance in the bathtub, but we haven’t taught common sense for a long time it seems.
I’m not sure what you mean by a bathtub? I’d prefer fed govt was as small as possible.
For example, states can handle their environmental regs. You don’t need but maybe 100 people in the EPA to provide simple oversight and direction for the states in general.
Report comment to moderator
In contrast, abortion “doctors” often operate in secret
Not really. I can find a list of the clinics in my area that provide abortions in a manner of seconds.
Clinics are notoriously reluctant to send patients to the hospital, lest it reflect badly on them.
It also reflects badly on obstetricians to have their patients die during childbirth. And yet we’re not citing that as evidence of birth-related mortality being under-reported.
She may be reluctant to go to the hospital if she has complications, and if she does go, she may be reluctant to tell the whole story of what took her there.
Okay. So mother gets an abortion. There are complications. She shows up at the hospital with obvious evidence of having had an abortion and says, “I slipped in the bath tub.” Then dies. And the hospital (and her family) are going to take her explanation at face value? I don’t buy it. Sure that might happen some times. But we’re talking a factor of ten difference here. In order for abortions to be as dangerous as child birth we’d have to see 90-95% of abortion-related deaths not reported.
And abortion-minded folks have it in their best interest to keep such deaths secret, and to fiddle with the numbers; it’s part of their mythology that it’s “safer.”
Doesn’t this argument also apply to childbirth-minded folks? It’s in their best interests to reinforce the idea that birth is “safer”.
I have seen evidence that an abortion is more dangerous than childbirth
I’d like to see it too.
Report comment to moderator
For example, states can handle their environmental regs. You don’t need but maybe 100 people in the EPA to provide simple oversight and direction for the states in general.
So you want local government more than “small government” per se. Because I don’t see 50 mini-EPAs as being much more efficient than a single big one.
Report comment to moderator
“Not really. I can find a list of the clinics in my area that provide abortions in a manner of seconds.”
No really, one can always cite guys like Dr. Gosnell…
“And yet we’re not citing that as evidence of birth-related mortality being under-reported.”
Of course not, your in a hospital surrounded by witnesses, it’d be impossible to get away with.
“In order for abortions to be as dangerous as child birth we’d have to see 90-95% of abortion-related deaths not reported.”
Your talking an order of magnitude at most as far as risk. Since you cited even a .6 to 1.0 per 100k, even if that is NOT under reported, the high end is the same order of magnitude.
As far as risk goes, that’s practically equivalence.
“So you want local government more than “small government” per se. Because I don’t see 50 mini-EPAs as being much more efficient than a single big one.”
I want both.
The reason, esp in environmental areas, is that each state has different ecology, different air, different climate, different factors. So what is useful or works in Georgia, doesn’t necessarily work in Oregon.
So 50 mini EPAs, which you already have, and already do the BULK of the real work, is already more efficient. Most states do their own permitting, lead on superfund sites, develop their own marine and wild life protections. Some states, just adopt other similar states policies.
The only thing federal regulators are needed is just to keep an eye on the overall policies and events. The groundwork is already well laid at this point.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, see posts 138 and 143 on the 9/2/11 Whirled Views for a couple of responses on the “Is abortion safer than childbirth?” question. I don’t tend to keep such statistics, and am notoriously bad at tracking down “numbers” stuff, and the director of my local pregnancy center is no longer there and I can’t ask her such questions. But I posed it on WV and got a couple of decent replies, if you’re interested. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Federal judges are always to be referred to using their titles. Therefore, the second reference to the judge should have recited his name as “Judge Beaty”, not “Beaty”.
There is no reasonable explanation for this error other than that Smith believes that African-Americans are not worthy of deference (by way of a title).
I passed a judge today while shopping at Whole Foods. I instinctively bowed slightly, and said “Your honor.” My father taught me this from a young age. In fact, every young child in this country understands from a young age that we are never to refer to sitting judges without using their titles–even at the grocery store, the country club, etc. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t understand this. Thus, Smith’s deliberate refusal to refer to Judge Beaty as a “Judge” is a clear evidence of racism. I guess WorldMag is now recruiting journalists from the ranks of the KKK.
Report comment to moderator
When leftists can’t make a case any other way, they usually resort to race-baiting. I would no more bow to a judge than to any other person of respectable occupation. There is nothing special about a judge. Every child should learn at a young age that the judiciary branch of government is of no more or less value than the other three–though they often wield more power.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, you should stop making such false racist statements. You’ve repeated them several times now and they are demonstrably false.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, presidents should “always” be referred to using their titles too, and pastors, and I suppose some other professions too. But journalism doesn’t follow this “rule.” The three branches of government are equal, so what makes federal judges (judicial branch) more “honorable” than the executive branch (the president) or the legislative (Congress and the Senate)?
BTW, I’ve never heard your “rule” before, so I have no idea how widely known it is. I’m 44 and well educated and well read, so if I haven’t heard it, my hunch is a huge percentage of other Americans haven’t either. And like I said, it doesn’t apply in journalism anyway, so it is irrelevant in this context.
And the assessment that there is no other possible reason than racism is absurd (especially when I’ve just told you the real reason).
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and as a Christian and an American, I show respect to people, but I don’t bow to anyone. If Americans bowed instead of shaking hands, then yes, I would bow (as a courteous greeting). Bowing to show special deference, I know of no Scripture compelling such a thing, and I imagine the biblical basis for not doing so is the reason Americans do not generally bow. (I will bow, metaphorically, to my husband and all legitimate authority. That is different.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!