Exit polls or final results: where's truth?

[J. J.]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

I'm sorry, but where to get the idea of terminating a pregency without the pregent woman's consent (or by consent of guardian/next of kin) shouldn't be a criminal offense.  This doesn't exactly sound like a pro-choice position.

[J. J.]

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

I'm sorry, but you don't think it should be against the law for someone to do enough injury to a pregnant woman so that she loses the embryo/fetus/child that she is carrying and that there should be additional penalties for that?  This is same "political gain" that the law that says it is illegal to punch you in the nose has.

I'm not talking choice here; this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

[J. J.]

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

Actually it is. The difference between your nose-punching example is that there is not a large ideological movement dedicated to recognize noses as human beings.

No it isn't.  Under your theory that this is "political" there isn't any gain to protect my nose, yet somehow a law that permits higher penalties for assault that causes damages becomes one.  This one was in responce to a tragic murder.

Again, we're not talking about choice.  In the case that inspired the proposed law, Lacy Peterson did not want her life ended or her pregency terminated.  It would be a very different argument if it was, but that's not the argument here.

It alway amazes me that whenever someone talks about regulations regarding pregency termination, it automatically becomes a some sort attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That is probably there to stay, but that doesn't mean the involuntary termination of a pregnency cannot be subject to legislation.

[J. J.]

In this case, is this a "bad" law.  We are not talking about preventing a woman from chosing if to end a pregency, we are talking about a situation where her choice is being limited.

[J. J.]

If those in Congress who supported this law were really concerned about women's reproductive rights, the law would have been worded differently.  Instead, the law is clearly designed to designate a fetus as a human being.  We all know why.

It was an obvious (and successful) attempt to capitalize on a high-profile murder case to advance a particular ideology.

Okay, then, why didn't the Democrats offer amendments to change the language and why didn't they draft their own bill.

[J. J.]

I get nothing except that the site has been deleted.

[J. J.]

Here is part of the text:

``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution--
            ``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
        which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
        by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such
        consent is implied by law;
            ``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
        pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
            ``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Now, I'm very sorry, but this doesn't look like an act to prohibit voluntary termination.

[J. J.]

Senator Feinstein had this to say when presenting this amendment:

"But here is where it gets more complicated. The House bill before us, the DeWine bill, now takes the position in law that life begins at conception. This, then, involves this bill directly into a woman's right to choose--an issue that need not be raised and should not be raised in this debate.

"Although the text of the amendment itself technically provides an exception for abortion [as J. J. noted above], experts on both sides of this issue agree the language in the bill will clearly place into Federal law a definition of life that will chip away at the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade. I hope to make that crystal clear as I go on.

"The Philadelphia Inquirer in its editorial yesterday put it succinctly by saying:

" 'If passed and signed, as promised by President Bush, the Federal law would be the first to recognize unborn children at any stage of development as victims with legal rights separate from those of their mothers. ..... It's so easy to see how a Federal unborn victims law, coupled with unborn victims laws in 29 States, will form the basis of a new legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gives women the right to terminate certain pregnancies. If a fetus who dies during a crime is a murder victim, then isn't abortion murder?' "

The amendment she suggested would have used phrases such as, "protection of pregnant women," rather than, "protection of unborn children."

There can be no question that life begins at conception.  There can be substantial question that this life is protected under the Constitution.  Obviously, there are numerous live things, a cow, a dog, a pig, an ameba, that are not protected by the US Consititution.  None of the "live" things, are protected.

Does this law infringe on the ability of a legally competent woman to voluntarily terminate her pregency?  No.  It specifically exempts that.

You've raised my curiosity.  Would a law stating that only a physician liscensed to practice in a jurisdiction could perform an abortion, be a law limiting a woman's ability to have an abortion?