South Dakota Group Proves Choice=Pro-family
By bluegal Sunday Oct 19, 2008 4:00pmThere are at least two anti-choice ballot initiatives this year, Prop 4 in California and Prop 11 in South Dakota. One expects a great many propositions on the always enormous California ballot, but the South Dakota proposition is pernicious, since South Dakotans voted on this issue (and turned down radical restrictions on reproductive choice) just two years ago.
The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families is at the forefront of proving just how intrusive and illogical these measures, which are purely an imposition of one religious position onto every citizen, can be.
h/t Beautiful Day Rule.
Login or Register to post comments.
http://theprogressivepost.blogspot.com/2008/1...
It's my choice!!1 http://www.filthyrichmond.com/2008/06/its-my-...
"Life Begins at Conception"
See http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-da...
My dispositive refutation of that red herring canard.
it begins at birth. Otherwise a Social Security number would be issued at conception.
Read my article. "Life" is irrelevant. Constitutional "personhood" is the issue.
some states have enacted "murder of a fetus" laws. i'm not sure of the particulars, but several states have these laws. i don't think they've been tested constitutionally at the sup court.
That with many of the religious/conservative right wingers is that life begins a dinner and a movie.
imposition
Dear Americans,
I have chose not to get married or to procreate/conceive children. I do not necessarily have these "virtuous" view of "the family." There are many awful parents out there and so much intolerance to boot.
I am saddened when the left adopts the language of the right in any way, shape, or form. I am also tired of hearing "family this" and "family that" and blah, blah, blah.....
How Americans like myself who want nothing to do with state-sanctioned marriage and all that legal b.s.? I am tired of hearing about the family tax-credit and the child tax credit, etc.
At adult age, one-third of all Americans will either be in prison, another one-third living from paycheck to paycheck and the other one-third doing okay.
This "family values" narrative is yet another b.s. right wing narrative the left has bought into.
Yes, everyone born presumably had two parents and a "family." [Yawn, rolling eyes, sigm, Yawn again] Yes, I value some members of my family and some relatives are okay too. But I never viewed this family nonsense as being some kind of "special thing" either. We came into the world as one and will depart as one as well.
So to the family values crowd--enough of your childishness, self-centered ways and narcissim already.
As comedian George Carlin once said--your kids just "ain't that important" as politically incorrect as that may sound. Children this, families that, but what if you choose not to have kids or a family? Does that somehow diminish your value to society?
I am just tired of all the phony-ass political claptrap paid to this "family values" issue concocted by the righties and adopted by liberals as campaign themes.
In closing, be real and stop acting like such phonies! Okay? Take care and keep it up.
I'm not terribly well versed on the state of the debate on this issue but I have yet to see any analysis on how McCain's health care proposal would impact on a family should they succeed in overturning Roe vs. Wade. As the state of medical art improves it is becoming increasingly common to identify in utero health problems at a very early stage of development. In such a case a mother would be compelled to carry to term an infant with devastating health problems. This brings a whole new meaning to pre-existing conditions and given the health care proposals offered by McCain would financially and possibly emotionally devastate a family to the detriment of any children they might already have. This would be an excruciating decision to make under any circumstance. I wonder if McCain has given the slightest thought to the horrors he proposes to inflict.
I see no evidence that McCain gives any serious thought to any major issues any more.
baby jesus has never cared when life begins
baby jesus is more concerned when choice begins and never wants humans to interfere with choice
.
What does "PRO-LIFE" mean when you fight to preserve the fetus when only later you advocate to send it to the "KILLING FIELDS" of war?
Many a Christian Church should have to be made to answer this question.
.
is in general nothing more than a vapid, clean-hands moralism slogan.
never say pro-life when talking about abortion, I always refer to these people as "anti-choice." You can't be prolife and FOR the death penalty, or for illegal preemptive war. Most of these so-called prolifers have supported the iraq war.
I just use the terms anti-choice and pro-choice. I refuse, when talking with these people, to refer to them as pro-life.
Seems to me if you're "pro-life" then you should be "anit-war," "anti-death penalty" too, right? Am I missing something here????
Nope. You hit it on the head. That, by the way, is why I respect--disagree with but respect--the Catholic position. They are truly "pro-life" on all of those . . . or at least are supposed to be.
As they are "Pro Birth" or "Pro Gestation". What happens to the embryo after it matures they could really give a damn about.
Children are another segment of the American population used and exploited by the churches, preachers, and politicians to maintain, gain, or retain more and more power.
It is a high crime to use children as political props in my opinion to begin with. It is also outrageous to exploit children for political ends. This is why I thinks its necessary to de-emphasize it as a political issue.
Not all matters should just the needs/wants of children be considered. When it comes to matters involving adults or of the carnal sort, why do adults have to be held back by the whims of children?
Children need to grow up as the child they are and become mature adults. I am tired of this coddling to children type of society America has become. One of the worst things my parents ever did was insulating me from the real world and reality which happens in too many religious-oriented homes.
When politicians cut children's programs and cut out recreational activities from the budget, it is at that point for you all to know how much "they love your children."
I am all for children's programs and more money for public recrational facilities/programs and keeping libraries open later at night.
If you all care about children, perhaps, we can all start to rid the public schools in America away from its militaristic-police presence infecting the children. Are you on board to this or do you continually want to subject American children to its worsr inclinations of militarism (in schools)?
It is not enough to say you are into "family values" because you "love your child or children." Talk is cheap. Do you really love who you say you love and do you actually cherish those family values?
Not everyone believes that a blasotcyst, and embryo or a fetus is a 'child' or a life. To me it's as simple as this: if you don't like abortion, don't have one. But don't impose your religious beliefs on others.
to interfere in Americans' family planning. They need to get their noses out of women's wombs. Until they do this, the originators of such legislation are clearly contemptuous of women and would keep them under the thumb of patriarchy and a religion that is not chosen by them.
South Dakotans, you need to fight this proposition tooth and nail. You have the support of progressives everywhere.
I agree with you 110% "Sister" Anney!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is also the true face of "mysogenism" - the hatred of women and the belief that they are somehow inferior to men.
This is repugnant and McCain has voted AGAINST WOMEN for his entire career. Women shouldn't receive equal pay for equal work according to McCain because "they need more experience". Yet when he's asked about Palin being president and facing a situation like 911, he's ready to vomit all over himself as the hypocrite he really is when he says "absolutely".
McCain knows that his selection of Palin was a failed decision - just like every other stunt he's pulled which has backfired in his ancient face.
Once again a Catholic bishop sticks his nose into secular politics. Email Archbishop Chaput at shepherd@archden.org. Tell him that the blood of innocents in Iraq are on the hands of the Catholic Church for their support of GW Bush solely because of the abortion issue. Tell him that religious leaders that sway their followers for political purposes are undermining the separation of church and state.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/10...
Looks like Archbishop Chaput will be paying heap more taxes soon or else face tax evasion charges.
I think it's "just desserts" for these churches to be slapped with fines and taxes and lose their tax-exempt status for violation of the federal statutes.
In these days of tiny video camcorders, there is no doubt that people are recording their sunday homilies. There are people who have these recordings of Archbishop Chaput and either he pays the taxes he now owes the american people or he will be slapped with a hefty lawsuit and fines.
When an Archbishop so flagrantly violates the separation between church and state it's clear to me that he's violated the public trust and is probably involved in or covering up pedophilia right under his nose.
Time for a more thorough investigation of Archbishop Chaput and I'm sure there are altar boys who will become his whistleblowers.
I am so glad that I no longer go to the Catholic Mass or any church for that matter.
All churches are political. They always have been historically. Many governments have failed when they have been attached to a religion. The Catholic Church was loathed right after King George by the founding fathers. There is a separation of church-and-state in the USA despite what the Christian crazies say otherwise.
The Catholic Church lacks any credibility these days and is so political because it has no moral legitimacy. As entities weaken they seek out more repressive measures amd this includes the churches.
The Catholic Church unfortunately rejected liberation theology in the 1980s (Ratzinger and Pope John Paul did) in favor of a very conservative brand of Catholicism which saw the sex abuse scandal. As the Catholic Church became more and more ultra-conservative in the United States, its sex scandals became worse.
Religion these days has become an insult and disgrace to God above. One does not need an organized religion to believe or worship. Organized religion is one of society's and the world's great evils in the 21st century.
To all the preachers and religious zealots out there--Worry about you and only you and keep your hands off my body!
I wish pelosi, kerry, biden, and other catholic public figures would do the right thing and publicly renounce membership in the hypocritical religion that undermines the American way of life, supports illegal war and engages in demagoguery and theocracy. Hell, for all practical purposes, they are excommunicated anyway for being pro-choice. If all the pro-choice catholics would leave the church, it would make a strong statement, and they'd be free of this heavy-handed blackmailing bullshit. If obama gets in, i hope the irs and doj start cleaning house with these pervert demagogues.
...and most other religious "movements" (aptly named?!) have through history been proponents of war, especially when the wars are fought on their behalf, i.e., to keep them in power, maintain their control over the sheeple, and keep those collection plates full.
They care not about anyone or anything but themselves. Keeping their rigid stance on abortion accomplishes two things: keep women "in their place" and
provides cannon fodder for their endless wars.
Be sure to get your copy of the NYT tomorrow. In it will be new questions by groups of physicians about McCain's "new health concerns" and his actual life expectancy.
This will deal another blow to the against-the-ropes McCain campaign. Interestingly, (and as a ruse to NOT make it seem that McCain has something to hide????) they refused to release Palin's medical records this weekend as well.
This will only make McCain "sicker" and "more unworthy" of being president in the people's minds. They don't believe anything he says at this point because he's lied so much and this will be the bombshell of bombshells.
Fact: McCain's life expectancy beyond 2010 is improbable. At the very least, he will be sick and sidelined by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. His Invasive Melanoma is incurable and has been listed as Stage 3B.
Here's the link to the NYT article bombshell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/new-...
This ad has already been in the NYT before. I saw it a few weeks back, in the NYT.
Sorry, sweet butt but you're wrong. This is a new article slated to appear tomorrow. It's already on the press for tomorrow's edition. Nice try to discredit though but the presses are rolling and McCain's health will be brought front and center - just in time for the dash to the white house.
I am not trying to "discredit" anyone. If I am wrong, apologize. A few weeks ago there was an advertisement put together by medical doctors asking McCain to release his medical records and inquiring about the state of his health at this time.
I wonder if that ad which ran in the NYT will be cited in this article or if it provided the impetus for the article tomorrow.
The ad was in a few weeks ago. By no means was I trying to "discredit" anyone here or such an article. I get the NYT delivered to my house ands look forward to reading the article in the a.m.
The subject to the ad to which you refer is the petition which has been signed by hundreds of physicians as well as thousands of citizens asking for a full release of McCain's medical records. This petition has been occurring now for about a month as he continues to resist the release of this potentially damaging information.
NYT is using courage to ask serious questions which the american people deserve.
This is a bona fide new article and not an ad - trust me.
I apologize as well as I thought you were a GOP operative which all too often tries to twist the conversation.
NYT is set to release this information. It's headlines over at Huffington.
The sheer hypocrisy of the pro-life group is utterly astounding to me. When they have their rallies, they're filled with dirty old men who've been shooting blanks for decades - and worn out old women who have been used as dirty dishrags by their husbands.
But the even larger hypocrisy with these murderers is that they are so mentally ill that they believe that they can murder people who legally work in clinics and still call themselves "pro life" because they're protecting a cluster of cells.
Amazing hypocrisy of these criminals.
For all of the trolls out there who are tearing out their hair right now, here's the link on tomorrow's bombshell about McCain's real health issues and prognosis and it ain't good. This is THE bombshell the McCain campaign has been dreading for a very long time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/new-...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/19/...
More McCain bad news as NYT suggests people need to be concerned about McCain's health situation and life expectancy.
I'll be looking forward to that article.
ps, there seems to be a problem with the Pat Buchanan piece above. The video is not accessible and there is no comment button.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics...
It's up.
JM
It raises more questions than it answers, doesn't it?
A lot of people are opining that Sarah Palin won't release her medical records because of questions about whether she was actually pregnant with Trig, a Down Syndrome baby born this year.
It's a freaking 7 hour trip, wasn't her first child (so labor was quite likely to be short), and surely she knew the baby would be born with Down Syndrome -- it's identifiable prenatally. Seems like an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. Why not stay in Dallas and have the baby there? I wonder why she flew to and from Dallas so late in her pregnancy anyway. Most physicians won't give permission for such air flights so late in pregnancy (and airlines would certainly be nervous about having a laboring woman on board) because of the risks involved.
When there is a lack of transparency about important information, such as her pregnancy and McCain's melanoma, speculation takes wings.
Update: Alaska Air has no travel restrictions for pregnant women: http://www.babycenter.com/0_airline-policies-...
I think it is important to remember that when policy is described as pro family it is designed to create families that consist of:
Man going out to work for his corporate master.
Woman at home producing citizens for the use of both church and state.
Children at home being schooled in pro family policies.
And they only want them to live long enough to go overseas... kill lots of brown people...
... and die for their county (so the gov't won't have to pay medical bills).
Living in the largest city in SD, Sioux Falls, this is the first time I have seen this ad. Its certainly not anything on teevee.
Hopefully this might change... this is terrible law, and the other side seems to be very well funded and motivated.
I like driving across South Dakota, it's a pretty state. The last time this nonsense came up, my wife and I drove through North Dakota instead, costing the South Dakotans two tanks of gas, two meals, and a night's lodging.
This ad had been on tv for at least a month in SD. The Vote Yes For Life Int. 11 folks continue to spin this and hae resorted to demonizing Mrs. Campbell and her family because they were forced to make this choice.
Pro Life doctors (220 in the state) continue to lie and say that Mrs. Campbell had other options and that doctors would be protected under the new inititive.
One of the states largest hospitals, Sanford Health, had their lawyers look at the wording of the measure and determined:
“The health-of-the-mother exception imposes a standard that is not clearly defined. Medical facilities and providers have learned, through the malpractice arena, that whether a physician’s clinical judgment comports with ‘accepted standards of medical practice’ can be a matter of debate. Initiated Measure 11 borrows the civil litigation standards, which can be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, and attaches criminal penalties for failing to comply with the potentially vague, undefined standards. As a result, for those instances where a pregnant woman faces uncertain, but potentially very serious health risks, Initiated Measure 11 will require a physician to choose between possibly committing a felony or subjecting a pregnant woman to a higher degree of medical risk that what would otherwise be clinically desired.
You are in a fertility clinic with your friend who is getting a treatment. Helping your friend down the hall, you pass a room with a woman showing off her new baby to the ooo's and aaah's of the clinic workers that made that child possible.
Later, after five of your friend's eggs have been fertilized and are in a petri dish awaiting implantation, you take a quick trip to the restroom. While you're in there some bozo who can't tell a fertility clinic from an abortion clinic, bombs the place. You open the restroom door to see the place a blaze, rushing down the hall, with flames crawling along the ceiling, you hear the cry of that baby. You stop, look left and see at a distance the petri dish with your friend's fertilized eggs. You look right and see that in the confusion, the baby has been left behind. You have just enough time to go left, or go right, but not both.
So how many lives do you save? One or five?
The question is, of course, rhetorical. But it illustrates that there is a clear moral distinction between a living baby and a zygote. If you can't see the clear moral distinction--wherever the ultimate line may later be drawn--you have no business preaching your morality to me, much less making your morality law.
Login or Register to post comments.