Comments on: Is Roe v. Wade in danger?

By: Hank Bigelow

Hank Bigelow — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

If you want true freedom in the United States, vote for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party. Forget the two party system. They want to rule every aspect of your life from cradle to grave.

By: Deep River Appartments

Deep River Appartments — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Last time I checked the average libertarian was still considered a wild card firmly gripped in the Republican hand, one that could easily be played with just the promise of tax cuts. I’ll listen to the party when it starts to mean what it says about defending the important liberties.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Deep River - were it only true! No, the libertarian party is a truly wild card, clearly and demonstrably out of tune with anyone in the world, lacking any “wedge” issue with the possible exception of the failed war on drugs..

By: Helena Koelle

Helena Koelle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

How can we enforce the separation of church and state in this country?!

By: Jake Squid

Jake Squid — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, I was impressed with the Libertarian Party in WA this election cycle. The party platform featured strong support for SSM. This is the first time I have ever seen a Libertarian Party promote its social agenda at the same level with its economic agenda. Alas, it seems like the party members really only care about the economic issues.

By: Kelli

Kelli — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Helena, First you have to define separation of Church and State, then you can enforce it.

The problem I see however, is that historians have yet to truly explain what the founding fathers meant by separation of Church and State.

I think I know, but then I’m no historian.

By: Sally

Sally — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I’m a historian-in-training, but like most academic historians I work on a pretty narrow period, and this isn’t it. But I suspect the problem is not that historians are unclear about what the “founding fathers” meant by the separation of church and state. (I’d be suprised if they all meant the same thing. But that’s a separate issue.) I suspect the problem is that the “founding fathers” had completely different ideas than modern people about the role of government and therefore that they couldn’t have conceived of many of the questions with which we grapple today. It’s very difficult to figure out how they would have responded to contemporary controversies, because it requires that you try to figure out how they would have reacted to modernity, and there’s really no way to know. If you asked them “should there be Christian prayer in state-funded, manditory schools,” I suspect they would have fixated on the existence of state-sponsored, manditory schools and thought the prayer thing was totally secondary.

Incidentally, I don’t think most people realize that the Federal Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states until the 14th amendment was ratified in the 1860s. Until then, it only limited the Federal government. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, some states had established religions, and that was perfectly Constitutional.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Justice Ginsberg herself said that the privacy argument for the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was supported by a “tortured logic.”

It’s important that we recognise that a fetus is really an unborn child. Although we often don’t think of it that way, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Virgin of the Globe, pray for us!

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Justice Ginsberg herself said that the privacy argument for the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was supported by a “tortured logic.”

It’s important that we recognise that a fetus is really an unborn child. Although we often don’t think of it that way, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Virgin of the Globe, pray for us!

By: Crescat Sententia

Crescat Sententia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ah, the fate of Roe
In the spirit of Mark Kleiman’s post about how bloggers (journalists that we are) should cover the foibles of both sides, Ampersand has a post up taking the Feminist Majority to task for its false claim that “The fate of…