The wait for Plan B and some “shocking” news
| November 14th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
24 Responses to “The wait for Plan B and some “shocking” news”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Hm. Well, two different things going on here.
1) Plan B: the FDA’s role is scientific, not moral. You want to play politics with this stuff, do it in the House and Senate, not the FDA.
2) As far as Roe vs. Wade goes, as long as abortion rights are dependent solely on SCOTUS’ lineup, then a change in the lineup will risk a change in abortion rights. If I understand the concept correctly (jump in if I don’t), stare decis is supposed to mean that once the courts have decided, they are to be bound by precedent. But there’s no appeal from the Supreme Court, so they can pretty much do what they want. I doubt that violating that concept would result in an impeachment.
We’re going to go through this drama for every SCOTUS vacancy until/unless a Constitutional amendment is passed one way or another about abortion rights.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 6:30 am
RonF: until/unless a Constitutional amendment is passed one way or another about abortion rights.
Isn’t it more than slightly absurd and ridiculous - and alarming - that the issue of whether women shall have the same legal rights as men is still a matter of such debate in the US that it may be that women need a Constitutional amendment to say so?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 9:00 am
“Isn’t it more than slightly absurd and ridiculous - and alarming - that the issue of whether women shall have the same legal rights as men is still a matter of such debate in the US that it may be that women need a Constitutional amendment to say so?”
Welcome to America.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Actually, the current administration’s attitude that non-US citizens have no legal rights whatsoever means I am (a) not welcome to America and (b) don’t intend to visit again until it’s established I do have legal rights there, but… it’s still astonishing that the idea that women in general should have equal legal rights is up for debate.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Actually, the current administration’s attitude that non-US citizens have no legal rights whatsoever …
Really? Non-US citizens have no legal rights in the U.S.? That will come as news to the various resident aliens here in the U.S. that work, own homes, join the armed forces, etc., etc. - in fact, probably as well to the huge number of illegal aliens doing the same thing. Ask the INS if any of these folks are being denied their days in court.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Actually, RonF, anybody (citizen or not) who is designated as an “enemy combatant” by the federal government of the USA has no legal rights whatsoever.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
All rights we have in the United States are preserved by the language of the Constitution, and the guiding principle that we are “a government of laws, not men”. The very premise of this thread is that the present administration is trying an end run around that last philosophy.
But right now, the only reason that abortion is protected as a civil right in the U.S. on a national basis instead of state-by-state is because a few SCOTUS justices decided so. Even many proponents of abortion rights look at the legal reasoning in Roe vs. Wade with suspicion. Regardless of whether you think that abortion rights equate to “equal rights for men and women”, it’s pretty hard to see that they guaranteed by reading the Constitution. The very weakness of the reasoning in that case is why the selection of a new SCOTUS justice is controversial. It’s just not that hard for a couple new ones to justify overturning Roe vs. Wade as a case of some Justices wanting to find something in the Constitution, as opposed to actually finding it there.
If you want any right preserved by the Federal government, you better be able to find it in a plain reading of the Constitution. Or it can be changed.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Actually, RonF, anybody (citizen or not) who is designated as an “enemy combatant” by the federal government of the USA has no legal rights whatsoever.
Quite true. But there’s quite a burden to be met in designating someone as an “enemy combatant”, so it hardly equates to the blanket statement of “non-US citizens have no legal rights whatsoever”. Resident aliens enjoy the majority of rights that American citizens do, and even illegal aliens, law-breakers though they are, have basic rights.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
I agree w/ you. I was just trying to guess the basis of Jesurgislac’s statement. I could very well be wrong in my guess.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
I was going to speculate on Jesurgislac’s statement. But rather than act on any of them, I figured that I’d rather just hear a direct explanation.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
RonF: Regardless of whether you think that abortion rights equate to “equal rights for men and women”, it’s pretty hard to see that they guaranteed by reading the Constitution.
Fourteenth Amendment. (Also the First Amendment, given that most opponents of the right to choose are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.)
It is also generally accepted that while the right to privacy is not addressed generically in the Constitution, the Framers were conscious of that right and addressed the most urgent aspects of it in their day: the right not to have soldiers quartered in your home, the right not to have your home searched: and certainly all anti-choice laws represent a violation of a woman’s right to privacy between herself and her physician, and indeed a violation of the right to the privacy of your own body.
RonF: But there’s quite a burden to be met in designating someone as an “enemy combatant”
No, no burden to be met at all, as the Bush administration have gone to some trouble to establish. The Bush administration’s definition of “enemy combatant” can be met by any non-US citizen without any action on their part whatsoever, and the legal rights of a non-US citizen on being designated an “enemy combatant” appear to be, in real terms, nil. Even one of the most basic rights of any prisoner, the right of habeas corpus, is being removed from non-US citizens by the Senate as we speak.
Further, the Bush administration has claimed it has the right to imprison any non-US citizen on arrival in the US, and hold that person in indefinite confinement, with no right of appeal. The Bush administration has further claimed it has the right to deport any non-US citizen to any country of its choice, there to be imprisoned and tortured. The Bush administration claims it need never present any evidence to any court showing that a non-US citizen was in fact an enemy combatant. Not only is this possible, Ron, it has happened - and we know about the process in the detail we do only because one victim was eventually released and returned home.
Now, granted, it’s never likely to happen to me; I am white and I am not Muslim. But I choose not to travel to the US any more, because I prefer not to know that my freedom from being arrested and tortured lies only in my skin color and my religion.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
An established religion is an official state-supported religion, such as the Church of England was (and still is); the clergy are paid by the state, the 20 most senior bishops have a legislative role, public officials have to belong to it (that’s been relaxed, but the King/Queen still can’t be a Catholic), etc. That was a big problem in the colonies, and it’s what is forbidden to Congress. Supporting a public policy that coincides with a moral stand that is supported by numerous religions does not come anywhere close to being a law that establishes a religion, so that doesn’t really seem to apply. Plus, there’s also “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; barring a proposed public policy because it is congruent with many religions’ moral stance or that it’s proponents are acting out of their religious convictions would seem to interfere with this and with their right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Heck, if we did that, then we couldn’t have laws against murder, since pretty much all religions bar that.
Fourteenth Amendment:
I imagine you’re pointing to Section 1 of this amendment, but I’m not sure what part of it you’re saying applies here.
It is also generally accepted that while the right to privacy is not addressed generically in the Constitution, the Framers were conscious of that right and addressed the most urgent aspects of it in their day: the right not to have soldiers quartered in your home, the right not to have your home searched: and certainly all anti-choice laws represent a violation of a woman’s right to privacy between herself and her physician, and indeed a violation of the right to the privacy of your own body.
If I recall correctly, extending certain specific rights enumerated in the Constitution to the general case of a “right to privacy” is just where the SCOTUS started using terms like “preumbras” and other such things that have led numerous critics to say that Roe was bad law, even by those who agreed with the ultimate objective. There’s plenty of laws that violate our privacy for what the legislature has considered the greater good; your mail can be opened, your private conversations can be listened to, your body can be probed for illegal drugs, your DNA profile can be taken from you; if you use a cordless phone in your house, I can quite legally sit outside with the same phone, find the channel you’re using and listen in. I can tape a conversation I’m having with you and use it without your consent (the cops need a warrant to tape us; I don’t need a warrant to tape us, though). Your personal information can be sold without your consent. I quite agree that the law should do more to protect our privacy, but there’s no general overarching “right to privacy” that the Constitution protects, or all the above things would be illegal.
If you think you have a right to privacy in your own body, try going into a hospital and having your arm cut off, or a kidney taken out and thrown in the garbage. Heck, the state regulates who and where you can get a tattoo from, and can even ban it entirely.
As far as non-citizen rights and the Bush administration; let me say right off the bat that while I’m obviously to the right of many posters here, no one should regard me as a Bush supporter. He and his administration have done things that are foolish, and others that are just flat out wrong and immoral. His assertions of a right to do what you are talking about, in a general case, qualify as the latter. But I think you’ll find that if you travel in the U.S., your freedom from being arrested and tortured lies not in your skin color or religion, but in the fact that you have no intent to execute terroristic acts in the U.S.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
RonF: But I think you’ll find that if you travel in the U.S., your freedom from being arrested and tortured lies not in your skin color or religion, but in the fact that you have no intent to execute terroristic acts in the U.S.
Neither had Mahar Arar. (Details in a series of posts here. This did not save him from being arrested and tortured. Nor is he unique - except, perhaps, in getting home to Canada and getting his story out.
No, Ron: having “No intent to execute terroristic acts” will not save any non-US citizen from imprisonment and torture. White skin and not being a Muslim likely will: I’m not happy with that safety.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Jesurgislac, I’ll read those posts, but not right now. Meanwhile, you might be interested to know that yesterday the U.S. Senate passed a bill 98-0 that includes a provision to require that anyone who is designated an “enemy combatant” by the Executive branch has the right to appeal that designation to Federal court. It’s also expected to pass the House readily, and 98-0 is veto proof (we’ll see about the House). Looks like the Legislative branch is taking this matter seriously.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
RonF: Looks like the Legislative branch is taking this matter seriously.
I’m actually not clear what rights of habeas corpus detainees at Guantanamo Bay have left, nor why the Legislative branch isn’t just pointing at the Constitution and reminding Bush that he has no right to overturn it.
However, I’ll grant you that the current amendment is an improvement on the situation of last week, when Senator Graham got an amendment passed (49 to 42) that stripped all habeas corpus rights from Guantanamo Bay inmates.
I note that anyone arbitrarily labelled an enemy of the state and sent somewhere other than Guantanamo Bay still has no right of habeas corpus. Mahar Arar was sent to a prison in Syria, for example.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
If by take seriously you mean has stripped away most of the legal rights they should have, leaving them with a slim thread of legal rights that the Bush administration would prefer that they also not have, that would pretty much describe it. It was certainly a serious (and dire) action for the senate to take.
I love the fact that prisoners can not appeal the conditions of their imprisonment under the new measure, so, while you can’t legally torture prisoners, if you chain them to a wall and blare loud music at them 24/7 while feeding them saltines and a cup of water a day, they have no right to raise their conditions in court. How exactly is the prohibition against torture supposed to be enforced?
A grim day for this country.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Hm. What exactly defines “cruel and unusual” punishment, anyway. And is that a logical “and”? In other words, must a punishment be both cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional? After all, the death penalty is certainly cruel, but it’s Constitutional.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 8:01 am
While I personally feel abortion is murder, I am aware that it was made legal many years ago, that it IS a necessary evil and the right can not be taken away from us.
As I have worked in the field of OB/GYN for 20 years, I simply feel this is dangerous. Prescriptions can be filled by one person and given to another, people can bleed to death without medical attention, etc.
All pregnancy terminations have risks, but I feel this is far too great, to let the patient do it themselves. Physicians have been trained to do this procedure and I feel it should be left to them!
This comment was written by Beth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Great, Beth. Let’s apply such prudence across the board, then. For example, I don’t think that diabetics should be trusted to inject themselves with prescription insulin. Too dangerous. Plus, they could give their insulin to me if we wanted. That can’t be right.
Pregnancy is pretty dangerous. What if one miscarries ? Shouldn’t all pregnant women be placed under house arrest in a hospital for the duration ? You know, better to be safe than sorry.
BTW, I recently found out that Costco is also one of the chains with that dipshit “conscience exemption” for its pharmacists. I would have expected better from them, but live and learn.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Gerard1130.htm
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Goddammit! I always thought they were one of the more or less good guys, too. That bums me out.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Send them a letter if you shop there. It couldn’t hurt, Myca.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Good idea. Will do.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Beth wrote:
Well, Beth, we’re not talking about the abortion pill, RU-486. We’re talking about Plan B, which does *not* cause bleeding, and merely causes a fertilized egg to slough off the uterine lining (something that happens in up to 50% of pregnancies anyway, and the woman never notices.)
Also, if we followed your logic out, nobody could ever fill any prescription, because “someone else might get it”! No Valium, no Viagra, no Amoxicillin — because it can be filled by one person and given to another.
The fact that you apply this only to medications that allow a woman to refuse to have a child, indicates where your agenda really lies.
This comment was written by Linda Flores.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Well, to be fair, she already called women who have abortions murderer’s, so her agenda wasn’t all that buried.
But hey Beth, thanks!
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators