Wed 18 Apr 2007
The issue of abortion has taken center stage thanks to the Supreme Court. Given Jean Schmidt’s job as president of the Right-to-Life of Greater Cincinnati prior to joining Congress the 2nd will once again be the front lines in one of the most important political issues of the current election cycle.
In the past Schmidt’s gotten into trouble for hedging her extremist “100% pro life” position (That means not even in the case of rape or incest or risk to the mother). Now that the foot is in the door will she take her well earned place as a standard bearer in Congress for eliminating women’s controls over their own bodies, or will she again try to soft sell her position once primary time is over and she has to draw independent voters? Will the Democrat who runs against her call her out on her views or instead try to fudge the issue so as to play to the middle? Paul Hackett did very well with his powerful libertarian stance:
…I don’t need Washington to tell me how to live my personal life, or how to pray to my God. And I don’t need Washington to dictate to my wife the decisions that she makes with her doctor, any more than I need Washington to tell me which guns I can keep in my gun safe.
Will anyone play it Hackett-style? Does the Virginia Tech tragedy reduce the effectiveness of such a statement?
The political sports fan in me thinks that this will be an interesting fight with both sides facing many potential pitfalls. The human being in me wonders when we’ll focus on the reason’s why women feel the need to make these drastic choices (poverty, lack of education, lack of contraception, etc) instead of rewaging battles decided long ago.
UPDATE: Vic is already getting some traction from this.
My writing feels klunky lately.
I don’t think your writing is klunky but maybe you feel out of practice. Good writing needs practice (like a lot of things) and you’ve been on a little vacation. However, I for one am glad you are back. I hope it’s on a more regular basis. Things seem to be heating up in the 2nd as well as on a more national level. Looks like fun times ahead.
We are living is scary times and I am so bone tired of constantly fighting the same battle. The right to control one’s body is fundamental. This a a big issue for Democrats. Just like the Democrats’ stance on the Iraq war, the majority of Americans believe abortion should be safe and legal. We are on the side of the majority. The republicans are on the side of the few extremists. Adults must be able to control what happens to their bodies and lives without government interference.
I hope you all don’t mind me chiming (sp?) in on this Blog … it’s nice to have a place to vent and get stuff off your chest. This issue is especially sensitive as I believe that it is really hypocritical of Repubs to declare less government and more individual privacy and then to pull this baloney but then again I am sure you all have heard this argument before. Hackett really hit the nail on the head. It seems that the Rs need to really understand the serious implications of this determination. With this ruling Docs unknowingly could be head liable for assisting women who miscarry late in term under charges by zealot right wingers. When do people outside a family nucleus have a say in such intimate decisions?
The term partial birth in a misnomer made up by the extremists. The correct term is dilation and extraction. No matter how a doctor does a late term termination, the result is the same. Last trimester abortions are only allowed for the health of the mother or if the fetus is not viable. Women don’t terminate that late unless something is drastically wrong.
The D&X was developed to prevent damage to the cervix and uterus. The other procedures used for late term terminations are much more risking and potentially damaging. Someone very close to me had to terminate a last trimester fetus (and a very much wanted and planned pregnancy) because the fetus was missing critical organs and would not survive. It was an excrutiating decision coming late when up until the 7 month ultrasound, they thought it was a normal healthy pregnancy. They certainly didn’t need fanatics making their decision more miserable and sad than it already was. The outcome was a damaged cervix (D&X procedure wasn’t in use) and a lot of miscarried pregnancies (3) in the 6th to 7th month.
We all know that if it was their relative or dear friend, they would want the best medical procedure to protect future fertility. I wouldn’t wish this decision on my worst enemy.
risking should be risky. This issue is close to me because I watched how devestating it was to not only lose the first one but to then lose three more late in pregnancy. It took a very heavy emotional toll on them.
Your writing is a nice read. Honest.
I don’t think the VA Tech tragedy will change an argument like Hackett’s. The guy (Cho, not Hackett) was psychotic. He was living outside reality. Unfortunately, he bought the guns legally. They weren’t assault weapons, or anything that came even close. One of them was the most popular target shooting handgun on the market. Like it or not, target shooting is something that lots of law abiding citizens do for fun.
I think the onus here is on the mental health professionals who didn’t do much. I heard a forensic psychiatrist state that he was the classic mass murderer. Couldn’t the pros who actually spoke with him tell that? Honestly, when the suits start to hit the fan, and they will, there will be multiple potential defendants.
I don’t like guns, at all. I would never have one in my home. But I understand Hackett’s statement, and it is consistent with the right to privacy.
I told my husband last night that if they continue to restrict a woman’s right to control her most private place, her own body, that we will just have to move to another country. And I’m past child-bearing age, so it’s not just about that. Not at all.
Muffett:
I am always amazed when those in charge of the shot up institution say they are shocked. The principal and police in Columbine knew and had contact with those boys and knew about their web postings. They had been in trouble before. The school district didn’t want the bad pr or trouble with the parents. Gee, they got both after a lot of murder and mayhem.
The staff at VI knew about this student and had recommended him for treatment. The students in his class were afraid of him. He had stalked women on campus. That alone should have gotten him expelled or at least suspended. What were they waiting for?