jump to navigation

108th Congress, “Partial Birth Abortion” Bill: S 3 18 April 2007

Posted by marisacat in Abortion Rights, SCOTUS, Sex / Reproductive Health.
trackback

   Mormon women 

It was in the 108th that Reid moved to All Star status at Democrats for Life based on 5 bills that came before congress, on abortion and on the abortion proxy, stem cell.

Applaud the little man.

What was that about “Give ‘em Hell, Harry”  ???… right… they had to steal a rally cry to give a booster to the conservative Democrat who shares power in NV with Ensign (not the only cute arrangement of its kind). 

A conservative Mormon Democrat, who all too likely pulls on the poodle chain that leads to the Blahgers.

And then, the 5, count ‘em FIVE, Catholics on the SC:  Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

Both the Wapo today as well as politico.com had articles on how the Dems will do little for gun control (of any kind) as they must protect their new conservative freshmen (anyone got a woman that matters?) as Nancy has made clear over and over.  Goes double for abortion.

Count them out.  It is all about ’08.  Nothing about people…

In October when the 2003 bill came before the SC, I remembered that moiv had said some of the wording could be effective in outlawing ALL abortion.  She highlighted the passages for me.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

S.3

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of theUnited States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds and declares the following:
  •  
      (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion–an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child’s body until either the entire baby’s head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of th
    • e child’s skull and removing the baby’s brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant–is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
  •  
      (2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
  •  
      (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure’ for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden’ on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health’ of the mother.
  •  
      (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court’s factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.
  •  
      (5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.
  •  
      (6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court’s findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court’s factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not `clearly erroneous’. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous `when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed’. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, `if the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently’. Id. at 574.
  •  
      (7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge–the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.
  •  
      (8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the `clearly erroneous’ standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings–findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference–and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.
  •  
      (9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regarding Congress’ factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in `gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,’ the Court stated that `[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.’. Id. at 653.
  •  
      (10) Katzenbach’s highly deferential review of Congress’ factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the `bail-out’ provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that `congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose’. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff’d City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980).
  •  
      (11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress’ legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be `seriously jeopardized’. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, `Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data’ bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here’, 512 U.S. at 665-66. Although the Court recognized that `the deference afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,’ its `obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress’ factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.’. Id. at 666.
  •  
      (12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the `must-carry’ provisions based upon Congress’ findings, stating the Court’s `sole obligation is `to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.’ 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that `[w]e owe Congress’ findings deference in part because the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data’ bearing upon’ legislative questions,’ id. at 195, and added that it `owe[d] Congress’ findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.’. Id. at 196.
  •  
      (13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health’ exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman’s health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman’s health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.
  •  
      (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
  •  
    •  
        (A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman’s risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin’; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child’s skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
  •  
    •  
        (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
  •  
    •  
        (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice’, that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,’ that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,’ and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use’. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,’ and `is never the only appropriate procedure’.
  •  
    •  
        (D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
  •  
    •  
        (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
  •  
    •  
        (F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
  •  
    •  
        (G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.
  •  
    •  
        (H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,’ was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person’ under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person’. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.
  •  
    •  
        (I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb’. According to this medical association, the `partial birth’ gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body’.
  •  
    •  
        (J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children–obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child–and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child. (Note: You gotta love this piece of linguistic legedemain — first they name it PBA, then claim it should be banned because the name they gave it appropriates the terminology of obstetricians – moiv)
  •  
    •  
        (K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public’s perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.
  •  
    •  
        (L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.
  •  
    •  
        (M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
  •  
    •  
        (N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting–indeed it must act–to prohibit this inhumane procedure.
  •  
    •  
        (O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

CHAPTER 74–PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

  •  
      `Sec.
  •  
      `1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

    `(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
    `(b) As used in this section–
  •  
      `(1) the term `partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion–
  •  
    •  
        `(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
  •  
    •  
        `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
  •  
      `(2) the term `physician’ means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
    `(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
    `(2) Such relief shall include–
  •  
      `(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
  •  
      `(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.
    `(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician’s conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
    `(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
    `(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.’.
    (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

1531′.Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

END

************************************************

Just to put a period on the above, a comment from a Dkos knuckledragger from the previous thread:

Christians Gotta Be Piiisssed. (0 / 0)

7 Years.

Bush’s war.

911.

Corporate corruption unparalleled.

Katrina.

All this and all the Christians got was some half-assed partial birth abortion ban.

You can’t stop Progress at this rate.

Everything the Christians wanted out of Bush, he’s just basically taken a big fat dump on.

And now, because of Bush’s other agendas, the Dems will now be in power.

Some might say the court now has a generation to ban abortion. But that’s not the direction Progress is moving, and if they haven’t done anything by now, it’s looking dim for the lunatic party.

Bush so totally ripped off the Christians. Hopefully by now, they realize how they’ve been used by Bush, like a nasty piece of toilet paper.

by Fig Newton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:52:11 AM PDT

Well.. stupid is as stupid does.

Anyone sees any other evidence of light bulbs burned out, no one home, women don’t matter, etc., please post in the thread.

******************

Addendum: 

I am having a terrible time between bolding and masses of html code from the original.

These two sections should be bolded, but will not take it fully:

    `(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
  •  
    •  
        `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;  
About these ads

Comments

1. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

My Late-Term Abortion

On November 5, George W. Bush signed the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban of a surgical technique in the history of this country.

“I’m pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land,” Bush said. After singling out 11 political supporters of the bill — all of them men — the president whipped the 400-strong, antiabortion crowd into a frenzy. “For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way,” he said to cheers and whoops and hollers.

The signing ceremony staged by the White House was part evangelical tent revival, part good ol’ boy pep rally, ending with the audience muttering “Amen.” The president stoked the crowd’s moral indignation with emotional platitudes like “affirming a basic standard of humanity” and “compassion and the power of conscience” and “defending the life of the innocent.”

But on that Wednesday afternoon, President Bush never addressed what, exactly, the ramifications of the bill would be. His administration portrayed it as a bill aimed solely at stopping a “gruesome and barbaric” procedure used by healthy mothers to kill healthy babies. That portrayal served to spark a national, emotional knee-jerk reaction, which precluded any understanding of the practical outcome of the legislation. But it was those very real practicalities that immediately prompted three lawsuits and got three federal courts to prevent the bill from actually becoming law, starting a fight that will probably drag on for years.

At the heart of the debate is a term that legislators concocted. They created a nonexistent procedure — partial-birth abortion — and then banned it. They then gave it such a purposely vague definition that, according to abortion providers as well as the Supreme Court, which ruled a similar law in Nebraska unconstitutional, it could apply to all abortions after the first trimester.

Though some proponents of the bill say that they merely want to ban a specific medical procedure — properly called intact dilation and extraction, which accounts for fewer than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions in this country, according to a 2000 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute — they never specifically called it that. Instead, the bill is written in such a way that the much more common procedure — dilation and evacuation, which accounts for 96 percent of second-trimester abortions, including my own — would also be banned.

Supporters of the ban have argued that this procedure is used on babies that are “inches from life.” But in the bill, there is no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus could live independently of its mother for a sustained period of time). Nor is there any mention of gestational age. Thus, the ban would cover terminations at any point during pregnancy. (In fact, Roe v. Wade already protects the rights of a fetus after the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th week of gestation, in the third trimester of pregnancy. Massachusetts bans all abortions at and beyond the 24th week, except to protect the life or health of the mother. Indeed, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in 2001 there were only 24 abortions after the 24th week, out of a total of 26,293 abortions.) By not mentioning viability, critics say, this ban would overturn Roe v. Wade, which clearly states that women have the right to abortion before fetal viability.

So what does it all really mean? It means that all abortions after the first trimester could be outlawed. No matter if the fetus has severe birth defects, including those incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). No matter if the mother would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or a hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy. (Legislators did not provide a health exception for the woman, arguing that it would provide too big a loophole.)

In the aftermath of the signing of the bill, its supporters spoke about having outlawed a medical procedure and protecting the nation’s children. “We have just outlawed a procedure that is barbaric, that is brutal, that is offensive to our moral sensibilities,” said Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader. Its opponents bemoaned an unconstitutional attack on legal rights. “This ban is yet another instance of the federal government inappropriately interfering in the private lives of Americans, dangerously undermining . . . the very foundation of a woman’s right to privacy,” said Gregory T. Nojeim, an associate director and chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

But lost in the political slugfest have been the very real experiences of women — and their families — who face this heartbreaking decision every day.

2. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

The Brutal Practice of Inventing Medical Terms

Here’s how you can already tell that the framers of this bill are already lying: the term “partial-birth abortion” is not recognized by the medical community (as Scott pointed out in his overview of the case’s main issues yesterday, the first sentence of the American Medical Association’s statement opposing the legislation reads, “The term ‘Partial birth abortion’ is not medical terminology.”). Therefore, it’s impossible that a “medical consensus” could exist around the fact that it’s a “gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited,” since according to doctors other than the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (who also claim that abortion causes breast cancer), it does not clearly refer to an actual procedure.

By the way, the Bill also contains a little-known loophole that gives women’s husbands and parents (identified as the “fathers” and “grandparents” of the baby) the right to sue women or doctors who go through with the procedure described in the bill (See sec. 1531(c)(1) of the text). Unfortunately, this loophole has received almost no coverage, since the mainstream media have been too busy repeating the phrase “partial-birth abortion” to report on what the legislation actually says.

3. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

Spammed twice

4. aemd - 18 April 2007

From the last post,

“sorry, link to which? probably the VT but which part?”

Sorry back at ya. :-) I’m a bit upset and that leads to being vague…. while looking for a drink.

Link on the info ’bout the “girlfriend” who really wasn’t. I didn’t see this information before.

The whole SC thing is very bad. I’m not a lawyer but with the acceptance of the no health exception.. isn’t this what lawyer types call a presidence? (Is that the correct word?)

5. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

Daily Kos is beyond loathsome:

No Confidence Vote for Pro-Choice Leadership
by My Philosophy
Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:30:12 PM PDT

“I will not defer. I have come before you to resolve this attack on our sovereignty now. I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion [of our rights] in committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in [Chancellor Kenan's] leadership.” – Queen Amidala, Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace [slight paraphrasing mine]

Matt Stoller’s recent post at MyDD.com, brings up a poignant question: Where is our leadership in the face of today’s Supreme Court decision upholding an abortion ban? AWOL, that’s where. Today’s decision is only the bearing of fruit for their past labors and actions (or in this case, inaction and non-labors) and only serves to highlight their past failures on Alito, on Roberts, on “Partial Birth Abortion”, on “fetal pain” bills, in forwarding the movement in general, etc. Firedoglake has catalogued the failures of the pro-choice movement, NARAL and Nancy Kenan, in particular, here and here.

6. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Joy. My protectors [sic] can quote one of the worst piece of shit movies in the history of the world. Ka-CHINNNG !!

I thought it was worthwhile to pull up Smith’s SMBIVA column on Pollitt from last year. I hope every feminist out there who mumbles and stares at her feet over 3rd Parties will ask herself: What’s the real difference COME ELECTION TIME between the sexist assholes on Kos and Katha Pollitt, the “good feminist ?”

So far as I can tell the answer, once you strip away the tenor of the rhetoric, is not one damn fucking thing. When push comes to shove it’s still all grabbing on to some shitheel oligarch’s pantleg while whinging yet one more chorus of “Stand By Your Donkey.”

7. marisacat - 18 April 2007

aemd

weill see what I can find. That was from Brian WIlliams (NBC) and a reporter at Wapo who were on C Rose hmmm think Tuesday night.

When I get a link will post it.

A problem as Brian Ross (ABC) was still reporting last night she might have been his GF, but a series of interviews, as I commented point all the way the other way.

8. colleen - 18 April 2007

isn’t this what lawyer types call a presidence?

yes, a precedent.
In this case the health of the woman involved cannot be a consideration in the medical decision making process. How insane and dehumanizing is that?

The Catholic and fundie protestants decided some time ago that ‘the health of the woman’ was some sort of unconscionable loophole, that women should be forced to carry to term fetuses that could not survive outside the womb, forced to carry to term even if the woman needs chemo or has MS.

Of course for Catholics and Protestant fundies exceptions for the life of the woman are unconscionable loopholes too. How does it feel to be a thing? To be breeding stock?

9. marisacat - 18 April 2007

You know I don’t think 3rd parties are the answer. If we had a more flexible system, then maybe… but

I just don’t see it. And of course people whould vote for whom they wish. The only thing we own, our vote, as I tend to say.

10. Miss Devore - 18 April 2007

good new diary by Kahli up at BMT–a morsel:

“Markos Just get the hell out of his way. Don’t even think about messing up his gig by insisting on respect and equal rights. Enabled by people who want to hang out with the cool kid.”

11. colleen - 18 April 2007

Firedoglake has catalogued the failures of the pro-choice movement, NARAL and Nancy Kenan, in particular, here and here.

Next up, NARAL stuffed the ballot box and got Casey Jr. elected.
Damn these people are pathetic.

12. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Don’t miss this tidbit:

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

IN DECEMBER 2005, A VIRGINIA COURT FOUND VT KILLER SEUNG CHO ‘MENTALLY ILL’ AND ‘AN IMMINENT DANGER TO OTHERS’

For more details, go to:

ABC LINK

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

Sorry a lot more shoes to fall on this one. They failed early and they failed late.

What a fucking cock up.

13. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

I don’t get it, Mcat. If we’re gonna’ keep it “local,” why not let go of the Dems altogether ? Hell, even a candidate with no party affiliation seems like a step up to me. Otherwise you end up with the same old song and dance, the newcomers all running off to yap at the heels of the old-timers for treats, helicopter rides, and promises of future committee assignments.

We know already that the system is sown with salt. Why not run a candidate who will prove before the eyes of the voters just how much this is so ?

We’re fucked anyway. Might as well do the suicide run.

14. marisacat - 18 April 2007

colleen

yes but we all know they don’t mean it aobut NARAL the way we mean it about NARAL.

Lots of us have posted issues iwth the national orgs (and I have posted about the work that NARAL SD did there in the big messy mess of last year) but Kos and FDL and the Dem party sites don’t care a whit. About people or issues or lives or anything.

They JUST BITCH. And want to trash women and special interests.

15. marisacat - 18 April 2007

It’s just my opinion. I think it’s great that there is a Green as mayor of Richmond CA… I wish Gonzales had won here in 2003.

I just see some regional, very local inroads. And not much more.

just my opinion.

16. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Oh, and you end up with people at places like The Nation also yapping for treats, obviously. Including so-called feminists. Nothing else explains smart people continually twisting themselves in logistical knots just to end up calling for the same kneepad fest that Kos calls for.

17. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

They failed early

… and often.

18. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

All quiet on Aisle 11… where are the Blogmaids?

19. marisacat - 18 April 2007

well ms xeno you might notice i was banned and I am not a Democrat anymore. Did not vote for Kerry. I pretty much walked away in 91, then wanted to try to get out of ReaganReaganBush… LOL with a “better Bush” as a much younger Sully called Clinton.

And sure he was right. I was never on Clinton’s band wagon every. They went soft by late spring. Then greedy as all hell but for crumbs. I sure learned fast in the aftermath of 00 that my vote means nothing. I did get it.

But there are some harsh realities around. I’d lvoe to see the parties BOTH OF THEM, blown to smithereens. I don’t see it happening.

Republicans are the Harsh Party and when they get too out of control it falls to the Default Party.

At least that is what I see.

20. marisacat - 18 April 2007

BlogMaids are making the Holy Wafers. They are all Catholic now.

21. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Oh, and Mcat, I’m all about regional. That’s why I volunteered for Paterson last year, and why I roll my eyes at the local GP guys (they do all seem to be guys) when they’re trying to rally the troops on PDX Indy around– well, nothing and nobody. Pie in the sky. There has to be a human face to a platform, and it has to be attached to somebody ready to go to the mat for that platform. No hemming and hawing. Maybe someday they’ll understand that, or be replaced with people who do understand it.

22. colleen - 18 April 2007

IN DECEMBER 2005, A VIRGINIA COURT FOUND VT KILLER SEUNG CHO ‘MENTALLY ILL’ AND ‘AN IMMINENT DANGER TO OTHERS’

WTF? And he was able to purchase guns and lots of ammunition 2 years later? And the school wasn’t allowed to talk with his parents about his mental health due to confidentiality issues?
You know, more and more it sounds as if the school authorities and the police decided early on to dismiss the multiple reports in much the same way Houle and Markos dismissed the threats to Sierra

23. lucidculture - 18 April 2007

My protectors [sic] can quote one of the worst piece of shit movies in the history of the world. Ka-CHINNNG !!

Some of us did like that movie despite the unwatchable Jar Jar segments. I actually think the over plot of the second trilogy is better than the first and very apt for the times. Of course there is an entire hour of the second one that is unwatchable because of the burgeoning love affair… anyhow, just sayin’.

Mcat – a courtfound him an imminent danger to others and he was allowed to buy two handguns?!? Damn.

24. marisacat - 18 April 2007

wtf. He was able to stay in school.

more:

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

POLICE SAY NBC NEWS RECEIVED A MANIFESTO BELIEVED TO BE FROM THE VIRGINIA TECH KILLER

For more details, see:
ABC Link to the story

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

25. aemd - 18 April 2007

“That was from Brian WIlliams (NBC) and a reporter at Wapo who were on C Rose hmmm think Tuesday night.”

That’s why I haven’t seen it. It was on the tube. I turned that thing off very early as our national reporters, as someone here so wonderfully put it, took to the fainting couches. Just don’t have the stomach to view that self-aggrandizing crap.

Don’t take time finding a link, I’ll search around, cause unlike the fuckin’ SC, google is my friend. 8-) . I’ll post if I find anything.

“You know, more and more it sounds as if the school authorities and the police decided early on to dismiss the multiple reports in much the same way Houle and Markos dismissed the threats to Sierra”

Yep, they roll their eyes and mutter “hysterical women”. It’s not like the “hysterical women” in the VA tech’s English department didn’t give them a heads up.

26. marisacat - 18 April 2007

I’m just saying, more shoes to drop.

This stank from minute ONE.

27. wu ming - 18 April 2007

the real shit is going to come down when the decisions using this as a precedent work to functionally roll back roe v. wade for the second and third trimesters. i know this isn’t news to anyone here, but i shudder when i think of this decision as the beginning, and not just the culmination, of a chain of legal decisions.

you know things are bad when you start to place your hopes in the whole constitutional regime coming to an end. not that any successor constitution would be any better.

as for third parties, i rterally don’t have much hope in the ones that are out there so far, they generally show even less political acumen than the already pathetic democrats. what needs to be rebuilt is the infrastructure to mobilize left citizens, regardless of the ultimate target of that mobilization, be it dem party primary, third party, initiatives or sitting on hands en masse.

until that groundwork is done, most of the rest of it is idle talk.

28. marisacat - 18 April 2007

One thing that clued me in, after the early stench was that Lucinda Roy made herself very available to the media.

She wanted stuff to get out.

Sorry, steger has to go. Local campus police chief needs to go.

And the public safety officer for the state should go as well. He was an aboslute creep at the presser tuesday am.

It was very telling when at the presser on Tuesday am with state authorities they took NO QUESTIONS. After the school authorities stumbled like crazy all day Monday and at two pressers.

And the convocation was just pink suger, laid down FAST. With a lot of fucking religion.

I dunno maybe Nikki would like to say a few other things now.

29. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Boyz should dance in the aisles…

this is how ABC World News assesses the SC ruling (from their email alert for the evening News):

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban:

The Supreme Court upholds a ban on the so-called partial-birth abortion, ruling that it does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. ABC’s legal correspondent Jan Crawford-Greenburg is in Washington, D.C., and will report on the impact of this very important ruling,

the biggest victory for anti-abortion advocates in recent history.

30. aemd - 18 April 2007

“I dunno maybe Nikki would like to say a few other things now”

From a google stream, looks like Prof Giovanni is pulling a “Roy” and trying to get that cat outta the bag.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/story/3945068p-4557054c.html

” ‘It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating,’ poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN Wednesday.

“I know we’re talking about a youngster, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings,” she said. “There was something mean about this boy. It was the meanness – I’ve taught troubled youngsters and crazy people – it was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak.”

Giovanni said her students were so unnerved by Cho’s behaviour, including taking pictures of them with his cell phone, that some stopped coming to class and she had security check on her room. She eventually had him taken out of her class, saying she would quit if he wasn’t removed.”

And from the The Smoking Gun via the Reason snarkfest, “Richard McBeef.”

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

31. Miss Devore - 18 April 2007

MSOC managed to get a #1 rec diary on dk, entitled “You Fuck, You Die” and it seems to be degenerating into people calling her on “kos has asked us not to use that language in titles..” squabbling.

There not even giving the blogmaids mops anymore–just moistened towlettes.

32. marisacat - 18 April 2007

A snip from the latest AP (via The Guardian):

In November and December 2005, two women complained to campus police that they had received calls and computer messages from Cho, but they considered the messages “annoying,” not threatening, and neither pressed charges, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Neither woman was among the victims in the massacre, police said.

But after the second complaint, the university obtained a temporary detention order and took Cho away for psychiatric evaluation because an acquaintance reported he might be suicidal, authorities said. Police did not identify the acquaintance.

Around the same time, one of Cho’s professors informally shared some concerns about the young man’s writings, but no official report was filed, Flinchum said.

The chief said he was not aware of any other contact between Cho and police after those episodes.

According to court papers, on Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans Hospital. The magistrate signed the order because of evidence Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness. The next day, according to court records, a special justice approved outpatient treatment for Cho.

A medical examination conducted Dec. 14 found that Cho’s “affect is flat. … He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal.”

33. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

wu ming:

…they generally show even less political acumen than the already pathetic democrats…

I wonder how anyone can even tell, given that the only time you hear about 3rd Party candidates is when the press (and their imitators, the liberal blogs) can play up the freak-show aspect. If they can’t find a real freak flag, they sew one from scratch. I recall the hue and cry over Dixon vs. Cantwell on Pandagon when they discovered (or claimed to discover) that he wasn’t registered to vote, at least until recently. Since he made a point of saying that he wanted to moblize citizens too disgusted with the system to get involved, I wonder why the detractors felt that undermined his point;As opposed to making it.

What I see over and over again are local candidates who hit all the highlights that the faithful claim to want as a thirsty man wants water. And over and over again the tastemakers on blogs turning up their noses at such candidates in favor of getting fucked six ways to Sunday once more by a slick-talking photogenic heel who stuffs them full of useless homlies and sends them on their way. The Marcotte-Edwards tete-a-tete just being a particularly bald-faced example.

I will never, in a million years understand this. It’s particularly funny when they write their endless culture warrior articles about the joys of nerdgeekhood, then don’t have any patience for any candidate who doesn’t arrive all airbrushed in Italian shoes and ready for prime-time. Cognitive dissonance. Nothing sells headache remedies quite like it.

34. colleen - 18 April 2007

i know this isn’t news to anyone here, but i shudder when i think of this decision as the beginning, and not just the culmination, of a chain of legal decisions.

Indeed. Did you read the crap from Scalia and Thomas? I’m reaching a point where fear and sorrow is roughly equal. It’s horrible to be ruled by men like this, men who regard us as things they hold dominion over, like pets or livestock.
I will not live this way. I will not shut up or grant them one shred of respect or compliance. I will fight them till I die in every way I can.

35. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

Blogmaids on Parade:

This is bullshit (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
benthos, brouski, jjgtrs

The court didn’t ban all late term abortions, it banned one procedure. As much as I disagree with their logic, I’m not willing to agree with claims that every woman who needs a late term abortion is now doomed. Will anybody die as a result of this? Maybe. Is this a “death sentence” for any woman needing a late term abortion? Definitely not.

This kind of extreme exaggeration does not help our cause. It only damages your credibility and makes liberals look like out of touch extremists.

by dianem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:52:01 PM PDT

……………..

Like I said… some may die (0 / 0)

I don’t know how many, but based on most reports this was not a very commonly used procedure, even for late term abortions. There must be other options available. The real question is how much risk is associated with those procedures and how safe they can be made. Regardless, this is not a death sentence for women who need late term abortions. That kind of statement is instiling unnecesary fear in women.

by dianem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:09:35 PM PDT

36. marisacat - 18 April 2007

MSOC managed to get a #1 rec diary on dk, entitled “You Fuck, You Die” and

oh well more screams at the charnal house. I am sure she can type them in the dark, if need be. Change the date and hit “post”.

However this from “XP” at Para Justicia Y Libertad has been picked up by Raw Story… He popped me an email to say…

I haven’t made it to RS to see it there. He excerpted a graf of mine where I tried to pack in a load of links to BMT and MLW and Outing Marisacat and so on. I did it just for the record, at my own site… but via XP well it is travelling.
:)

37. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Blogmaids. Hell. It’s like an army of Wendys, waiting on Peter Pan. While he tries to decide whether he should lead us all in clapping our hands so that Tinkerbell won’t die.

Yeah, dianem. Keep clapping. That’ll save the womenfolk for sure.

38. marisacat - 18 April 2007

aemd at #30

thansk for that! I figured she was talking thru roy.. but i am glad to see her out there.

I have to say the convocation, ALL Of it made me crazy.

Good, thanks!

(ans sorry! you got caught in moderation)

39. colleen - 18 April 2007

Regardless, this is not a death sentence for women who need late term abortions. That kind of statement is instiling unnecesary fear in women.

what an ignorant and pretentious idiot. To paraphrase:
Don’t scare the brood mares even though I know fuck all what I’m talking about and even admit it

40. Kevin Lynch - 18 April 2007

nothing I can add to the conversation except my voice. incompetence all around. Political. Constitutional. Media. Law enforcement. Incompetence

Kevin

41. marisacat - 18 April 2007

busy little bee:

BLACKSBURG, Va. — Between his first and second bursts of gunfire, the Virginia Tech gunman mailed a package to NBC News containing what authorities said were images of him brandishing weapons and a video of him delivering a diatribe about getting even with rich people.

The package, timestamped in the two-hour window between Monday’s shootings, was sent to NBC News head Steve Capus.

from LAT and AP combined.

42. aemd - 18 April 2007

Ms Cat, more of an editorial but the most current I could find,

“Reports than Emily and Cho were boyfriend and girlfriend now appear to be untrue. Police, in fact, say they aren’t sure ” other than in the mind of Cho ” she even had any relationship with him. ”

And Prof Giovanni is still chatting with the press. Oops did a cat just slip outta the bag? 8-)

“As well today, his former writing teacher, Nikki Giovanni, came forward to talk about the angry young man she had known. How she knew, even before he was named, he was the likely shooter at her school.

“I would have been shocked if it wasn’t,” she added.

Every day in her class, before he was taken out, was an exercise in tense interaction.

It would begin, she said, with her trying to tell him to take off his ball cap and dark glasses.

Her other students were scared of Cho — something he may well have found empowering.”

http://www.torontosun.com/News/2007/04/18/4057007.html

Yep, something is goin’ on and, no doubt, there are “hysterical women” involved (who just won’t STFU and get in line :-) ).

43. marisacat - 18 April 2007

I get a strong impression, just a flying guess, that Roy and Giovanni were brushed off by the VT “leadership group” and the campus police.

I saw a quote float by that his two roomates at VT were completely unaware he had been committed for two days.

44. wu ming - 18 April 2007

ms_xeno,

my comment was informed by the vast majority of third party candidates that i have come across here in northern california. we’ve had a green party mayor here in davis, whose only real accomplishment was getting the town on the daily show for her inane and expensive toad tunnel. i regularly check out the third party canddiate literature and websites when i can find them, but more often than not they show little interewst in actually campaigning outside of a tiny little circle of true believers, have no sense of political theatre (the poor candidate’s advertisement), and are rarely even half competent at stump speaking. to say nothing of actual GOTV footwork, or latching onto initiatives or major issues that might get them leverage (opposition to the war is the sole exception to this rule, to give credit where credit is due)

matt gonzales seems to be the exception to the pattern, from what i have seen. i was really pulling for him in that race, and i hope he runs again, as either a dem or a green.

45. marisacat - 18 April 2007

btw, I picked this up at the VT college paper last night (full text)

Tuesday, April 17th 2007 7:58PM

Students state lockdown occurred late morning

T. Rees Shapiro, CT Staff Writer

Students have stated that Ambler-Johnston Hall was not on lockdown until as late as 10 a.m. yesterday morning.

Meredith Hawkins, a sixth floor West Ambler-Johnston resident described how the halls weren’t under firm security measures until after the second shooting had occurred.

“My roommate left for class at 7:45,” Hawkins said, “and she left the dorm as if nothing had happened.”

“Nothing seemed out of the ordinary at all.” Hawkins said.

“The first word of any lockdown didn’t happen until around 9:45 or so,” Hawkins said. “But they were allowing people to leave, but if you did leave you weren’t allowed back in.”

“It was around 10 or so, maybe even later, that they stopped letting people leaving entirely, but before then, you could just go as you please.” Hawkins said.

Joann Cassano, a sophomore 4th floor West Ambler-Johnston resident, confirmed the same description of the supposed lockdown of the building.

“Us 4th floor people were allowed to leave around 9:10,” Cassano said.

46. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Gov kaine… coming out of the hospital.

The wounded students are “sitting up in bed smiling”.

I am not kidding.

47. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

wu ming:

…whose only real accomplishment was getting the town on the daily show for her inane and expensive toad tunnel…

Hmmm. I have no idea what a “toad tunnel” is, but I wonder what would happen if Barbara Bechnel runs for office again and wants to talk about how her disgust at the death of Stan Tookie Williams made her bolt the DP for the Greens. I wonder if she’d have a prayer of getting on the Daily Show. I may be one of the only non-conservatves in the universe who is totally unenamored with Jon Stewart. But I have my doubts.

Chicken or egg. How many candidates can break out of “true believer” land when the media blocks them at all levels, and that includes our so-called alternative friends whom Mcat keeps such a watchful eye on.

Since I’m left with nothing but tree-huggers and slickers, I guess I’ll take the tree-huggers. The slickers at best are guys like Feingold. They have the skills and will do nothing with them unless they are lavishly compensated at all times. Since I have nothing to offer them that they want, or vice versa, their skills are useless. They might as well be operating from inside a crate on a forklift at the bottom of the sea for all the good they do me.

It would be a kick in the head if Gonzales ran again. Maybe he’d start a contagion, epidemic, whatever you want to call it.

48. D. Throat - 18 April 2007

ACOG NEWS RELEASE

For Release: April 18, 2007
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
(202) 484-3321
communications@acog.org

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC — Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

“Today’s decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

“We have seen a steady erosion of women’s reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court’s action today, though stunning, in many ways isn’t surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion,” he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

“On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us,” said Dr. Laube.

# # #

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is the national medical organization representing over 51,000 members who provide health care for women.

49. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Well Gonzales popped up again recently… but my own guess is he does not plan to run.

Which is a great pity, if he won’t run again that makes the first run just look quixotic.

50. wu ming - 18 April 2007

(from wikipedia page on davis):

Toad Tunnel

The Post Office is a great place to stay if you’re a toad.
Davis’ Toad Tunnel is a wildlife crossing that was constructed in 1995 and has drawn much attention over the years, including a mention on The Daily Show. Because of the building of an overpass, animal lovers worried about toads being killed by cars commuting from South Davis to North Davis, since the toads hopped from one side of a dirt lot (which the overpass replaced) to the reservoir at the other end. After much controversy, a decision was made to build a toad tunnel, which runs beneath the Pole Line Road overpass which crosses Interstate 80. The project cost $14,000. The tunnel is 21 inches wide and 18 inches high.
The tunnel has created problems of its own. The toads originally refused to use the tunnel and so the tunnel was lighted to encourage its use. The toads then died from the heat of the lamps inside the tunnel. Once through the tunnel, the toads also had to contend with birds who grew wise to the toad producing hole in the ground. The exit to the toad tunnel has been decorated by the Post-Master to resemble a toad town.

but she didn’t lift a finger to do anything slightly progresive in terms of wages, unions, affordable housing, what have you. just stuff like this, or wanting to plant gardens for homeless people to eat, while not bothering with, say, shelters or lockers for their stuff. all very feel-good but ultimately rather meaningless stuff.

i understand the difficulties in fighting against a biased media, but you don’t even see greens talking to farmers or workers, or branching out in any way beyond the comfort of the campus undergrads, and even then they barely ever bother to GOTV for their own people. i wish it were different, but it really does seem like a hobby for them. if they bothered to really campaign, i’d take ‘em a lot more seriously. it takes some doing to out-suck the democrats.

51. marisacat - 18 April 2007

From what D Throat posted above @ # 48

Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

it also c r i m i n a l i s e s a medical procedure, intact D & E.

the doctor is not permitted to do what his best judgement may determine.

Kennedy called it too close morally and ethically to infanticide.

Hail the Middle Ages.

52. marisacat - 18 April 2007

BBC World News saying this is the bloodiest day in Baghdad since the surge.

That “every corner” of Baghdad was hit.

53. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

wu ming:

…or branching out in any way beyond the comfort of the campus undergrads…

Uh. I have to disagree here. Somehow I managed to get out and work a little on a campaign despite having not set foot in a college in about twenty years. Unless it was to actually hear a lecture. Or maybe my house was an honorary college for the duration of the house party ?

And call me weird, but I tend to think there’s something wrong with pitting a guy on a motorcycle against a guy with two broken legs and then me yelling at the guy with the broken legs “Get up and run !! You suck !”

But thank you for the information.

54. XP - 18 April 2007

Don’t know if you caught this, but it looks like the shooting was a message to the rich.

Breaking NewsBreaking News

VIRGINIA TECH KILLER SENT PACKAGE TO NBC WHICH INCLUDES A LENGTHY DIATRIBE AGAINST RICH PEOPLE

55. XP - 18 April 2007

ABC really didn’t go into it, but the Sydney Morning Herald has more:

“You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today,” 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui said in an harsh, emphatic voice, in an excerpt shown on NBC Nightly News.

“But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.”

The package was sent by overnight delivery, but did not arrive at NBC until today’s mail. It had apparently been delayed because it had the wrong ZIP code, NBC said.

56. marisacat - 18 April 2007

hmmm this is from the Newsday that draws from both LAT and AP (page 2)

just before this it said his 2 day Dec ’05 comittment was involuntary.

[P]olice said neither of the women who complained about Cho were among his shooting victims Monday.

University officials declined to discuss Cho’s mental health history, citing privacy laws. They said mental health professionals at the school and elsewhere have a responsibility to intervene if they believe someone is a threat to himself or others.

“Mental health professionals have a professional duty to protect their clients and protect the general public,” said Dr. Chris Flynn, director of the Cook Counseling Center, part of the Division of Student Affairs at the school.

“If we felt that … a client represented a danger to himself or others, we’d have a duty to warn. That’s why we have involuntary commitment procedures.”

He added: “We are ethically and legally required to do everything in our power to protect students and the general community.”

Cho was not referred to the university mental health system, Chief Flinchum said, because the private, state-mandated mental health agency off campus has the authority to order commitments.

Ed Spencer, vice-president of student affairs, said a student can be suspended from school only if he or she is found to be in violation of the school’s student judicial code. [snip]

57. outofwater - 18 April 2007

Looks like the MSOC diary was deleted. It had a bad word in the title, and DK is too mainstream for that.

58. marisacat - 18 April 2007

At the rate they delete they should just not do it to begin with.

Diary bulimics.

59. aemd - 18 April 2007

“Diary bulimics”

LOL, the visual on that one.

60. marisacat - 18 April 2007

… and then there is just cruel. Emphasis mine:

Re: Partial Birth Abortion Now Illegal (none / 0)

This decision is terrible but it is my belief that this abortion issue must come to a head. The disinformation and misinformation the right has propagated to utilize abortion as a wedge issue is astounding.

Let the reprecussions begin and let’s see how many women are denied a life saving procedure, how many doctors are arrested, etc.

The public outcry will be overwhelming.

[no, it won't be. - Mcat]

Supporters of “choice” should bide their time.
Several years ago, I remember reading that Portugal (Catholic) criminalized/banned all abortions. Shortly thereafter a teenaged girl was arrested for having an abortion. The father of the child was her own father. She was sent to prison. The public turned away from their new “pro-life” law in horror.

Sometimes, it is best to let the reactionaries win. It may well be the only way to expose their extremists views. Terry Shivo comes to mind. In my opinion, John Edwards’ take on this today was best.

by nlacey (nlacey) on Wed Apr 18th, 2007 at 03:46:19 PM EST

LOL with that take nlacey, Edwards words don’t matter.

In any case I don’t believe either Obama or Edwards today (both decried the decision). Politicking.

Edwards:

I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.

I know I know we are supposed to believe them. I will look and see how Edwards voted in 2003.

Obama:

“I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”

************************

FYI: The City of San Francisco joined in the case in 2003, joining with PP. The ONLY city to do so.

Harlots that we are…

61. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Well, the things-will-get-better-if-they-get-worse speech apparently only has validity when uttered by a Democrat.

(cough.)

62. colleen - 18 April 2007

LOL! I’m pretty sure that Matt Stoller just banned me from My DD for disagreeing with the ridiculous spin of blaming NARAL for the loss of women’s reproductive rights. At least I can no longer comment or rate there. Dana and Markos will be so pleased with Matt.
I wonder if it was because I mentioned that the current Chair of the Judiciary committee voted for this abomination, that almost all the Dem leadership is anti-choice and that the Democrats are a fuck of a lot more responsible for the current debacle than the powerless NARAL.
I swear, they come up with this crappy spin on email lists.

63. outofwater - 18 April 2007

Does anyone have that Markos sitemeter link?

It makes me feel good to look at it.

64. marisacat - 18 April 2007

oow

its the little box at the bottom of each page. Little rainbow box.

65. marisacat - 18 April 2007

colleen..

4 in leadership voted for it.. Daschle Reid Leahy + anotehr ranking on a committe (can’t think right now) and 13 others.

In a bit I will look up the roll call.

They always get what they need from the Dems. ALWAYS.

Off to read VichyMyDD… LOL

66. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

I stand by my opinion that NARAL deserves whatever it gets. I fondly recall them calling me the week after Reid’s ascension with no word at all as to how this spelled anything but one more call for pro-choice voters to eat shit. We need a new kind of pro-choice activism just as surely as we need a new political party.

Put them on a boat with MyDD and cut the line.

67. marisacat - 18 April 2007

LOL Here is the VichyMyDD FP slobber for women that colleen commented in…

and her comment (and the sub thread is longer, colleen is called a troll as well by a commenter:

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come (none / 0)

The millions of women they pretend to represent are.

Pardon me, Matt but don’t you think you should be looking a bit closer to home? How about your friends or the peculiar notion that electing pieces of crap like Casey Jr or Harold ford is in the best interests of women and then justifying that with some tortured logic which would only be compelling to the very young and stupid.

Indeed I’ve not seen you or anyone at this blog ‘representing women’ ever and the notion the the Democratic party ‘represents women’ has been pretty well debunked too.

At least NARAL does not do stupid things like threaten to leave the Democratic party if the Dems have a litmus test on reproductive choice like your friend Markos has done. (I say apply the litmus test, we would be far better off without Markos and that lot of self serving bullies and grifters anyway.)

I just visited my email before reading this. Planned Parenthood has an email and a campaign ready to go. Demonize them, that’s what y’all do best. Meanwhile rather than donate to the campaigns of vile pieces of Democratic crap like Casey Jr or Langevin (who you guys failed to shove down our throats only because he had the good sense to drop out) or anti-choice Harry Reid or the utterly vile Rahm Emmanuel I’m supporting Planned Parenthood and I’m never voting for a Catholic Democrat again.

by colleen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come (none / 0)

If you want to attack me, first spell my name right. It’s ‘M-A-T-T’, not ‘M-A-R-K-O-S’.

I blogged in support of Langevin’s primary opponent, and I gave $100 to Casey’s primary opponent. For me choice is non-negotiable.

At the same time, I bristle when you attack me and my friends for organizing and working for our values, especially when you do it using false information. You don’t get a free pass on this. Organize.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come (none / 0)

I spelled your name right. I pointed out that the Democratic party and some of your friends are a good deal more hostile to women’s reproductive rights than NARAL and it’s the Democratic party y’all raise money for.

Blaming the mess that led to this decision (with a good many other horrible decisions to come from our Vatican controlled SCOTUS) on NARAL and dissing Planned Parenthood when there are some very large elephants (and donkeys) in the room who actually ARE responsible (for instance the current Chair of the senate Judiciary voted for this obscene piece of shit) is not useful. If you wish to organize I suggest you do so with a more equatable and honest distribution of blame.
NARAL has zip power to affect anything at this point. An endorsement from them is like an endorsement from Madonna.

by colleen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 06:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

68. marisacat - 18 April 2007

ms xeno

do you see support for NARAL here?

From me

From colleen or other women?

I have posted repeatedly against Keenan and BOTHERED to look up her history with the Dem party in MT. And left comments in as many places as I could over a year. Just for the hell of it.

I have also posted about the work done by NARAL SD inside SD when the leg (laoded with Dems) in SD came up with their heinous bill.

I wish it was cut and dried.

What I wrote is linked over in the right column under 2006. The word NARAL is prominent in the title.

Any body wants to they can find it.

69. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Nope, Mcat. And I wasn’t trying to disrespect colleen, either. It just galls me that these supposed allies, whether NARAL or MyDD, don’t seem to care about anything but keeping the money spigot flowing. It’s no wonder they fight. They’re competing for the same pigeons, but neither would-be savior seems to do all that much to earn their pay. It’s all just bluster and swagger and “on to the next abject surrender” as they say over on SMBIVA.

I’m not pissed at either of you. Frankly without you my headache would be about seventy-five times worse.

70. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007
71. marisacat - 18 April 2007

New Thread

LINK

72. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Yeah but really you might want to read about NARAL SD.

i am sure they struggle with NARAL National.

But they are just people on the ground in a frontline battle. Remarkable, ordinary people. The head of NARAL SD is a UU Universal Unitarians, they have fought for decades for abortion rights.

And from their tiny number, 183, and they were the faith group that fought hardest came the young woman who told her terrible story of horrific rape. To try ot help.

It is not cut and dried.

Stoller probably creamed in his jeans that he got to write what he did today. It was offensive and ignorant. He knows as little as possible. and knows nothing of nan Aron for instance but what he hears from Bloo Dogs and Yella Dogs In DC, I would imagine

what a shame it all is.

Martin put up a post asking for real life to be explained to him, then he never commented in the thread.

Lotta frustration around. SOmeone did mention the diary by Kahli at BMT and I did raed it.. that was th reason I even saw the ridiculous slap in the face post from Martin.

73. marisacat - 18 April 2007

Next time Boyz beg for money… this is good to keep in mind. From the ignorant abortion thread at VichyMyDD.

Re: Planned Parenthood Does It Right (none / 0)

No, I’m saying that money is not a strategy.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

74. ms_xeno - 18 April 2007

Local and national aren’t the same thing, though. I mean, I was crazy about some of the folks in my Local when I was Union. Some of the state bigwigs, though, and the National, I could have flung pies at. Were I the pie-throwing type.

As for Stoller and Booman and the rest, might as well stash that stuff away in case they think better of it and take it down later. Those are the people we’re up against. Their willful ignorance and arrogance is modeled on their daddies in D.C. Might as well have solid evidence of that, in case anyone decides later to accuse us of paranoia, or misandry, or whatever…

75. marisacat - 18 April 2007

I know local and national are not the same. That is the point I was making.

I said they struggle with the naional.

OK I am done for while: there is a new thread if anyone wants it.

76. colleen - 18 April 2007

And I wasn’t trying to disrespect colleen, either. It just galls me that these supposed allies, whether NARAL or MyDD, don’t seem to care about anything but keeping the money spigot flowing.

I didn’t take that as disrespect MsX and it is galling. The national organizations and charaties of all sorts and all over the political spectrum are just grifters schemes anyway. But the amount of money donated to the Democratic party so far exceeds NARAL’s budget that I’m just appalled that none of the operatives pretending to be concerned about reproductive rights are willing to take to task any element in the party. I mean we’re talking about digits here, entire economies of scale.

Indeed Stoller just got all huffy and banned me for mentioning the Dems PRIMARY responsibility in this debacle. I’ve been active in reproductive rights since before he was born and he told me to organize and than banned me. Good lord

It’s such revolting spin, it’s so disrespectful. How stupid they must think we are.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: