So the esoteric hiring issue is noteworthy, but still not a single word about our soon-to-be-president's desire to rewrite current abortion law? If feminism had any credibility left after its silence circa White House 1998, it's being frittered away via right now. The XX Factor's silence on Obama is but one example of it.

Grrrrrrl Power!

So what does Obama want to do?

Wow, I'm as clueless as Spiker, God strike me down now! ;)

Seriously, WTF do you think Obama wants to do about abortion other than protect it?

With all due respect, every major news outlet in America has reported on it over the past two weeks or so. A summary, and links:

"Those who work on the front lines of the abortion debate couldn't quite believe what they were hearing: Obama, in an interview with a Christian magazine, seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions. They feared that Obama, like Democrat John Kerry in 2004, was adopting a view favored by abortion opponents to appeal to conservatives."

"That kind of statement really feeds into the wingnut argument that women have abortions because they are frivolous about that decision, because we are having a bad hair day," Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said in an interview Wednesday. "There seems to be an information gap there."

<link>

<link>

I don't see this as an issue as totally agree with Obama on this issue. IMHO abortion on viable fetuses should only occur under the strictest guidelines, and even then I think if there is only a minimal chance of the baby surviving and developing normally. The mother's mental health isn't enough unless it's so severe that it threatens either life.

Being pro-choice shouldn't have to mean that you are in favor of abortion by choice from week 0-40. I really think after the first trimester is a much different scenario than before, and in the 3rd shouldn't even really be in the conversation unless there are SERIOUS health risks to one or both. However, what gets lost in all these discussions of what should be allowed in the tiny minority of cases is that > 90% of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks and it's even higher for the first trimester. But the official position on abortion would be more popular, and morally correct if there was no abortion by choice after the first trimester unless the mother's health is at risk, or the fetus has a known severe abnormality that can't be determined before 14 weeks. And I don't see why someone is labelled anti-choice in having this position. I have no problem with abortion under the right circumstances, but in performing it on a viable fetus you need to really convince me why it's necessary as opposed to just delivering early...

What about repeaters?

What about repeat impregnators/abandoners and deadbeat dads?

Vasectomies all around?

Yes being pro-choice pretty much DOES mean that you HAVE to support abortion by choice from week 0-40. You don't have to be "in favor" of it, but you have to support it.

Why?

Well because at the heart of the issue is The Government's Right/Power to reach into the body of any of its citizens on the pretext of "preserving life", and demanding control of that body in violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 13th Amendments to the US Constitution (not to mention the fact that no-where is such a powr CEDED to The Government).

Thus there really is no basis for qualifying a woman's right to control her reproductive organs.

• Either The Government, in the name of "preserving life", has the right to demand our bodies,
• Or The Government, has no right to control our bodies except in the very narrow contexts that the Constitution has ceded to it (post conviction, calling forth the militia, taxation).

There really is no STRUCTURAL middle ground here. Roe's biggest weakness is that it DID try to find a middle ground, and hence it has been pulled back and forth like taffy.

B.S.

1) The govt. drafts people and puts them in harms way all the time.

2) The govt. forces people to pay taxes, for many against their will.

3) Unwilling fathers are forced to pay child support.

4) There seems to be more common law than admited to in the past regarding abortion and its prohibition.

Abortion can be regulated, is regulated, and will be regulated. Repeat abortion seekers strongly indicate that abortion should most definitely be subjected to regulations that society as a whole comes to consensus on. Get over it.

All your examples are EXPLICITLY IN the Constitution

1) The govt. drafts people and puts them in harms way all the time.

Its in the Constitution - Article I Section 8 "militia clause"

2) The govt. forces people to pay taxes, for many against their will.

Taxing assets is not involuntary servitude. The Government cannot force you to donate blood for example, to pay for your outstanding tax bill. Furthermore to get around the Am 4 restrictions on seizure and the Am 5 "takings clause" BOTH of which precluded taxation the Constitution had to FIRST be amended to cede to Government the power to collect income tax. Its called the 16th Amendment

3) Unwilling fathers are forced to pay child support.

This is a tort claim that comes about only after Due Process. Since Am 5 and Am 4 requirements have been satisfied settling tort claims IS part of The Governments power (Article III Section 2). Note though, that Amendment 13 precludes The Government from forcing the father to work, or to donate blood to pay for that child support. It is purely a civil tort that satisfies Due Process and Reasonable Seizure clauses.

4) There seems to be more common law than admited to in the past regarding abortion and its prohibition.

So what? More is not sufficient. CONSISTENT is required.

That abortion currently IS regulated is a consequence of the weakness of Roe, not out of any inherent Constitutionality of those regulations. And in the long run it will go down the same path as the poll tax.

Repeat abortion seekers simply indicate that they repeatedly seek abortions. It has no bearing on whether or not abortion can or should be regulated any more than the continuous need for blood and organ donation means that The Government should be given the power to demand you give up a kidney "to preserve life".

Cry what you will.

The poll tax did not have the favorability rating regulating abortion has.

Get over it.

In the culture war, eventually, your ill conceived virtue in abortion will end.

And how does "popularity" have anything to do with the Constitutionality of anything? Again, the issue is what The Government is allowed to do.

The realityh is that something like 70% support the right to abortion in one manner or another. That means that 70% oppose the notion of The Government getting to reach into a woman's body and automatically control her reproductive organs.

And if you poll on the issue of The Government having the right to compell organ or blood donation, the opposition to The Government's power to do so rises even higher. So if the tradeoff is

• Allowing The Government to compell organ donation
• Allowing a woman to chose whether or not to have an abortion without government interference

Then antoi-choice loses. Every time.

Abortion has never been stopped, even when women were considered property and slavery was deemed reasonable. There is no reason to believe that in a world where slavery is deemed unacceptable that you will have even a fraction of the luck in forcing women to carry to term against their wills.

Sorry, the same forces that would better regulate abortion are the same forces that would be against compelling organ donation.

States, as you concede, did have laws regulating abortion. The constitution did not take that right away from them. All the consitutional claims you make fabricating a right to abortion are just that - fabrication.

Since there is no right to forbid abortion built into the Constitution, and since Am 14 incorporates Bill of Rights as well as Am 13 onto States as limits to their power, then States ALSO have no such right to regulation abortion.

So until you create a legally sound rubrik (ie logically consistent and based in the Constitution structure) as to how it is Constitutional to regulate abortion your claims about a "fabricated right to abortion" is disputed by the very text of the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

The first paragraph says that since controlling the reproductive organs of residents is not mentioned in the US Constitution it is a right that might belong to the people

The second paragraph says that since controlling reproductive organs is not mentioned in the US Constitution, It belongs as a right to either the people or the States, BUT since Am 13 and Am 4 preclude its regulation by the states, the right to control reproducive organs belong to the individual people.

Now you don't like this, so you try to get around it with infocations of popularity and name calling and such, but the reality is that there is NOT a Constitutional basis for regulation. States have lots of laws that are unconstitutional, and over the years they slowly get invalidated. Abortion regulation has been largely invalidated. Its not going back into the back rooms.

I'm sorry but they did regulate it (abortion) before we became a country and we regulate it today.

The person in denial is simply you.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The people (i.e. the States) have retained the right to regulate abortion. Simply look at the recent crude attempt by a state to enforce informed consent on would be abortion seekers.

You are simply laughable at your denial of facts on the ground.