Late Morning Links

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

106 Responses to “Late Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Dave Krueger | 

    I don’t under stand this:

    Republicans love Alaska (65-3) and Texas (66-9), and absolutely hate California (12-68), followed distantly by Illinois (15-44) and Massachusetts (19-47). So the greatest partisan gap is for California, which Democrats like 91 points more than Republicans do, followed by Texas, which is favored more by Republicans by 82 points.

    If 12% of republicans favor California, how can democrats favor it by 91 points more than republicans?

  2. #2 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Oklahoma DAs want a law requiring a prescription for cold medicine.

    Let me fix this:

    Oklahoma DAs what to increase employment opportunities for lawyers.

  3. #3 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    •” . . . a pair of Google-made glasses that will be able to stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.”

    Awesome, let the trumpets play…the final culmination of the Information Superhigway.
    Surprisingly, nobody’s gonna bump into any walls wearing these doohickeys, or swerve on the road.
    Because there’s an app for that.

  4. #4 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Crap. What should have been want.

  5. #5 |  H. Rearden | 

    You kike the Santorum headlines? Try this

  6. #6 |  Les Wes | 

    How dare you besmirch ‘Waterworld’!

  7. #7 |  MountainTiger | 

    1: I think it must be 91 points of net favorability, so Republicans are at -56 and Democrats at +35.

  8. #8 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Alan Turing was simply awesome. One of the greatest minds humanity has ever known. He also helped defeat the Nazis and played a part in launching the digital age.

    I’ll bet after all that good work he was able to retire nicely and comfortably live out his remaining days. I’ll go read on wiki how he retired.

    Oh god…

  9. #9 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Last month a Cook County jury found Bolling, 42, a veteran narcotics officer, guilty of aggravated DUI, reckless homicide and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death of Trenton Booker, 13. At Bolling’s scheduled sentencing Wednesday at the Criminal Courts Building, Judge Matthew Coghlan has a wide range of options. He could impose anything from probation up to 15 years in prison.

    Over/under is at “time served”. Anyone want the “over”? Anyone?

    Let’s see if “He’s suffered enough…and he’ll never be a cop again” makes it into the article when sentencing is announced.

  10. #10 |  B | 

    “…something progressives should keep in mind on this stuff: a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.”

    I’m very sympathetic to this point. (Really, I am.)

    But for me (and most progressives, and probably no small number of left-leaning libertarians,) forgoing a progressive policy on abortion for a high-minded libertarianism feels like unilateral disarmament in the face of hard-core culture warriors, whom I frankly do not believe for a minute would be willing to make the comparable exchange.

    For good or ill (and probably mostly ill), the battleground on abortion right now is in the regulation of health insurance.

  11. #11 |  Debi | 

    “here’s something progressives should keep in mind on this stuff: a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.”

    State governments all over this country are passing legislation making it effectively impossible to obtain an abortion. Conscience clauses, Planned Parenthoods being defunded, and extravagant costs are making it more and more difficult to obtain birth control. Different states fight for or against abortion and birth control insurance coverage. The goal of the anti-women crowd at the moment is to push through as many bans as possible in order to make the women’s rights organizations go broke while fighting them in court.

    From last year: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/map-state-abortion-coverage-ban

    More info from Guttmacher (pdf): http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

  12. #12 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    “a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.”

    Oh, HELL, yes! The problem is that the Establishment Left has held sway for so long that they can’t really imagine a time when they aren’t a significant influence on Policy. Oh, they can kick the notion around in apocalyptic visions of dystopias run by the ‘Christian Right’, but they don’t really BELIEVE it. They can’t see the advantages of a strictly hobbled Government, because they can’t imagine a Government that they have little or no influence over.

  13. #13 |  derfel cadarn | 

    Oklahoma residents demand law requiring DAs to have IQs higher than citrus fruit. If Okies have such an overwhelming need to use chemicals as a distraction from every day life there is a more serious problem than otc cold meds. Perhaps it is society that has the problem and not the users. There are circumstances that lead to drug abuse and it is NOT the availability of cold meds. If these bastards were any dumber they could run for President.

  14. #14 |  Mike T | 

    #9,

    Before Roe v. Wade, it was a state issue. Your side declared war on social conservatives when you took away our power to legislate for ourselves in our states. Prior to that, we were content to let states like NY have lax abortion laws that legalized abortion in the first trimester. You only have yourselves to blame for this.

  15. #15 |  Mike T | 

    Oh, they can kick the notion around in apocalyptic visions of dystopias run by the ‘Christian Right’, but they don’t really BELIEVE it.

    Which is ironic since according to polls done on religious views, only at most 11% of Americans can actually be called traditional Christians of any sort, let alone fundamentalists and that number has collapsed into about 4-5% for the Millennials.

  16. #16 |  SamK | 

    Eh, it’s either health insurance or it’s not.

    If abortion has an appropriate place in medicine outside of simple choice (it does) then it had damned well better be in your health insurance.

    You don’t like elective abortions? Fine. Argue it, legislate it, and deal with it. You don’t like health care that covers removing a fetus that doesn’t have a head? GTFO of my planet.

  17. #17 |  MH | 

    “For good or ill (and probably mostly ill), the battleground on abortion right now is in the regulation of health insurance.”

    Call me crazy, but shouldn’t one’s support for a policy depend on the merits of said policy, instead of folding it into some larger culture war?

  18. #18 |  DoubleU | 

    “President Santorum” ugh. Glenn Beck (yes I know) once described politics as a pendulum, it swings back and forth from left to right. The arch of the political pendulum doesn’t get weaker, but keeps swinging further to one side only to come back and swing further in the opposite direction. Maybe not “President Santorum” but there is a chance to get someone like him.

  19. #19 |  Debi | 

    “Before Roe v. Wade, it was a state issue. Your side declared war on social conservatives when you took away our power to legislate for ourselves in our states. Prior to that, we were content to let states like NY have lax abortion laws that legalized abortion in the first trimester. You only have yourselves to blame for this.”

    No state should have the right to relegate women into slaves of the state, forced to reproduce against our wishes. You want to decrease the need for abortion, then fight for (financially and physically) accessible birth control, better services for struggling families, and comprehensive sex education. You want to control women, then be prepared for a very long fight. We’re not backing down.

  20. #20 |  Bruce S | 

    ” a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.”

    I do think Radley’s making an important point here. Would it be perhaps better to put an option on state or federal tax forms to contribute to a reproductive health fund? Similar to the option to put a dollar into public campaign financing? Leverage the majority support (I would think many liberals and moderates would be happy to contribute) and defang the argument against “their tax dollars paying for abortions.”

    Fiddling with the tax code is definitely not the ideal way to deal with this. It would be simpler for the government to provide insurance/reproductive coverage directly. But there is a vocal minority who have moral problems with that approach. As much as we might not like it, we do have to share the country with them At least at first try an approach that honors those concerns and that still achieves the goal of protecting women’s health. (Similar to the administrations compromise on birth control. It didn’t please the Catholics who center their religion around sexual matters, but did reassure organizations that focused on providing health care.) After all, our country can easily afford to pay for theses services, and enough people support reproductive rights to fund care, either thru public or private means. It just about how to supply that money. (Obviously, I don’t think there should be compromise on the legality of fundamental rights. But there should be a way to avoid forcing people to pay for things that violate their conscious. And while we’re at it, perhaps we could allow those with moral objections to war the choice to not fund the military).

    -Bruce

  21. #21 |  Carl-Bear | 

    Speaking of “Artists who don’t create their own work”, if anyone wants to be a science fiction writer, I have the complete, unlimited rights to three books (one a Prometheus nominee) for sale. You can buy one or all three, file my name off, put yours on, and do whatever the hell you want with them.

    Full disclosure: You would also have to deal with the pirates selling copeies yourself. I’m tired.

  22. #22 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    B,

    I am Pro-Abortion. And we are going to lose.

    Why are we going to lose? Because the people we are allowing to drive the politics of this issue are idiots. Three points;

    1) The movement isn’t “Pro-Choice”. If it was “Pro-Choice” it would, at a minimum, loudly condemn the mainland Chinese for their forced-abortion policies. That is the absolute minimum requirement for calling the Pro-Abortion side of the argument “Pro-Choice” and not inviting widespread contempt.

    2) Partial-Birth Abortion looks like infanticide. In a scientific context, maybe it could be defended. Public opinion isn’t a scientific context. We cannot afford the public opinion cost of defending Partial Birth Abortions. And yet, those who drive the cause will not stop, because they are more interested in parading their Moral Superiority than they are in preserving Abortion.

    3) Opposing Parental Notification is also political poison. Again, perhaps if things were actually debated on their rational merits this position could be defended. As matters stand we would be better off running as white-supremacy candidates in Brooklyn. OK, I can imagine parents who should not be told that their underage daughter needs an abortion. But most people and NO parents want people to be able to NOT tell them that their daughter needs an abortion. This is another position that we CANNOT WIN. It is another position that those who drive the politics of our side will not change, because they are more interested in their moral superiority than they are in abortion. Furthermore, given the mindset of certain segments of the Cause, it is pretty much guaranteed that, as more and more states pass parental notification laws, some godsdamned fools will take to smuggling underaged girls across state lines to get abortions. And that means that, inevitably, some girl who was so smuggled will die in the back seat of somebody’s car, from complications. And that will be the death of Abortion Rights. The movement will be dead at that point, whether it still twitches or not.

    Abortion will still be legal in Nevada. It may be legal in a few other states, under severe restrictions. Anyone who is caught taking an underage girl to Nevada for an abortion will be able to count on spending some serious time in Federal prison. And we won’t be in any position to fight back for a decade.

  23. #23 |  Goober | 

    Alan Turing was chemically castrated in a deal to avoid prison time. Shortly thereafter, it is widely believed that he committed suicide by taking cyanide. One of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind, destroyed by government.

    His crime?

    He was homosexual, which was a crime in 1950′s England.

    THIS, people, is why I think Santorum is as evil a man as has ever walked the Earth, because this sort of thing is the inevitable result of forcing your morality on others via legislation and law.

    Any person who looks at, for instance, a man smoking marijuana and harming no one, or, on the other hand, a violent group of men breaking down the door to a private residence, physically assaulting a person who has hurt no one else, and then putting him in an iron box for the next few years for the crime of hurting absolutely no one, and say that the man smoking marijuana is the criminal, and the violent response to that crime is the moral thing is evil. Plain and simple.

    Anyone who could look at what Alan Turning did in his life, and then suggest that he got what he had coming to him for his “immoral” lifestyle should be chemically castrated as part of a plea deal to avoid prison, and then commit suicide by cyanide poisoning.

  24. #24 |  Debi | 

    Bruce S – I’m not opposed to your idea, but I’d like to see the same option for everything that our tax dollars go to. I morally oppose funding a large number of government bodies that I consider unConstitutional or are routinely violating the Constitution. I morally oppose war and the death penalty. I would love to give more money to people in need. The problems with this approach are that it would be incredibly complicated, and that it would be argued that our government representatives are already doing this job by fighting for what their constituents want to support, and voting against what we don’t. (I think our representatives are fighting for what corporations are paying them to support, and no longer care about their individual constituents, but whatever.) Oh, one last problem? The Hyde Amendment could get in the way when it comes to federal funds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

  25. #25 |  Brandon | 

    “No state should have the right to relegate women into slaves of the state, forced to reproduce against our wishes. You want to decrease the need for abortion, then fight for (financially and physically) accessible birth control, better services for struggling families, and comprehensive sex education. You want to control women, then be prepared for a very long fight. We’re not backing down.”

    Get off the fucking cross. No one is talking about forcing you to reproduce any more than you are advocating forcing everyone to have an abortion. But forcing other people to pay for something that they find morally reprehensible is just as bad. So, as usual, if the left and right sides of the authoritarian coin would just pull their heads out of their asses, they would realize that the libertarian solution works best for everyone. Remove the barriers of access to birth control by selling it OTC, and you make it cheaper and more accessible to any woman who wants it without forcing anyone else to pay for it.

  26. #26 |  EBL | 

    I am not a fan of Santorum’s anti libertarian streak, his past “compasionate conservative” big government solutions, or hostility to same sex marriage..but “terrifyingly possible?” That is almost Sullivanesque. If I had to choose between Santorum or Obama, I would choose Santorum without hesitation. I doubt Santorum would get in very much mischief as “theocrat in chief.” A lot of the attacks lately are old clips of him speaking to religious groups. Less controversial to me than Obama speaking freely to his friends about “bitter clingers” or listening to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons for twenty years. The fact is Santorum is not that charismatic a leader to cause some mass religious revival, even if he wanted to.

  27. #27 |  BamBam | 

    @24, don’t be so sure. Past speeches/videos are a strong indicator of how the person views the world, and thus how that person would wield The Gun In The Room (government) when it’s in their hands. Santorum would likely be overly excited and spew his Santorum everywhere via Executive Order signings (also illegal, as only Congress can make law). And attacking other countries? Santorum will take it to greater heights, as (peace) Obama did compared to Bush, as Bush did compared to Clinton, etc.

  28. #28 |  EBL | 

    I mean really, Washington State proposes a bill that would obviously offend the consciences of pro lifers and you twist it into Santorum banning abortions? Santorum is very clear: Santorum wants a constitutional amendment that life begins at conception and limiting marriage between a man and a woman. Good luck with that. Do you see either passing? I do not.

    Before you all go into a panic over Santorum, This is well worth contemplating over this issue. I would rather someone be “straight” with me and I can disagree with them. As opposed to a hypocrite in chief.

  29. #29 |  EBL | 

    If Santorum managed to win the White House, I think you would see the Democrats suddenly look better in the House and Senate. It is perfectly okay to disagree with Santorum (I disagree with him on a lot of issues). But in terms of damage, Obama is doing more damage than I think Santorum would do. Santorum would be lucky if he could just repeal Obamacare and adopt the Ryan budget.

  30. #30 |  Shannon's Mouse | 

    “…a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.”

    This has got to be one of the lamest points trotted out from time-to-time in support of smaller government. How about:

    …a government powerful enough to enforce property rights is a government powerful enough to infringe them.

    …a government powerful enough to forbid murder and rape is a government powerful enough to commit murder and rape.

    Speaking in vague generalities like this about the size of government is silly. First, figure out the purpose of government. Then, figure out what’s cool and what’s not cool for it to do, given that purpose. The size of the government is an output of that messy process.

    If you think it’s perfectly fine for companies to offer “health insurance” that doesn’t cover abortions, or contraception, or setting broken bones, or pre-natal care, or statin mediation, or heart surgery, or… then just say so. But let’s not engage in the fantasy of thinking that the Rick Santorums of the world would stop their push to restrict/ban access to abortion if only liberals would jump on board the libertarian “small government” train. In the end, it’s the underlying normative claims that count, not attachment to vague ideas of “small” vs “large” government.

  31. #31 |  dsmallwood | 

    …a government powerful enough to enforce property rights is a government powerful enough to infringe them.

    wasn’t that Kelo?

  32. #32 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    forcing other people to pay for something that they find morally reprehensible is just as bad.

    This argument is usually narrowly applied to the subject a person cares about, but never all the things I find morally reprehensible (war, corporate welfare, libraries).

  33. #33 |  Bob | 

    So, I’m confused as to how this works. Abortion is bad because conception would be impossible without God’s total control over the process, right?

  34. #34 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I doubt Santorum would get in very much mischief as “theocrat in chief.”

    If you think Santorum would be harmless, I’d like to remind you a lot of people thought the same thing about GW Bush…and he broke my Harm-o-meter.

  35. #35 |  Radley Balko | 

    If you think it’s perfectly fine for companies to offer “health insurance” that doesn’t cover abortions, or contraception, or setting broken bones, or pre-natal care, or statin mediation, or heart surgery, or… then just say so.

    That’s just the point. Whether or not I or Rick Santorum or Barack Obama think it’s “perfectly fine” shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t force private companies from covering any of those things. It shouldn’t prohibit them from covering them, either. I’ll never understand this mentality. Why does everything have to be imposed upon people? Instead of giving government the power to determine what insurers do and don’t cover, why not let insurers and their customers figure it out themselves, and let people choose companies that offer what they want and need?

    Funny that word. Choose. On reproductive issues, nothing is more sacred for the left. On everything else, choice falls way, way down the list of priorities.

    The linked article points out that most insurers in the state already cover abortion. So what’s the point in giving government the power to mandate it? And sorry, but if either right or left heeded my larger point, we’d be a hell of a lot better off. Why do you want to put your life in the hands of politicians? Every time you demand government get some new power to force people to do things, for about half your life, the party you dislike will be wielding that power.

  36. #36 |  Debi | 

    “Get off the fucking cross. No one is talking about forcing you to reproduce any more than you are advocating forcing everyone to have an abortion. But forcing other people to pay for something that they find morally reprehensible is just as bad. So, as usual, if the left and right sides of the authoritarian coin would just pull their heads out of their asses, they would realize that the libertarian solution works best for everyone. Remove the barriers of access to birth control by selling it OTC, and you make it cheaper and more accessible to any woman who wants it without forcing anyone else to pay for it.”

    Plenty of people are trying to force me and other women to reproduce by restricting abortion access to the point that it’s unattainable.
    I’ve already said that making birth control pills available OTC is a good idea. There are other forms of birth control, as well as sterilization methods, which I believe should be covered by insurance. I have to pay for things that I find morally reprehensible all the time. Lots of people do. Being forced to pay for things you find morally reprehensible isn’t nearly the same thing as being forced to continue a pregnancy. The fact that you have no understanding of just how invasive and abhorrent that is speaks volumes. The vast majority of women use birth control at some point in their lives. The issue here is that it’s women who want it. If we were talking about something that most men need and use, there wouldn’t be a debate.

  37. #37 |  Radley Balko | 

    I am not a fan of Santorum’s anti libertarian streak, his past “compasionate conservative” big government solutions, or hostility to same sex marriage..but “terrifyingly possible?”

    I find his social conservatism merely offensive. His big government tendencies are par for the course. It’s his foreign policy, civil liberties positions, and belief that he has been anointed by God (and what that means for someone with the power of a president) that I find terrifying.

  38. #38 |  Radley Balko | 

    You want to control women, then be prepared for a very long fight. We’re not backing down.

    I’ve migrated over the years from a mostly anti-abortion position to thinking abortion should be legal in most cases. But it’s this kind of rhetoric that prevents me from aligning with the abortion rights people. It’s positively Orwellian to demand that the government force someone else to pay for your birth control and abortions, then say anyone who disagrees with you, even if they support abortion rights, is “enslaving” or “controlling” you.

    What other things must other people buy for you in order for you to no longer feel enslaved to them?

  39. #39 |  picachu | 

    Debi “Plenty of people are trying to force me and other women to reproduce by restricting abortion access to the point that it’s unattainable.”

    That’s still not forcing you to reproduce.

  40. #40 |  EBL | 

    If you have a link on Santorum being anointed by God (in the context you are saying) please share that because I would find that frightening too. I have not seen that.

    And I wish Rick Santorum and Barack Obama would adopt this faith

  41. #41 |  Debi | 

    “It’s positively Orwellian to demand that the government force someone else to pay for your birth control and abortions, then say anyone who disagrees with you, even if they support abortion rights, is “enslaving” or “controlling” you.”

    My response was to this:
    “Before Roe v. Wade, it was a state issue. Your side declared war on social conservatives when you took away our power to legislate for ourselves in our states. Prior to that, we were content to let states like NY have lax abortion laws that legalized abortion in the first trimester. You only have yourselves to blame for this.”

    My response was not about paying for birth control or abortions. It was about the state having the right to make abortion illegal. Taking away my right to make medical decisions about my own body is Orwellian. And if the state forces me to continue an unwanted pregnancy, it is enslaving me. If the state forced you to use your body against you for their own purposes, threatening you with confinement if you refused, what would you call it?

  42. #42 |  Windy | 

    #20,It will remain legal in WA too, without restrictions; WA legalized abortion on demand well before Roe v Wade via a vote of the people.

    #21 Agreed on all points.

    #23 Good job, agreed on all points.

    #25 I agree with you on Santorum, I would not vote for him even if he is the nominee, nor will I vote for Obama. The ONLY candidate for president for whom I will cast a vote is Ron Paul, if he doesn’t win the nomination I will either write him in (provided he’s registered as a write-in candidate in WA, or I will completely withhold my vote for president. Not one of the other contenders is anyone I want for president of our country, and if any of those do get the presidency, I will fear for my children and grandchildren for they will be living in a dictatorship before they die. Whereas if Ron Paul wins the nomination, we can count on a restoration of our unalienable rights and more liberty in the future.

  43. #43 |  lunchstealer | 

    “Funny that word. Choose. On reproductive issues, nothing is more sacred for the left. On everything else, choice falls way, way down the list of priorities.”

    Well, from the left’s point of view, if money changes hands, there’s a level of economic coercion. It’s the same reason that most on the left get apoplectic when you talk about harm reduction through legalization for prostitution. Allowing prostitution is allowing sex predators to prey on economically vulnerable women who are not choosing to be there, but forced there by the evil invisible hand.

    So you’re only free to choose if there’s no economic impact on you whatsoever. Thus, companies must be forced to cover this stuff, ideally at 100% coverage, so you are free to choose whether to get an abortion purely on how you feel, and don’t have to weigh whether you want to spend the money on an abortion or on food.

    It makes perfect sense if you give people zero responsibility for organizing their own budget.

    Of course, if healthcare were decoupled from employment, the whole damned thing would be moot.

  44. #44 |  Debi | 

    “That’s still not forcing you to reproduce.”

    It is if I’m pregnant and want an abortion. Unintended pregnancies account for about half of all pregnancies in the United States. About 40% of those pregnancies are terminated. Remove the option of abortion, and you’re forcing an awful lot of women to reproduce.
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

  45. #45 |  Brandon | 

    “It is if I’m pregnant and want an abortion”

    And there’s absolutely nothing that you could’ve done to avoid that situation…

  46. #46 |  JR | 

    I don’t think Debi understands.

  47. #47 |  Michael Chaney | 

    Debi, no offense, but we’re back to “what causes pregnancy?” You’re not enslaved. The vast majority of abortions are performed on women who consented to sex and didn’t like the (fully predictable) outcome. If you don’t want the pregnancy, don’t get pregnant. It’s actually fairly easy for the vast majority of women.

    It’s also funny that all of the people who are arguing this were actually born. You worry about your body, but, new flash, there’s another “body” involved when you get pregnant. We can argue about when life begins all day long, but it’s impossible to argue that a baby 8 months past conception is anything but a baby.

    I’m probably mostly with Radley on this issue. I’m not going to argue against morning-after pills (it’s no different than using an IUD), but the left’s absolutist stance that any baby not yet naturally born is ripe for aborting is just scary. And, frankly, Orwellian. #22 makes some excellent points, too.

  48. #48 |  nigmalg | 

    For what it’s worth, almost everyone that I’ve talked to about the taser incident have defended the cop. Most of the arguments appear to be “well she shouldn’t have ran”. Yes, those opinions were shared after they watched the video and saw how close the male officer was to the fleeing, handcuffed, suspect. They even continued to justify the cop after understanding the woman is likely going to die of her wounds. So I am lead to believe that fleeing an officer deserves death — Unconditionally.

    The general public, along with the police, have a weak grasp on the idea of the “force spectrum”.

  49. #49 |  Windy | 

    I’m sorry, I should learn to refresh the page before I reply, it appears the post numbers to which I responded have changed, so to clarify:

    My response to
    #20 was actually to #22
    #21 was to #23
    #23 was to #25 and
    #25 was to #27

    Radley kudos on your posts #’s 37 and 38.

  50. #50 |  Debi | 

    “And there’s absolutely nothing that you could’ve done to avoid that situation…”

    Birth control is great… when you can get it, and when it works. I’ve gotten pregnant while taking birth control properly. A helluva lot of my friends have as well. It’s not perfect.

    A significant number of women have been raped. Not just by strangers, but date raped and raped by spouses. Those also account for some unintended pregnancies.

    I’m going to assume that you’re talking about the aspirin method of birth control. The whole, “Keep your legs crossed” thing? For one, that seems to only be expected of women, not men. Why is that, exactly? Second, I don’t believe in abstinence. Sex is pleasurable and I’m going to engage in it. If it didn’t feel good, I wouldn’t have sex, and I’d probably have used a turkey baster to get pregnant with my (very wanted) kids. Third, I’m married. There are actually a lot of married women who terminate pregnancies. I’m not going to stop having sex with my husband just because I don’t want to get pregnant. No sex ’til menopause? No thank you!

    I’m a firm believer in men who don’t want to get anyone pregnant/ don’t want anymore kids getting vasectomies. SNIP! I’d love to see more pressure in that direction, rather than energy being used to push women back to puritanical times.

  51. #51 |  EBL | 

    Here are Santorum’s positions. I disagree with some of them. He is flat out wrong as an observant Catholic on enhanced interrogation. I want to hear more how serious Santorum is on cutting spending. But I agree with Grover Norquist that we need a president who will sign budget cutting legislation. I am positive Barack Obama will not do that.

  52. #52 |  EBL | 

    Windy, I wish I could morph Ron Paul’s fiscal policy into the brains of all the candidates.

  53. #53 |  Windy | 

    I’m going to stop using only numbers of posts in response, so to Brandon #45 and Michael #46, birth control is not always effective I have friends and family members who were on the pill, the patch, and one who had an IUD and all got pregnant anyway. Abortion must remain available to ALL women until ALL forms of birth control are 100% effective.

    And just what the hell is wrong with men helping to avoid pregnancy by using a condom with a spermicidal jelly, even if your female partner says she’s using birth control, huh? You cannot blame a failure of the woman’s birth control on the woman’s neglect if you didn’t also engage in some form of birth control yourself, that would make you equally to blame for an unwanted pregnancy.

  54. #54 |  Debi | 

    “Debi, no offense, but we’re back to “what causes pregnancy?” You’re not enslaved. The vast majority of abortions are performed on women who consented to sex and didn’t like the (fully predictable) outcome. If you don’t want the pregnancy, don’t get pregnant. It’s actually fairly easy for the vast majority of women.

    It’s also funny that all of the people who are arguing this were actually born. You worry about your body, but, new flash, there’s another “body” involved when you get pregnant. We can argue about when life begins all day long, but it’s impossible to argue that a baby 8 months past conception is anything but a baby.”

    If you don’t want women to terminate, then don’t have sex with them. That’s pretty simple. I don’t have any moral qualms about abortion. I should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Don’t deny me my right. Also, pretty simple.

    I was born. My parents purposely conceived me. They were both pro-choice and abortion was legal at the time of my conception. They could have terminated the pregnancy, and I wouldn’t know any different.
    My children were born. I purposely conceived them. I had an abortion before I had them, and I am alive and was able to have my children because I had an abortion. If I didn’t want to continue a pregnancy, I wouldn’t have.
    I’ve had two miscarriages. I’m under no illusion that any pregnancy will continue if not terminated.
    I’m aware of what occurs during the stages of pregnancy. I’m also very aware of the difference of a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy. I’ve had both. I was relieved when I had an abortion. No regrets. I was distraught when I miscarried a wanted pregnancy. It was the loss of a dream. I was relieved when I miscarried an unwanted pregnancy. And I switched birth control methods. I was ecstatic to have my two children.
    If someone wants an abortion in the 8th month because the fetus isn’t compatible with life, then I fully support them. If they don’t want to continue the pregnancy for other reasons, they should be induced and not penalized if the baby doesn’t survive. I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to continue a pregnancy, no matter how far along they are. I do fully support any efforts that anyone wants to make in creating a transporter device to move a fetus from one person to another (willing) person.

  55. #55 |  Shannon's Mouse | 

    “Why does everything have to be imposed upon people? Instead of giving government the power to determine what insurers do and don’t cover, why not let insurers and their customers figure it out themselves, and let people choose companies that offer what they want and need?”

    Well, in the specific case of health insurance, I can think of a few reasons why voters would elect people that would mandate what sorts of coverage must be included in certain types of policies:

    - health is full of uncertainty and laymen can’t predict what they’ll need in the future and don’t have the intimate knowledge of medicine to evaluate the cost/benefit of specific coverages
    - health insurers have found they can make more money by dragging their feet when it comes time to pay out claims, burying people in red tape.

    “And sorry, but if either right or left heeded my larger point, we’d be a hell of a lot better off. Why do you want to put your life in the hands of politicians?”

    In the specific case of health insurance, I’m guessing that many folks prefer their life to be in the hands of politicians they can vote out of office rather than health insurance CEOs. It’s kind of hard for someone to vote with their feet after they become sick and discover their health insurance won’t cover treatment for their affliction and they can’t get other coverage because… pre-existing condition, dontchaknow!

    In the specific instance of birth control your smaller point is reasonable — there are other options available that might make mandates inadvisable. But your larger point, that pushing for mandates in coverage has some sort of relationship with pushes for bans on coverage is garbage. Rick Santorum wants to see fewer abortions performed because he believes an abortion is the murder of a person and that preventing the murder of people is a valid action of government. Giving up on mandates for abortion coverage will not disabuse Santorum or his followers of this belief.
    If enough people hold that belief, the government will act on it. Fealty to any canonical ideal of the size of government will have nothing to do with it.

  56. #56 |  Nancy Lebovitz | 

    C.S.P., it’s not just the left which has that blind spot. When GWB was president, left-wingers would ask right-wingers whether they wanted that expansion of executive power for a Democratic president, and I never saw much of an answer.

  57. #57 |  Brandon | 

    Debi, you try really hard to seem like a victim, and you commit alot of fallacies, so it’s difficult to believe you are arguing in good faith. Just to address a couple: Men cannot unilaterally terminate pregnancies, and if a man’s partner decides to keep an accidental pregnancy, the man will be on the hook for child support even if he does not agree with the decision, so they are not actually on equal footing in that regard, but yes, a man should have a vasectomy if he absolutely does not want kids but still wants to have sex. The difference is that a vasectomy requires planning and accepting consequences, whereas an abortion is an attempt to correct the mistake of not planning ahead. And conflating “you need to be responsible for the consequences of your decisions” is not the same as “Keep your legs crossed,” and doesn’t make me the sexist bigot you are explictly trying to paint me as.

    That said, I’m not against keeping abortion legal, personally, and I know that, in the absence of a federal mandate forcing employers to pay for abortions, many private organizations would provide funding for women who couldn’t afford them on their own, especially in cases of rape and incest. But there is a big difference between people voluntarily choosing to assist others who choose to have abortions and the government forcing everyone to fund them. And I couldn’t care less if you like sex. I like skiing. That doesn’t give me the right to take money from you if I get injured while skiing. Choices have consequences, even if it’s something you “like” to do. Now stop slinging the “Puritanical woman hater!!!!!” mud, it’s demeaning to all of us.

  58. #58 |  30 year lawyer | 

    1. Cops believe no one who is handcuffed has a life worth more than a dirty uniform.

    2. Fat cops can’t run, they taze or shoot.

    3. The Police Department could prevent this by mandatory biannual physical fitness and agility tests (many FIRE departments use these). Flunk one and the officer is in a mandatory, no-pay exercise program. Flunk two and he’s out. Overeating doughnuts is not a disability caused by the job.

    4. My suburb seems to do this. Nore of the 45 officers, even the older Sargeants, are too fat to successfully get physical.

  59. #59 |  EBL | 

    The danger of expansion of entitlements and government is probably the most critical issue we are facing, because it is sending us down the road to becoming Greece. We are like a stage three/four cancer patient engaging in homeopathy right now. Of course Santorum voted for that Medicare expansion put through by Bush, although Santorum says that was a mistake now and he opposes both that and Obamacare.

    I could see the possibility of Roe being revisited by the Supreme Court and possibly being overturned (and frankly I think it should be over turned because it is anti federalist). I doubt a complete ban from abortion will ever happen, in any state. And if Roe is overturned, you watch how there will be a sudden shift on “choice” with the public. These policy positions have an ebb and flow.

  60. #60 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Debi, Windi;

    As I have said in my previous post and often elsewhere, I am in favor of legal abortion. I sympathise with any woman who resents the uneven risks of sex. Nevertheless, I stand by my predictions. Abortion is going to be outlawed or severely restricted in most states, and this is largely because women who have actual lives are allowing hobby-protesters and career activists who are more interested in their own Moral Superiority than in practical politics to dictate how Abortion is defended. I suggest in the strongest possible terms that those of us who want abortion to remain largely legal attend to the following;

    1) Denounce Mainland China’s position.

    2) Abandon Partial Birth Abortion. As I mentioned before; regardless of the facts of the matter, it LOOKS like infanticide. It is a liability we cannot afford.

    3) Drop opposition to Parental Notification. This too is a loser. It can’t be sold politically.

    4) Resign yourselves to losing government funding for abortions, and set up alternate sources of funds. It shouldn’t be impossible. As long as tax money pays for abortions, taxpayers who believe that it is murder will be up in arms. We can’t afford their high level of opposition. They are going to stop fighting against government funding of abortion the same day that the dedicated pacifists who have been camping out in front of the White House protesting against tax money paying for weapons pack up and leave. Give up the funding issue, and suddenly we have a lot less dedicated opposition.

    We really need to concentrate on battles we can win.

  61. #61 |  marco73 | 

    The officer in the Taser incident is Florida Highway Patrol, and they do have physical requirements.
    The girl was at an FHP office being booked for traffic violations. This isn’t a jail. Usually FHP offices don’t have security much beyond a locked door.
    She took her chance and she ran.
    On our news, one of the reasons that a FHP spokesman gave for trying to stop the girl, is that she was running toward a busy road, and the officer was trying to stop her from getting injured. Yeah, right.
    That busy road is about 100 yards away, with a large drainage canal and a chain link fence in the way. In fact, that entire FHP complex is fenced all around and only has one lane in and one lane out. There were other officers alerted, who were on scene moments after the girl went down.
    There was no need to Tase this girl. She would have been caught just a few steps from where she went down.
    The officer was displaying the same mentality as a police car chase: no matter how minor the violation, if you run from a cop they will pursue with everything they have.

  62. #62 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #35 Radley Balko

    On reproductive issues, nothing is more sacred for the left. On everything else, choice falls way, way down the list of priorities.

    Exactly. The hypocrisy is stunning.

    #43 lunchstealer

    Well, from the left’s point of view, if money changes hands, there’s a level of economic coercion.

    Until I actually faced that argument, I wouldn’t have believed it possible for anyone to suggest such an illogical concept with a straight face. My recommendation is that they immediately stop accepting a paycheck and free themselves from the tyranny of money.

  63. #63 |  Dante | 

    “…a government powerful enough to enforce property rights is a government powerful enough to infringe them.”

    Caswell Motel, anyone?

  64. #64 |  Onlooker | 

    marco73

    Agree with your last point. And I would expand by saying that they react with unnecessary violence when presented with any hint of disrespect or challenge of their authority. That just will not stand – ZAP.

  65. #65 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    30 year lawyer: “1. Cops believe no one who is handcuffed has a life worth more than a dirty uniform.”

    Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in this statement. Seeing people as the “other,” the “outsider” or the “apostate” has terrible consequences.

    Intoxicated people often fail to appreciate the gravity of an arrest situation initially. This is especially true of people who have been drinking, but it can apply to other intoxicated people. This delayed reaction can cause people to panic and/or get aggressive after the fact. Sometimes its when they feel the cuffs go on. Sometimes it is later. FHP personnel should be familiar with this phenomenon and should have watched this woman more closely from the second they took her into custody.

    But it didn’t work out that way and she ran. And the closest trooper–who was much larger and, presumably, has received some defensive tactics training–could not stop her without using an electronic weapon. I call bullshit, to say the least. He could have stopped her for sure. I have brought down more threatening people while working as a hospital security officer–some of them have been fleeing–and this trooper outweighs me by nearly 100 pounds!

    This was about teaching someone a lesson. This was about lack of empathy for a fellow human being. Yes, this girl apparently made a mistake. She was irresponsible. But she did not deserve a coma as punishment for her irresponsibility.

    The trooper made a mistake somewhat similar to the girl’s error, in that he did not consider the impact of his actions on other people. He just did what he thought was most expedient. He is lost, confused and full of himself. He views the world as his enemy rather than seeing how we are connected to each other. And now he has permanently harmed another being, not to mention her family and friends. And he has harmed the citizens he is supposed to be working for. And he has harmed his fellow police officers. He has set off an ugly chain of events, and for what. To satisfy his ego. We all do ugly things to satisfy our egos. But this is what happens when our inflated egos blind us to the humanity of others.

  66. #66 |  nigmalg | 

    I feel most of the violent officer stories on this blog are reflective of a social experiment measuring human morality without accountability.

    What happens when humans can do what they want without consequences? We immediately resort to incredible amounts of violence. It scares me because without the active enforcement of laws, it appears humans would quickly succumb to dark-age style behavior. There is no room for “right” or “wrong” in these equations.

  67. #67 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “I thought the proper way to handle it was to wait until the on-duty incident commander arrived on the scene so he can witness our investigation and ensure that we weren’t giving the off-duty police officer any special breaks and that we were conducting a proper investigation,” Brundage said.

    Or you could have contacted the Illinois State Police and had troopers take over the investigation/reconstruction. This is common in many parts of Illinois when police or other local government actors may be involved in crimes or unethical behavior. Indeed, when this protocol is not used, problems–and allegations of favoritism–often ensue.

  68. #68 |  Debi | 

    “Men cannot unilaterally terminate pregnancies, and if a man’s partner decides to keep an accidental pregnancy, the man will be on the hook for child support even if he does not agree with the decision, so they are not actually on equal footing in that regard,”

    Men could be on more equal footing if they’d discuss the possibility of an unintended pregnancy before having sex. I advise that of anyone having sex with a person of the opposite sex: Talk about the “what ifs” and make sure you’re on the same page. I don’t care if you’re having a one-night stand -that conversation needs to happen. I told every guy I had consensual sex with that I’d terminate if they got me pregnant. That didn’t even sway the “pro-life” guys.

    On being responsible – I consider termination to be a responsible choice. Choosing to continue a pregnancy and making plans to either keep the resulting baby or give it up for adoption are also responsible choices. Ignoring the pregnancy, praying for it to go away, hiding it, giving birth in a bathroom, and then wrapping the baby in a trash bag and tossing it in the dumpster are not responsible choices.

    “But there is a big difference between people voluntarily choosing to assist others who choose to have abortions and the government forcing everyone to fund them”

    And there’s a big difference between people voluntarily choosing to fund war and the government forcing everyone to fund them. Yet, here I am, forced to financially contribute to death and destruction.

    “And I couldn’t care less if you like sex. I like skiing. That doesn’t give me the right to take money from you if I get injured while skiing.”

    I would be very surprised if a health insurance company didn’t at least partially cover an x-ray, surgery, screws, a cast, and doctor’s bills if you got injured skiing.

  69. #69 |  Dante | 

    “Men could be on more equal footing if they’d discuss the possibility of an unintended pregnancy before having sex. I advise that of anyone having sex with a person of the opposite sex: Talk about the “what ifs” and make sure you’re on the same page. I don’t care if you’re having a one-night stand -that conversation needs to happen.”

    No offense, but you don’t know much about men’s sex drive. Once the urge gets going, we’ll say anything you want to hear.

  70. #70 |  lunchstealer | 

    #61 Dave Krueger

    My recommendation is that they immediately stop accepting a paycheck and free themselves from the tyranny of money.

    They tried this in the 60s and early 70s, but it turns out that living on a commune with no money is hard and leaves you open to shortages, the free-rider problem, tyrannical leadership from a charismatic leader and/or stupid committee, and pretty much all the bullshit that makes communism suck. Also, without the money, they can’t afford their fair-trade coffee and their insanely overpriced locally-grown farmers’ market produce etc etc etc.

  71. #71 |  EH | 

    WTF is a 267lb cop doing on the street, is the FHP physical *that* easy?

  72. #72 |  Mattocracy | 

    “And there’s a big difference between people voluntarily choosing to fund war and the government forcing everyone to fund them. Yet, here I am, forced to financially contribute to death and destruction.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t like funding shitty programs either, but it doesn’t entitle me to mandate funding of my own personal insurance preferences.

    I don’t understand how the libertarian position of leaving people free to choose and pay for their own abortions is tantamount to women being less free.

  73. #73 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    lunchstealer;

    Indeed. Various forms of communalism have been tried, going back as far as written records reach (and probably farther). There have been notable short-term successes, almost all of which were composed entirely of volunteers that held themselves severally and collectively responsible to a Higher Power, and has a larger non-communal society to fall back on in emergencies. There have also been a large number of dismal failures, even where the aforementioned conditions were met.

    It is far safer to construct a society that works with (rather than against) greed, than one that works with altruism.

    And, historically, societies that work with greed are far more pleasant to live in than ones that work with fear.

  74. #74 |  Debi | 

    C.S.P. – You really seem to want to have this conversation.

    First, I disagree that we’re going to lose this fight. If abortion becomes illegal, it just means that another generation will witness the effects of illegal, botched abortions and will take action to prevent it from happening again by legalizing it – at least for a couple of decades.
    My own position is that the pro-choice groups need to take a page from the LGBT rights movement. We need to de-stigmatize abortion by coming out of the closet. A LOT of women have abortions. Most of us don’t speak up because of the societally-enforced shame of it. Once we start making public our own abortion stories, people will have individual faces to put with the word “abortion”. And that will change minds.

    “As I have said in my previous post and often elsewhere, I am in favor of legal abortion. I sympathise with any woman who resents the uneven risks of sex. Nevertheless, I stand by my predictions. Abortion is going to be outlawed or severely restricted in most states, and this is largely because women who have actual lives are allowing hobby-protesters and career activists who are more interested in their own Moral Superiority than in practical politics to dictate how Abortion is defended. I suggest in the strongest possible terms that those of us who want abortion to remain largely legal attend to the following;

    1) Denounce Mainland China’s position.”

    >>>> I already do. I believe in full reproductive rights. For me, that means that women should be free to have as few or as many children as they choose to have. Even if they are putting themselves at risk by doing so (I stress this because I know a lot of “pro-choice” people were angry with the Duggar family for their choice to get pregnant again.)

    “2) Abandon Partial Birth Abortion. As I mentioned before; regardless of the facts of the matter, it LOOKS like infanticide. It is a liability we cannot afford.”

    >>>>>”Partial birth abortion” isn’t a medical term. The term was created by anti-choicers. The proper term, the term that needs to be used by anyone who cares about the facts, is Intact Dilation & Extraction or D&X. There are numerous reasons why it’s necessary or the more compassionate choice. It has already been restricted. As far as I’m aware, Gonzales v. Carhart hasn’t been overturned. I don’t know of any pro-choice group that is focusing on D&X.

    “3) Drop opposition to Parental Notification. This too is a loser. It can’t be sold politically.”

    >>>> I don’t know any groups focusing on this at this stage, either. I’m opposed to parental notification because I had a friend in high school who asked her boyfriend and male friends to repeatedly punch her in the stomach in order to cause a miscarriage because her parents were “pro-life” (this wasn’t a rumor or an urban myth situation – I witnessed it.) I think that if parental notification were to be dropped, we’d need a better avenue for teenage girls to get a judicial override.

    “4) Resign yourselves to losing government funding for abortions, and set up alternate sources of funds. It shouldn’t be impossible. As long as tax money pays for abortions, taxpayers who believe that it is murder will be up in arms. We can’t afford their high level of opposition. They are going to stop fighting against government funding of abortion the same day that the dedicated pacifists who have been camping out in front of the White House protesting against tax money paying for weapons pack up and leave. Give up the funding issue, and suddenly we have a lot less dedicated opposition.”

    >>>>We already don’t have federal funding for abortions (Hyde Amendment). States get to make their own decisions about state funding (DC gets to let the Tea Party make their decision for them). We do have abortion funds. Unfortunately, not enough pro-choice people are aware of them, so they don’t get nearly as much money as they need. There are plenty of poor women who need abortions if they are to survive, or to continue feeding the children they already have. Giving up funds for abortions isn’t acceptable right now.

    “We really need to concentrate on battles we can win.”

    >>>> You let me know which ones those are. The goal of the anti-choicers right now is to pass as many anti-abortion laws as possible, while ignoring the Constitutionality of them. They get to use tax-payer money to defend them in court, while pro-choice groups go broke fighting them. The pro-choice groups then don’t have the funds to put up as strong a fight about the next 30 laws. The anti-choicers aren’t interested in stopping until abortion is fully banned (no exceptions for life or health of woman, rape, or incest) across the nation.

  75. #75 |  SamK | 

    I’m still of the opinion that it shouldn’t matter whether or not someone opposes a given health care procedure, only whether or not it IS a health care procedure and legal.

    If you get health insurance you should get coverage of every legal health care procedure. If it can be excluded with a sweeping generalization such as ‘does not cover prescription meds’ and is offered as a lower cost option, fine, maybe we can label these plans in giant letters “eviscerated care”. As is this is only a way to itemize health care and screw people over who thought they had insurance.

  76. #76 |  Ornithorhynchus | 

    The Oklahoma bill to require prescription for pseudoephedrine was voted down in committee, according to the front page of the Tulsa World which I saw about twenty minutes ago.

  77. #77 |  Brandon | 

    SamK, most insurance plans don’t, and will continue not to, cover elective surgery, which includes abortions that are not medically necessary, which is at least 99% of them. Making them cover surgeries like that would be massively expensive for everyone who has insurance, and most people probably wouldn’t want to pay more because you’re too stupid to figure out what your policy covers.

  78. #78 |  Xenocles | 

    Hey, Debi –

    Nobody here is interested in stopping you from pursuing the recreation of your choice. If you’re into recreational sex, go for it – but you don’t have the right to freedom from the consequences of your actions. It’s your own obligation to see to your own protective gear whether your sport is skiing or sex. If you can swing it through a health plan, good for you. If not, pay out of pocket. The same goes for abortions. They’re legal right now in the US, so I guess go ahead and get one for yourself if that’s what you want. Just remember that they’re part of that same class of protection from the consequences of sex and don’t expect others to pay for it.

    By the way, it’s a pretty stupid mistake to assume that everyone who opposes elective abortions is out to enslave women. I know for a fact that many who would ban the procedure see their position as nothing more than the best compromise between the rights of a woman and those of a human being who temporarily can’t survive without the woman’s body, where it wound up through no action of its own. You don’t have to agree with that position – I don’t in all situations – but until the people who think like you understand it there will be no useful dialogue between the two sides.

  79. #79 |  Xenocles | 

    “If you think it’s perfectly fine for companies to offer “health insurance” that doesn’t cover abortions, or contraception, or setting broken bones, or pre-natal care, or statin mediation, or heart surgery, or… then just say so.”

    Is it too late to say so? Why shouldn’t a consumer be able to choose a plan that he feels meets his needs? Do you think it’s wrong to offer car insurance with a deductible, or without roadside assistance, or without covering your own car? Is it okay with you that there are life insurance policies valued less than a million dollars?

  80. #80 |  Debi | 

    “By the way, it’s a pretty stupid mistake to assume that everyone who opposes elective abortions is out to enslave women. I know for a fact that many who would ban the procedure see their position as nothing more than the best compromise between the rights of a woman and those of a human being who temporarily can’t survive without the woman’s body, where it wound up through no action of its own. You don’t have to agree with that position – I don’t in all situations – but until the people who think like you understand it there will be no useful dialogue between the two sides.”

    I don’t believe that everyone who is against elective abortions is out to enslave women. I believe that a significant number of them are not actually interested in preserving life whatsoever. Take a look at those who would deny women life-saving abortions, even when letting them die means the fetus doesn’t survive either. That’s not “pro-life” at all. That IS the kind of thing we’re encountering with lawmakers.
    I recognize that there are people who are actually interested in decreasing abortions because of their beliefs about life, rather than because they’re scared of women having full rights over their own bodies. Those people need to support access to contraception and education to decrease unintended pregnancies, and social programs to support women so they can feel confident about having a baby. Women aren’t going to stop having abortions. If it’s made illegal, it will just go underground again. We’re already dealing with illegal abortions in the United States because women are getting desperate. Anyone who considers themselves “pro-life” should also be opposed to women losing their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. Animals will sometimes chew their own legs off when caught in a trap. Many women will kill or hurt themselves when trapped by pregnancy. The pro-lifers also need to consider exactly what they’re getting into when they want to make abortion illegal. Some potential (and actual) results:

    1. Pregnant women “at risk” of aborting will be locked up “for their own protection”
    2. Women who miscarry will be investigated for criminal activities (this is actually already happening in some states.)
    3. Women will be jailed for having abortions, leaving their children motherless (many women abort because they can’t afford another child)
    4. Women will be tested to make sure they’re not taking any medications or eating any foods that could put the fetus at risk. (Some women are already charged for what they consume when pregnant)
    5. Women won’t be permitted to birth anywhere other than a hospital so they can get the “best care” and can be supervised at all times
    6. Women won’t be permitted to work jobs that involve anything that *may* cause a miscarriage/ stillbirth

    I don’t see how making abortion illegal is any kind of compromise. I think a transporter device would be a good compromise. Why aren’t the pro-lifers working on that?

  81. #81 |  Xenocles | 

    “I think a transporter device would be a good compromise. Why aren’t the pro-lifers working on that?”

    When you’re ready to discuss things in the context of reality, I’m sure someone will be happy to engage you.

  82. #82 |  H. Rearden | 

    Debi – I’m sympathetic to much of what you have to say, but

    Ignoring the pregnancy, praying for it to go away, hiding it, giving birth in a bathroom, and then wrapping the baby in a trash bag and tossing it in the dumpster are not responsible choices.

    Sounds a lot like

    If someone wants an abortion in the 8th month because the fetus isn’t compatible with life, then I fully support them. If they don’t want to continue the pregnancy for other reasons, they should be induced and not penalized if the baby doesn’t survive.

    Aborting a fetus at 8 months for no reason other that you don’t feel like sticking it out another 4 weeks is not a responsible choice, it’s a selfish one.

    At 8 months, the fetus would be born alive after being induced. Do you suggest that we wrap the baby in a trash bag and toss it in the dumpster, and see if it manages to survive? I assume not. So what you’ve accomplished is purposefully giving birth to a baby prematurely, with all the health implications that come along with it.

    So I’d have to agree w/ CSP. The more radical arguments of the pro-abortion crowd may eventually bring them down.

  83. #83 |  Ken | 

    Test

  84. #84 |  Debi | 

    “At 8 months, the fetus would be born alive after being induced. Do you suggest that we wrap the baby in a trash bag and toss it in the dumpster, and see if it manages to survive? I assume not. So what you’ve accomplished is purposefully giving birth to a baby prematurely, with all the health implications that come along with it.”

    I’m fully aware that a fetus would be born alive at that point. Plenty of women induce at that point – with their doctor’s “encouragement” – and deal with all the health implications that come with it. I actually don’t generally agree with induction (or unnecessary c-sections, which are also frequently doctor-recommended and not healthy for mom or baby). But, I do support a woman’s right to choose them. Just like I support the right of a woman to not be pregnant. As I said earlier, I support reproductive rights. I can more fully define what that means to me if you want – it will just have to wait for another day.
    Of course I don’t suggest that anyone wrap a baby in a trash bag and toss it in a dumpster. I’m strongly against infanticide. I think you’re purposely misdirecting the conversation and misunderstanding my posts.

  85. #85 |  shecky | 

    a government powerful enough to force private insurers to cover birth control or abortion is a government powerful enough to forbid them from it.

    Badly in need of a better slogan. A government capable of being defined as a government, will always have that much power. The question is whether we have the wisdom to mitigate government’s power to be a net good rather than a net evil. Yes, I know all libertarians will knee jerk insist any government is net evil. Back here on Earth, modern governments have been partly responsible for allowing greater prosperity on the planet, for more people, than ever before. The job for responsible persons, libertarians or not, is to ensure that the trend continue. Yes, with the power, as awesome and corrupting as it can be, of government.

  86. #86 |  JSL | 

    Debi:”If you don’t want women to terminate, then don’t have sex with them. That’s pretty simple.”

    But uh, I’m not having sex with a majority of women. Yet, they are demanding that I pay for their choices.

  87. #87 |  Bruce S | 

    The problems with this approach are that it would be incredibly complicated, and that it would be argued that our government representatives are already doing this job by fighting for what their constituents want to support, and voting against what we don’t. (I think our representatives are fighting for what corporations are paying them to support, and no longer care about their individual constituents, but whatever.) Oh, one last problem? The Hyde Amendment could get in the way when it comes to federal funds

    I know a lot of water has passed under the bridge since you wrote this Debi, but the idea would be to embrace their point about paying for things against one’s conscious and take it to the logical conclusion. We no longer need the Hyde Amendment, because only tax payers who choose to do so would be supporting abortions. And, while certainly very complicated, it might place some countervailing pressure on our corporate bought representatives. There would have to be some way of tying tax rates to what one chooses to support, but perhaps that would make the budget situation clearer. Ie: people would see cutting foreign aid is not going to balance the budget.

    Could end up as an absolute nightmare, but then we could at least say, we tried the conscious thing. It didn’t work. So we’re going to need to find a compromise that we can all live with.

    -Bruce

  88. #88 |  jdb79 | 

    85 – I invite you to examine the Constitution and the powers granted to the federal government therein and determine where it permits the federal government to force a mandate for private insurers to cover birth control.

    Given that you believe in responsibility, I encourage you to practice it in your own life rather than insisting that your all-powerful friends in government practice it for you and, as it so happens, the rest of us.

  89. #89 |  JOR | 

    “…a government powerful enough to enforce property rights is a government powerful enough to infringe them.”

    “…a government powerful enough to forbid murder and rape is a government powerful enough to commit murder and rape.”

    Hence, anarchism.

  90. #90 |  JOR | 

    “A government capable of being defined as a government, will always have that much power. The question is whether we have the wisdom to mitigate government’s power to be a net good rather than a net evil.”

    Do you realize how those two sentences contradict each other?

  91. #91 |  JOR | 

    “…you don’t have the right to freedom from the consequences of your actions.”

    Oh bullshit. All freedom is freedom from some possible “consequences of your actions”. Come on, people.

  92. #92 |  Xenocles | 

    “All freedom is freedom from some possible “consequences of your actions”.”

    How absurd. If you don’t eat for long enough, you’ll die. If you hold your head underwater for long enough, you’ll die. If you roll a fair die, you have no control over the outcome. These facts make you no less free because freedom is a concept limited to interactions between humans. If I threaten to punch you if you say something, then I have limited your freedom by attaching artificial consequences to your actions. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of heterosexual sex. The various contraceptive methods are simply measures that reduce the probability of that occurrence – in most cases dramatically so – but you are never free of the risk unless you never have sex.

    In fact, an integral part of freedom is taking responsibility for the natural consequences of your actions. There is a class of people for whom we try to limit this responsibility; they’re called children. Somehow I don’t think being treated like a child is what you want.

  93. #93 |  H. Rearden | 

    Plenty of women induce at that point – with their doctor’s “encouragement” – and deal with all the health implications that come with it.

    Do you really think that doctors encourage inducement when it would have negative effects on the health of both the mother and infant? And I think that you argue that such decisions are irresponsible, yet you use this non-existent anecdote to justify a women’s right for a non-health related decision to induce.

    I’m strongly against infanticide.

    Yet assault on a newborn, which is what a medically unnecessary induction of a pregnancy at 8 months is, you’re perfectly OK with.

    I think you’re purposely misdirecting the conversation and misunderstanding my posts.

    Enough of the victimization, already. I get it. When it comes to your perceived right of a woman to not be pregnant, there is no conceivable restriction of this ‘right’ and any consequences of the expression of this right are not to be borne by those that use it.

  94. #94 |  Michael Chaney | 

    I appreciate Debi’s honesty, even though as others have pointed out it’s freakish and frightening in its selfishness.

    What I don’t get in this debate is what’s so special about birth. Seriously. If you’re willing to stick scissors in the head of an 8 or 9 month old baby and suck his or her brain out (which is what “D & X” really is) then I’m not sure why you would treat the same person any differently a few days later when they’re born naturally.

    All of the selfish arguments about “*my* body” seem quite usable to me when the child is a year or two old. I mean, if we’re willing to induce birth on an 8 month old and see if he lives, why not take your 2 year old out in the woods and see if he lives out there without you? They still depend on you at that age, they’re even more difficult to deal with, so what’s the difference? I’m serious when I ask this.

    If it helps you any, Deb, I’ve been “snipped”. And if you want to play the victim game, I had it done with only local anesthetic which didn’t seem to be working that day.

  95. #95 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Seems to me, when you handcuff a person that person is now your responsibility. If you don’t want this responsibility, don’t handcuff the person. I know cops feel they aren’t responsible for anything (ANYTHING) in the line of work, but they really should be.

    So, if you allow a handcuffed person who is drunk (one of the reasons you handcuffed her) to run off you are responsible for them running off.

    People can usually run for about 50 yards (not far). Plus, there’s a good chance the woman would be on nearby soft grass in about 3 seconds. Plus, she’s handcuffed and you know her identity. Let’s not forget that.

    Fat Lazy Cop is guilty of the following (after a strenuous review of policy by the People’s Union):
    1. Being too fat to do his job.
    2. Being too lazy to ensure the safety of the public
    3. Being too stupid to handle the responsibility of a handcuffed person
    4. Being too evil and escalating a minor situation by using deadly force

    In review: He’s fat, lazy, stupid, and evil…and wholly responsible for putting a healthy, young woman into a life-long coma (effectively killing her).

    That’s how I see it and it is time more people see it this way.

  96. #96 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesperson, “the trooper’s actions were legal and within the scope of his duties.”

    Forgot this part. This is FL DoLE explaining that it is completely legal and part of the job description for cops to be “fat, lazy, stupid, and evil”. Like we needed that explained.

  97. #97 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    A parade of relatives, cops and former judges spoke out today in support of a Chicago police officer convicted of DUI in a hit-and-run crash that killed a boy riding a bike.

    More than a dozen witnesses urged leniency for Richard Bolling, describing the veteran narcotics officer as a dedicated family man, friend, neighbor and role model who has been devastated by the May 2009 crash that killed Trenton Booker, 13.

    So, it’s starting…and that parade is VERY standard protocol. I guess you have to admire their commitment. I still have no takers on the “over” for sentencing–which has been pushed to March 6.

    So what happens between now and March 6? My guess is that the judge gets peppered by “people with access” (cops) to go 12-months probation and zero jail time. The judge has probably already agreed to that and the mayor and PR folks are figuring out how to handle the outcry.

    Oh, and the cops are hardening their whompin-sticks so they can crack heads when the peasants get uppity about the probation.

    The cop got convicted. The public also wants jail time? Barbarians.

  98. #98 |  Michael Chaney | 

    What’s your starting bet on the “over” part, Boyd. I have a penny I found yesterday and don’t particularly need.

    I love the part where he’s a “role model”. I hope he was “devastated” – that’s the appropriate response. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mitigate the damage.

  99. #99 |  Leah | 

    Solidarity, Debi. A lot of people who’ve never been pregnant have a lot of opinions about what pregnant women do and don’t deal with. (And yes, lots of OBs will happily go along with convenience inductions at 36 weeks.)

  100. #100 |  Fay | 

    More solidarity here. If someone doesn’t see the difference between abortion and infanticide… not much to be done for ‘em. (Here’s a hint, Michael: a live child doesn’t have to live INSIDE another human’s body.) Your responses have been very articulate and patient.

  101. #101 |  Debi | 

    Thanks, Leah and Fay. <3. I'm tired of repeating myself to people who have no interest in understanding what I'm saying or looking up information themselves. I've been fighting this fight since I was 12 years old, and these discussions really do get repetitive.

    Here's some reading I was doing earlier that I'm considering the full implications of:
    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/14/what-do-artificial-wombs-mean-women

    H. Rearden – How about you talk to me about a woman who you've met who wanted an abortion at 8 months, and what her reasoning was. I'm tired of these hypotheticals.

    Here's what I encounter in my every day life as a mom to young chldren:
    Women who are 8 months pregnant are, by that point, sick and tired of being pregnant. They want it OVER! Like, yesterday. It's hard to walk, harder to sleep, nothing fits, you're too hot or too cold, you're cranky, Braxton-Hicks contractions are annoying as all hell, and you've run out of things to do to prepare for the baby. Those little kicks and hiccups that were once so sweet and endearing are now leaving you bruised, you always feel like you need to pee, and people won't stop calling you! You're already looking into natural ways to induce to just get it over with already. You're HUGE so you start to worry about it being too big to get out. And, if you're going to an OB/GYN, you've already started hearing about plans to induce if you don't go into labor soon (especially if you're due near a holiday, when they're going on vacation, or when they have a golf game planned – and this is one reason why I recommend hiring midwives instead.)

    What do I do? I listen. I commiserate. I suggest ways to become more comfortable. I tell them how beautiful they look and how wonderfully they'll do in labor. I ask how I can help. I suggest using up some of that anxious time to prep some meals for the freezer, and get some extra rest or read that book she won't have time for later. If she's really considering induction, I talk to her about the importance of the last few weeks of pregnancy, and how inductions often lead to unnecessary c-sections which will put her in more pain than she's in now.

    What don't I do? I don't call CPS on her if she decides to induce. I don't ostracize her for making different choices than I made. I don't attack her or call her selfish or evil. I don't lecture her on her decision. I support her as a mother, as best as I can.

    It's really hard to have something growing in your body, changing what you can and can't do. It's especially hard if you don't want it there. But, even if you welcome it, it is challenging – especially at the end. If you haven't been through it, you really can't conceive of what it's like. I'm not going to attack anyone for wanting her body back.

    I think I'm done with this conversation. Same thing, over and over. Thousands of years of women being treated like chattel – it isn't going to change in just a few decades. I just have to be patient, and we'll get there eventually.

  102. #102 |  JSL | 

    “Thousands of years of women being treated like chattel – it isn’t going to change in just a few decades.”

    Except it has darling, look at the facist family courts and how they treat fathers/husbands.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/facebook-apology-divorce-jail/53221786/1

    Lets say I agree with your views on abortion completely. Why should I have to pay for your birth control or abortions or births of your kids if I didn’t sire them? I don’t ask you to buy my rubbers, viagra or a vasectomy. If guys should keep their zippers shut, women should keep that aspirin between the knees. Instead we demonize men and venerate single mothers.

  103. #103 |  Sinchy | 

    Debi- Thank you for you thoughtful and often personal responses.

    I suspect most of the men who are vehemently anti-abortion are probably well enough off to support a child they don’t plan on having, like Santorum, or are just too repulsive or old to achieve sexual relations with women, like the Pope (cheap shot, but grain of truth I think)
    As a new parent I cannot think of any other choice in my life that has had so much impact on who I am emotionally or financially, and I resent those would dictate to us how we grow our family. Those that would make sacrifices or flat out suffer to support an unplanned child are to be commended if they chose to do so, but doesn’t give them a moral superiority to dictate how others plan their families. Some children are unplanned, but others are truly unwanted, and I see that as a far more terrible situation than an abortion. Also more terrible than an abortion is a woman who is forced to hurt herself because she has no way out of an unwanted pregnancy, and thank you Debi for that story you told which is a glimpse of what is to come if the anti-abortion zealots get their way.
    For those who wish to compromise on the issue, why not make the debate about how to get the number of abortions down while keeping it completely legal? If that was the goal then we would have comprehensive sex ed and coverage for birth-control, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted children, stronger families, less crime, reduced population growth etc…

    It’s really bizarre when commenters like Brandon make comparisons to Skiing as if a portion of my insurance premiums wouldn’t go to covering his broken bones were he to have an accident. I could be wrong, I’m not an actuary, but wouldn’t abortions and birth-control keep medical costs down overall as child birth is extremely expensive?

    Again, thanks Debi.

  104. #104 |  Debi | 

    Thanks, Sinchy! <3 I appreciate the support.
    You might be interested in this. It makes a great argument for covering birth control:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/05/19/index.html

  105. #105 |  Matt | 

    “Seems to me, when you handcuff a person that person is now your responsibility.”

    When you handcuff a person without their consent, that person is your kidnap victim until proven otherwise, despite your stupid costume.

    The “Fat Lazy Cop” deserves to be indentified, prosecuted, vilified and persecuted. The Tampa Bay Times did the right thing by identifying him by name at the same time they identified his victim.

    That fat lazy stupid evil cop is Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Cole:
    http://tinyurl.com/8xflpxn

  106. #106 |  Shannon's Mouse | 

    Hence, anarchism.

    Exactly! That is where Radley’s argument ends up, if he pursues it consistently. But as far as I can tell, Radly is not an anarchist. So he needs to come up with better arguments.

Leave a Reply