2004 Presidential Election

**gonefishin** · 10-26-2004, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by nobody

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Hi nobody

Actually, the partial birth abortion act(s) were written void of much of the pork you commonly see. Also, it's anything but vague. The original bill read like this...

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Authorizes the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

Authorizes a defendant accused of an offense under this Act to seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.

To add to this, the bill was originally written to ban the procedure of late term partial birth abortion in all cases. It was thought that the procedure would be unnecessarily cruel. In cases of incest, rape or other extenuating circumstance the ban was originally thought to still be in effect because there are other late term abortion methods which are not only safer for the mother...but less cruel to the partially born child as well.

They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Again, this was originally true with the first proposal. The reason it was written like that was to ban that one procedure (partial birth abortion) in all cases. The reason it was to be banned in all cases was because there are other late term procedures which would certainly still be able to be performed in cases to protect the health and well being of the mother. She would be able to chose the same outcome the entire time...only changing how the baby was aborted.

Since this time there have been provisions added that state that this procedure will still be performed

except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

. Seeing as how there are other (safer and more humane) methods of late term abortion...this really didn't need to be added.

Very clear...and very deliberate not to cross any line of taking away the right of a women to choose. It always left her with other avenues.

take care,

dan

**JSE** · 10-27-2004, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK

wow, some great points from both sides........the newly registered voter stampede will send Bush packing........

That's it?

JSE

**nobody** · 10-27-2004, 06:07 AM

OK...last response to this topic. I don't wanna keep arguing in circles.

Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging efects.

Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

**piece-it pete** · 10-27-2004, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by nobody

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.
Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).
And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

The abortion issue has been well addressed by the fishin' guy, thanks Dan!

The stem-cell issue is similar, a LOT of intentional disinformation is being spread for political purposes.

SLANTING THE SCIENCE

By WESLEY J. SMITH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOULD the government fund medical research that relies on the use of "stem cells" extracted from human embryos? This difficult moral decision would be a lot easier if the media weren't failing to tell the public the whole story.

Embryo-stem-cell research promises to produce medical miracles in a host of areas. But other research avenues - including the use of cells that don't come from human embryos - are also promising, perhaps more so. Unfortunately, journalists and editors haven't reported this news fully or fairly.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan research organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific research in public-policy debates, has documented how journalists have fallen down on the job on this issue.

In its recent report "Stemming the News Flow?" STATS decried a "striking" selectivity in coverage: The media often play up embryonic-stem-cell breakthroughs while giving short shrift to equivalent (or even more promising) adult-stem-cell successes.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.

*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.

*Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent stem cell therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA Medical Center pronounced the boys cured.

*Last year, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail.

Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.

They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.

So why does the more ethically problematic research get such better press? Well, it sure looks like bias, conscious or not: Most reporters and editors call themselves pro-choice on abortion. And many see support of embryonic-stem-cell research as consistent with (or even supportive of) this point of view.

But abortion is actually quite beside the point in this debate - there is no pregnant woman being asked to gestate a child she does not want. Thus, one can both support abortion rights and oppose embryonic research without any inconsistency.

In the end, this debate turns on two questions. The tougher one is: Is such research immoral, since it destroys human life and transforms it into a mere commodity? The second: Can we reap equivalent medical benefits using alternative sources?

The answer to that seems to be "yes." If the press were doing its job, giving an honest answer to the "hard" question would be far less painful.

Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."

If you check on Wesley J. Smith you will find that he has written four books with Nader, as well as a bunch of other stuff.

Productivity. You can't change the economy by flipping a switch! It cycles, and there isn't much you can do about it. Our usual responses to recessions are to lower interest rates, which makes money cheaper, and deficit spending, to "prime the pump". Increased productivity means we WILL earn more, soon.

Consider: if I make 1 widget per hour, and demand a raise, it will add cost to that widget. I may get the money for a while. But in a free market, someone else will make it for the original pay if they can. So the guy with the raise ends up with no job. But, if I can bump my production to 1-1/2 widgets an hour, I am making it possible for increased earnings without opening up a way for someone else, like China, to take my job. 'Cause we are more productive, we are worth more money. And this applies to all stages of business, from the factory floor to the management of capital.

Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

**nobody** · 10-27-2004, 07:49 AM

We work more hours to afford our possesions. Most families have two full-time earners. We work longer hours and have less vacation than any other industrialized country outside Japan. I don't have time to look up stats, but I've seen several reports charting real income declining per capita for quite a time.

Personally, I'm also quite worried by the widening income gap, which with jobs being exported is going to just get worse. The retrain and get more education argument just doesn't hold water long term. We will not all be at the top of the ladder. There needs to be something more than "would you like fries with that?" for the masses.

Free markets are not always the answer. Go back to pre-labor law days and see how well that was working out.

OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

**dean_martin** · 10-27-2004, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

One reason we are not more "wealthy", a term which includes both assets and liquidity, is personal debt. Yes, we have more stuff because we have evolved into a stuff-oriented people. But, on average, folks aren't paying cash for their stuff. We look wealthier, but on paper we're not. We can have it all today and it can all be repossessed tomorrow.

One fascinating (and disturbing) thing I've seen in our hobby lately is that the dollar just doesn't buy what it used to. The most concrete example I can give is the Pro-Ject Perspective turntable. This table is made in the Czech Republic. It had a list of $995 just 1 1/2 to 2 years ago. Its current list is $1295. That's a 33% increase. I don't follow the rise and fall of the dollar very often, but I did over the summer. My son went to Japan, which for the most part is a cash society. When the trip was planned last fall, you could buy 112 yen with one American dollar. When we got ready to convert our dollars to yen in May the ratio was 97 yen per dollar. When we converted the yen he had left back to dollars in July the ratio was 95 to one.

I think we're losing our buying power which increases personal debt. Of course avoiding debt requires will power, self control, etc., but as a nation we're not doing that.

BTW, I've started looking at products made in the US and Canada (VPI turntables, Totem speakers, etc.) instead of those made in Europe (the dollar obviously isn't doing well against the Euro) and Japan. I stress LOOKING because I don't want to use my credit card. I'm not very liquid right now.

**FLZapped** · 10-27-2004, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by SRO

I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.

Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

**FLZapped** · 10-27-2004, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JSE

Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

MURDER

**FLZapped** · 10-27-2004, 09:19 AM

On a lighter note, a few words from Jay Leno......

In an interview in USA Today, Teresa Heinz Kerry said she didn't think Laura Bush, who was a public school librarian for nine years, had ever held a "real job." Let me tell you something -- if you're a librarian married to George W. Bush, there is no harder job on Earth. .... Both candidates are trying to scare voters for votes in the last weeks of the campaign. And they're doing a pretty good job. Voters are petrified that on November 2nd they're actually going to have to pick one of these guys. What's scarier than that? .... The town of Bloomfield, New Jersey, was holding a lottery to determine who would get a flu shot. It's terrible. And the winner doesn't even get the flu shot all at once. It's injected very slowly, once a year for 25 years. .... The Kerry campaign announced today they will have "10,000 lawyers at the polls in battle ground states." 10,000 lawyers. Well, let's hope you don't slip and fall on the sidewalk outside a polling place. You could be buried alive in business cards.

-Bruce

**piece-it pete** · 10-27-2004, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by SRO

Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

**FLZapped** · 10-27-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by nobody

Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

Speaking about deceptive:

Federalist Patriot No. 04-42

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.

Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge. His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter's EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.

-Bruce

**SRO** · 10-27-2004, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by FLZapped

Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

**SRO** · 10-27-2004, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

**piece-it pete** · 10-27-2004, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by nobody

OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

lol! You win the "best comment of the day" prize - you get to keep your job!

Pete

**FLZapped** · 10-27-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by SRO

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

**SRO** · 10-27-2004, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by FLZapped

Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

It was Dean_Martin who said the parties were responsible. Maybe he is around and could clear it up.

What I got from re-reading his post ( #88 in this thread ) was that the parties are to present the rules they wnat to use to pick their candidate. I assume the county board of elections agrees or disagrees.

Dean?

**piece-it pete** · 10-27-2004, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by SRO

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

Not to jump Deans' answer but I too believe the primary system is run by the parties, which makes sense to me.

Ohio has open primaries. Honestly it DOESN'T make sense to me. Why should I be able to vote for the Dems' candidate?

Activist court = one that legislates from the bench. Most are liberal. Some are conservative. All are tyrants!

Pete

**dean_martin** · 10-27-2004, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by SRO

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

It is true that the primary process is a political process, not a legal one. The primary process by which a party's nominee is selected is determined by that party. Your Constitutional right to vote really attaches during a general election. However, gov't funds and election officials are used to give effect to a primary election. Because it's a political process and limits on our right to vote are not subject to strict scrutiny in primaries, states and their state party leaders are allowed to tinker with the process. For example, Iowa has caucuses. Louisiana has an open election for all candidates which usually results in a run-off. And, California can attempt to amend its constitution or adopt a law calling for open primaries. It would be interesting to see if such a law would stand if challenged on the ground that the parties have the right to select their nominees in the manner they choose. Finally, you can be left out of the primary process all together if you don't declare a party affliliation.

To your next point regarding activist judges, I would like to provide an example of a conservative/pro-Republican court taking an activist position. During the debates, Bush said he would select "strict constructionists" as judicial nominees. One of his selections for the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was Bill Pryor, former Attorney General of my home state of Alabama. The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Bush's appointment of Pryor came during a Senate break for a long holiday weekend. Bush attempted to skirt the Senate advice and consent clause by using the recess appointment clause of the constitution. The Recess Appointment clause states in its entirety as follows:

The President shall have Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Capitalization in original.)

One issue was whether the President has the power to fill vacancies that occur during the Recess of the Senate, or does he have the power to fill vacancies during a recess no matter when they happen? Another issue was whether a long holiday weekend constitutes the Recess of the Senate. How do you think a strict constructionist judge would answer the first question? The 11th Circuit, which is considered one of the 2 or 3 most conservative circuits in the country, said that it didn't matter when the vacancy occurrs. They also said that a long holiday weekend is a recess even though the constitution makes a distinction between the end of "the" Session and an adjournment during a session. Why would a President who says he is pro-strict constructionist try to expand his authority beyond the plain language of the recess appointments clause?

**SRO** · 10-27-2004, 12:54 PM

The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.

**dean_martin** · 10-27-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by SRO

The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.

Thanks for asking! We're doing well. It's been slow and on some streets you can't see the houses for all the debris piled up in yards. But, no one was injured during the storm. I posted some pictures over in the gallery section, but we've come a long way since then. We know some people in Pensacola near the water who are going to go through rough times for a while.

On a related topic, I've dogged insurance companies pretty hard here in the off topic forum, but I hope by the end of this week I'll be able to say some nice things about mine!

**gonefishin** · 10-27-2004, 04:16 PM

Hi again Nobody

Hi Nobody,

Originally Posted by nobody

Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

Again, I would disagree. A living fetus is one with a heartbeat and brain activity consistent with a healthy fetus of the same term.

You asked, What procedures would be prevented in addition? None. The whole reason for this law was to stop one procedure which appeared as cruel, while giving the mother other choices for abortion in the late term. Only this procedure would have a ban...she could still have other late term abortions performed.

Originally Posted by nobody

The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging effects.

What term? beyond 20 weeks' gestation

Actually, the AMA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both equate "partial birth abortion" with the procedure "intact D&X". below is a description As described by the American College of Obstetricians

this method of abortion includes the following four

elements:

1. Deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a

sequence of days;

2. Instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;

3. Breech extraction of the body excepting the head;

4. Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living

fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact

fetus.

not clear? not accepted medical terminology?

yes, it is both clear and accepted terminology describing one late term abortion procedure.

I wonder if there are any drawings or video out there illustrating this procedure. Read it again, paying particular attention to step two, three and four.

Dialation and delivery is induced, resulting in a baby that has started to deliver. The baby is then turned "backwards" with instruments so it delivers breech. The legs, buttocks, torso and shoulders are presenting outside of the vagina. After the body has been delivered and the head is still inside, the head is partially evacuated of parts of it's brains. After this is done, the delivery of the head is completed.

Originally Posted by nobody

Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again...the original bill was set up to ban one procedure, leaving all other abortion procedures in tact. Including alternative late term procedures excluding only the one intact D&X procedure. Again, your "wanted" provision has actually been written into the bill. But this was really didn't need to be done. The way the bill was written originally, it was clear that this one procedure would be banned. There are currently other procedures that are just as effective and safe for the mother that would be performed in cases such as health and well being...without partially delivering the baby and then Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents.

Originally Posted by nobody

Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

This is what could be so frustrating about discussions on the topic. The bill actually is quite direct in describing what the procedure is, and that other procedures would still be untouched...and able to be performed. Only the partial birth (intact D&X) is being considered to be banned...women could still have other late term procedures performed, such as labor induction or by D&E.

The procedure is called "intact D&X procedure", which is referred to by politicians as late term partial birth abortion. I suppose calling it intact D&X doesn't paint the same picture in peoples minds.

dan

**FLZapped** · 10-28-2004, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by SRO

I wou

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

No, they generate law, rather than interpret it.

-Bruce

**piece-it pete** · 10-28-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by SRO

Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper

), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

**SRO** · 10-28-2004, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper

), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

I try my best to avoid Bud, Miller, etc. Had to settle for them on a camping trip last year. My buddy works at one of my local micro's, and we went through 15 gallons of his the first day. I should say there were 14 of us. The local store only had Bud and Bud Light. At least it was really hot during the day, and the snowmelt in the river kept them really cold.

My friend brews a scotch ale called Kiltlifter. It's one of the best named locals, and a darn good brew too. It doesn't take many to get the kilt up. Another is the Whamber, which is appropriately named as well.

All right, now that is out of the way, back to the tub!

**jeskibuff** · 11-01-2004, 05:40 AM

Darn...why do I get myself into things that I don't have time to respond to? :roll: dean_martin's pieced-together post demanded rebutting, but it's quite an effort to gather the information for a proper debunking, so that leads to further procrastination. Not to mention the fact that it was a discombobulated mish-mash of cut-and-paste operations. Anyway, I'll try to cover some lost ground here, but I'm posting this knowing that I left out a lot of what I wanted to put in:

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

Kerry supporters sure are a lot righter - even though they're left.

OK, so that's not that funny, sue me.

Maybe THIS explains it better: