Right-Wing Judges...

#The defenders of America's most cherished values need your urgent support today.#

Who are these people? - certainly not politicians - Republican or Democrat.

.
Else how would the country have survived and flourished this long?
.

.

Dave what does "blocked" mean, that they filibustered one third of Clinton's nominees?
Or do you mean that they came up for a vote and were not successfull? What a radical idea, letting people vote on questions. Are the Democrats going to "protect" the people of this country from the votes of the "wrong people" in the normal election process in the Senate (or elsewhere , for that matter)?
Sorry, Dave, I say that Democratic party game a long time ago when I lived in the deep south. Same thing, Dave, basically stop the normal election process or monkey with the one man one vote process. But you couldn't put a poll tax on Republican Senators nor try other such stop them from voting tricks as I saw way back then. The sit in the back of the bus days are over.
Bottom line as I see it: I think that the representatives of the people should be allowed to vote. It seems obvious that The Democratic Party is trying to block this basic idea.

.

Hi, J.

What it meant varied with different nominees and different times. There were indeed filibusters while the Dems controlled the Senate -- for Frist to claim it's outrageous behavior now is hypocrisy of the highest order. On other occasions, they used the "tagging" procedure, in which a Senator from a given state is allowed to kill a nomination for someone from that state simply by "tagging" the bill (essentially, "blackballing." Hardly Constitutional -- but a long-time Senate tradition). And once the Republicans got control of the Senate, they refused to vote out of committee anyone who wasn't at the center or right thereof -- which was as much a violation of Clinton's Presidential perogative as what they now claim for Bush. For the record, there were very few lower-level Republican judicial nominations blocked while the Dems controlled the Senate and Reagan or Bush the Elder were Pres. This is just another example of the Republicans' double standard. Don't forget -- this President didn't even get a plurality of the voters, yet Dole and Newt claimed Clinton didn't have a mandate because he didn't win a majority! What mandate does Bush the Younger have, then?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

The people voted in a Republican President, they then voted in a Republican House and Senate, they then added to the number of Republican Senators and Representatives and you have to wonder about a MANDATE?

The people are tired of the extreemism of the Left and have adequately made their feelings known but the leadership of the Left is too blind to see and too stupid to admit it.

Hi, Ed.

And we're paying the price in Iraq (and our huge budget deficits) now for Bush's campaign tactics that narrowly won him that increase in the House and Senate.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

the narrow lead is widening even as we speak.

Dave,

The preferred nomenclature is "Bush the Lesser".

Dan

so sad!

but of course you are "too busy"

http://www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/daschle_watch/democrat_hypocrisy.pdf

that anyone thinks that the party in power would not call for an "up and down vote" and that the minority would not filibuster to stop a nomination - regardless of which party was in power. Equal hypocrisy on both sides because they both use the same tactics and make the same complaints in the same situations.

How can you tell when a [Democrat/Republican/politician/lawyer/...] is lying?
The mouth is moving.

Speaking only as a member. The opinions expressed are my own.

Hi, Kidd.

>>Why is it that Democrats always resort to name calling, character assassination, FUD, hysteria, and similar practices to try to win? <<

Given Newt's Candidate's list, the whole-cloth invention of the term "partial birth abortion" to eliminate the safest method of late-term abortion, and many other examples of Republicans doing precisely what you accuse the Dems of doing, you display either an amazing ignorance of history, an amazing double standard, or both. It wasn't a Democratic President who had an official arm of his CREEP (Committee to re-elecct the President) called the "dirty tricks squad! And if you ever bothered to read the Congressional record or the many editorial op-ed pieces by Democratic Senators on each of these four, you wouldn't have to ask the question "what's so bad about them?" There are four nominations (out of 138 so far brought to the Senate floor) being held up, for four different reasons. I just wish the Dems had had the sense to filibuster Clarence Thomas!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I noticed that you didn't bother to answer the questions, but engaged in the usual slash & burn approach of the left-wing(?).

If you want to describe sucking a baby's brains out as the 'safest method of late-term abortion', I guess one of us is indeed an extremist. In my opinion, you can hardly argue that, when such extreme measures are needed to kill the 'fetus', that it is not a baby. Based on what I've read in the press, my opinion of late term abortions is shared by the majority of the country.

Also, it only took me a few minutes to find the following definition from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary which I accessed through the National Institutes of Health.

"Main Entry: par

.

I'm glad you posted what you did, Kiddpeat, thank you. Not enough of it being said on this board. And I'm not holding Republicans or Democrats responsible for the destruction of infants, that lies with the mothers. However, I'm for any possible law that will curtail abortions and give some rights to the unborn.

Human life used to be considered sacred, created in cooperation with God. A baby on the way was cherished and considered a gift. Now mothers are having them ripped out of their womb and tossed into a bucket at the drop of a hat. The alternative to giving an unwanted birth? Don't get pregnant. Plenty preventives. Prevention rather than destruction. We're talking about human beings!

I'm also sick of hearing of the argument that pops up like a jack in the box and that is the health of the mother. I'm for considering the health of the mother, however, only a tiny portion of abortions are done for the maternal health of the mother.
.

Hi, Rosalie.

You may be correct that only a small proportion of abortions are done to protect the health of the mother, or because the fetus is nonviable. But as I explain in detail in this message, that's very far from the case for late-term abortions, and that's when the D&X procedure is exclusively used.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Hi, Ed.

The point is that the D&X is less dangerous for the woman (no general anesthesia) and statistically carries less risk of other severe complications, including loss of future fertility. Is the procedure gruesome? Yes it is.
But if you've ever seen a specimen of an ancephalic stillborn (one of the cases where a D&X is done, frequently when a poor woman who's never received an prenatal care shows up in the ER and the ultrasound shows something is horribly wrong), thats enough to turn your stomach all by itself. Late-term abortions are ONLY done in cases where something is horribly wrong. The whole PBA business is a classic example of the camel's nose approach -- how typical that conservatives (the NRA) accuse Dems of using a technique they weren't using (most gun control folks really do want the truly dangeorous guns banned not all of them), because that's the technique the conservatives use themselves. PBA is only the first step in the effort to outlaw ALL abortions, regardless of the long-term viability of the fetus or health of the mother. And that would truly turn a oman back into nothing more than a human incubator, as has already been legally done in the cases where a woman has been clinically dead but carrying a viable fetus.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

No Dave, the POINT IS that the AMA calls it "Bad Medicine", it is less safe for women and may more likely cause inability for further children, and last but not least that the lies have been admitted to by the very people who testified for congress and whose statements and lies you keep parroting.

Read the links once in a while Dave and if you aren't sure the info is accurate go to the source where you will find it is.

it goes well with his calling partial birth abortions safe although leading medical specialists say otherwize in view of the bone chips in the birth canal which can be detrimental to the 'almost a mother's' health.

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/freepress/Partial.html
Intact dilation and evacuation is one term coined by abortionists for the procedure which is now legally defined as partial-birth abortion-a procedure in which the practitioner partially vaginally delivers a living human fetus b efore using scissors to make a hole at the base of the baby's skull and suctioning out its brain, then completing the delivery. So at ONE CLINIC in New Jersey, around 1,500 of these are performed every year. No one knows an exact number nationally, but the "few hundred" figure is certainly a lie.

http://www.jewsforlife.org/partial-birth-abortion.htm
Partial Birth Abortion is never medically necessary. Despite everything you?ve heard, there is no justification for this gruesome act. Partial birth abortion is a dangerous procedure not taught in any medical school. The American Medical Association has called it "bad medicine."

Partial Birth Abortion is never performed to protect a woman?s health or fertility, according to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. "On the contrary," he stated, "this procedure can pose a significant threat to both." In fact, in most cases, the PBA procedure poses a serious risk to a woman?s health, as it involves extensive forceful dilation of the cervix, with the potential for weakening it. This can result in extensive damage, resulting in miscarriages in future wanted pregnancies.

I totally agree. Abortions should only be done if the life of the mother is at stake. There is another option to not getting pregnant. A mother who cannot care of the baby could also have the baby adopted into a loving family. There are many people who cannot have children and yet wish for children to raise and love. Any coments on my posting are appreciated, however I reserve the right to respond.

Hi, Kiddpeat.

What you folks either don't understand or inteltionally misrepresent is that late-term abortions can be limited by State law under the Roe v. Wade decision. The anti-abortionists pretend that late-term abortions are simply decisions to get rid of an inconvenient pregnancy. There may be a couple of states where that's possible, but not many. The vast majority of late-term abortions are ONLY done for one reason -- because the fetus has been discovered to be nonviable. No doctor would ever do an abortion on a viable fetus (first because it's unethical, and second because in most states it's illegal), and late-terms abortions are performed on fetuses that would normally be viable, if there weren't a major problem. For a better understanding of the realities of the situation, read this excellent op-ed piece (btw, it's no longer available directly on the "Chronicle" site by a search -- pure coincidence, I'm sure!):
Partial-birth abortion I didn't want but needed.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave,

How am I supposed to maintain the reputation of the cold hearted network manager with stories like that getting me all misty first thing in the morning?

Thanks,

Dan

One tragic story? You want to base late term abortion policy on one story? I sympathize with the pain and suffering of these parents. I have a child whose liver does not function properly, and I am familiar with the kinds of things a parent goes through. However, was the health of the mother at risk in this story? If we decide that we have the power to terminate a life based on our assessment of the quality of life, why stop with birth? What is so magical about passing through the birth canal? If we do decide we can make those decisions, where do we draw the line in determining when it is OK to kill someone?

If state law can limit late term abortions, what is your problem with a federal law? By the way, which states have such laws?

"The vast majority of late-term abortions are ONLY done for one reason-", and you base this statement on...?

"No doctor would ever do an abortion on a viable fetus" Oh pleeeeease! You must be incredibly naive. To think that no doctor would ever do such a thing for money! Shocking! Who says it is unethical? Does any medical society require a doctor to do a careful evaluation of viability before performing an abortion? Why would it be necessary to partially deliver the fetus, and kill it if it were not viable?