tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8448663046375322498.post8446194211996899692..comments2023-10-23T08:56:50.127-06:00Comments on Angry by Choice: Insights from the Eric Holder HearingThe Loraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8448663046375322498.post-85893634589683330102009-01-17T18:00:00.000-06:002009-01-17T18:00:00.000-06:00"Unfuckingbelievable!!! Are we seeing the nex..."Unfuckingbelievable!!! Are we seeing the next round of anti-abortion strategy?"<BR/>>> Yes, it is. Part of it anyway. The new strategy appears to be a more what they call a "purist" strategy- it's all or nothing. Hilariously enough- there is a breakdown in the PL movement that happened during the 2008 election season between the "incrementalists" (who support parental consent bullshit and abortion time-frame limits, ie banning 3rd trimester abortions) and the "purists" (the people who want abortion banned period and no parental consent law or exceptions will be enough because "that still kills babiez"). After all 4 abortion-related laws and what not were STRUCK DOWN by the voters this year (including the venerated "purist" law the personhood amendment in Colorado and the "incrementalist" law banning abortion in SD), the purists and incrementalists began fighting over it blaming each other for the failure to "save teh babiez!"<BR/><BR/>Anyway, where I was going with this is that stuff like the ADA and getting fetuses recognized as legal persons IS the new strategy. The purists are trying to get personhood laws set into motion so that fetuses are legal persons and are thus protected by the law. Unfortunately, these pukes don't realize that personhood won't make abortion illegal because of the concept of bodily autonomy. Nobody has the right to force another person to provide life support (ie organ donation/bodily donation) to another- and this concept was upheld in the "McFall v. Shimp" case). So even if a fetus is declared a person, no other legal person has the right to force another legal person to keep them alive through organ/bodily donation, it won't make a lick of difference because of that. However, what it seems to me that they're trying to make fetuses have MORE rights than the gravida by declaring personhood will make abortion illegal because it won't. The gravida will still have the right to allow the fetus to infringe on her bodily autonomy if she so chooses because of the McFall v. Shimp case. So the only way I can see for PLers to get their way would be to have a case that would overturn McFall v. Shimp in addition to giving fetuses legal personhood.<BR/><BR/>"Are you sickened by this argument? How do you handle this "question.""<BR/>>> It's a stupid question, that's for sure. Heavily loaded too. I look at it this way, Brownback is a nut- he throws this crap out as a "bone" to the rabid PLers who keep getting his stupid ass elected. He's generally not taken seriously outside of the PL movement, as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong). So most people are pretty much going to ignore this question and response by Brownback and Holder because Brownback = fringe and fringe = crazy. On the plus side- Brownback is not seeking reelection, so his nuttery will soon go the way of Rick Santorum. Who knows? Maybe Dan Savage will think of a nice new meaning for the word "Brownback" like he did for "santorum" when that happens.<BR/><BR/>Here is the McFall v. Shimp stuff: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com