Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

And yet the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And I reject your position. Isn't it great that the law says my position is protected choice, and you don't get to impose yours.

Wow... After the Texas courts struck down the defunding of Planned Parenthood, now we have this:

Oklahoma Personhood Measure Struck Down By Supreme Court

The Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously vetoed a ballot measure that would have given embryos full personhood rights on Monday, ruling it "clearly unconstitutional" because it would block a woman's legal right to have an abortion.

The personhood measure would give embryos the same legal rights as people from the moment of fertilization, which opponents say would ban abortion and complicate the legality of in vitro fertilization and many forms of birth control. Enacting such a law would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allows states to pass some abortion restrictions but prevents them from overturning the constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

"The mandate of Casey is as binding on this Court today as it was twenty years ago," the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote in its decision. "Initiative Petition No. 395 conflicts with Casey and is void on its face and it is hereby ordered stricken."

A personhood bill also failed in the Oklahoma legislature earlier this month, when Republican leadership in the state House of Representatives decided not to bring it to a vote, despite mounting pressure from anti-abortion groups.

“This amendment would have run roughshod over the fundamental, constitutionally protected reproductive rights of all Oklahoma women," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the case against the measure. "In affirming our request to strike it down, the court has struck a powerful blow against the repugnant tactics of those who seek to vote down the rights of others, and to enshrine their hostility to women’s lives, health, and rights in the laws of the land."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/3 ... 65657.html

Gee, I guess the War Against Women isn't going so well today...(You know, the one that the GOP Spin Machine says doesn't exist...?)

Wow... Here's another one today...

Mark Dayton, Minnesota Governor, Vetoes Another Anti-Abortion Bill

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) on Monday vetoed a controversial bill that would limit access to drugs such as the morning-after pill.

The legislation, sponsored by GOP state Rep. Joyce Peppin, would have required doctors to be physically present for the prescribing, as well as taking, of emergency contraceptive pills such as Plan B.

Current law allows for the drug to be administered via video conference by an abortion provider present at a remote location.

Peppin had argued for her measure's merit as a step to protect women who might suffer from side-effects of such medication. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that opponents claimed popular over-the-counter drugs such as Viagra or Tylenol had a much higher rate of side-effects, and that Peppin's bill was actually an attempt to restrict women's rights to choose.

"This bill's unique, new regulatory burden for a single procedure would increase the cost of health care and add unnecessary new barriers to a Constitutionally protected health care service for women," Dayton wrote in his veto statement. "Minnesota's laws should not target or restrict the Constitutional rights of women."

Last week, Dayton vetoed another divisive proposal that would have required the state to license any healthcare facility that provides 10 or more abortions a month.

Wow, two "War on Women" bills in two weeks. Sounds good to me. (Even if the so-called "War on Women" doesn't really exist...if you listen to the usual GOP Spin Machine...And Boehner crying and screaming on the House floor.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/3 ... f=politics

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed?

Our Constitution protects one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex, does it not? Is destroying one's offspring on the basis of sex not an example of discrimination based on sex? The offspring would not be destroyed if it were the right sex, it only faces destruction because it happens to be the wrong one. How is that not discrimination based on sex?

Ridiculous and absurd. You're unraveling. Show a shred of grace for once and drop your argument. If any investigation should be done, it should be into the church's involvement with this set-up. Your support of dishonest tactics to reach your political/religious goals exposes you as the true scoundrel.

It is neither ridiculous nor absurd. My position is, and always has been, that abortion to effect post-conception birth control violates the unalienable rights that each of us was created with, the very foundation of our laws and our society.

We hold as a self evident truth that these rights are rights that we were created with - they are not endowed upon us by man. Whether one believes in a Divine Creator or not has no relevance to the argument. Are we all equal upon our creation or are we not? If not, then simply say that you do not believe we are all created equal in direct opposition to the argument presented by our founders and framers as to why they were justified in declaring themselves independent from their sovereign. If not by our very creation are we endowed with these unalienable rights, then our rights are endowed upon us by whomever, or whatever, rules us.

I reject that position, as did the founding generation of this union. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to establish that we are created with unalienable rights, that our rights are not dependent upon those which a government deigns to bestow upon its subjects. If our rights are not ours as a product of our very creation, then our rights are bestowed upon us by our government and are subject to being changed or revoked at its pleasure. That in turn would mean that the very foundation upon which the founders claimed to have the right to resort to arms against their sovereign was flawed; that their King did have the right to decide how they would be governed because they only held the rights that he decided to bestow on them and that they were only allowed to exercise those rights in ways which the King deemed appropriate.

Are we all created equal or are we not? We are certainly not all born equal - Bill Gates' children will have privileges and opportunities that others will not have, as did Joe Kennedy's, as did John Rockefellers, as will Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's and George W Bush's. But we are created with the same unalienable rights that the children of these men were regardless of whether or not we are born into circumstances equal to theirs. That we are not as privileged as they were when they were born does not diminish the rights that we were created with. Those rights are the same regardless of our parents' station in life because we were created with the same rights that they had.

That is not a political, nor a religious argument - it is a philosophical one.

Actually, the founding fathers meant that all white free males over the age of 18 were created equal with the same unalienable rights, and excluded slaves, women, native americans and many others.

That is actually not true at all - it is simply something the "progressives" love to tell themselves that a quick perusal of history will dispel as easily as a strong breeze dispels all other flatulence.

Actually, it is true. She left out "landowners", which is what it was initially. And if I want a lesson in flatulence, all I have to do is read the usual right-wing deflections and revisionist-history.

Voting in Early America

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

Colonial Voting restrictions reflected eighteenth-century English notions about gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion. African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews. In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.

Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

The Revolutionary War stimulated a desire for reform. Advocates of change said that the conflict was about liberty and representation. They believed in a voting system that embodied those aims for more people. Debates were most intense between 1776 and the adoption of the federal Constitution. The range of disputes was too vast and too complex to cover in depth in this space. The chief concerns, however, focused on extending voting rights to veterans, the implications of a broader electorate, and the validity of property requirements. Property requirements seemed to attract the most attention. They came under attack almost as soon as the Revolution began.

Property restrictions gradually disappeared in the nineteenth century. Tax-paying requirements replaced property ownership, though they too waned after the 1820s. By the 1850s, most economic barriers to voting had disappeared.

http://www.history.org/foundation/journ ... ctions.cfm

God, I love shoving your self-righteous "sovereign citizen" revisionist-history b.s. down your throat... But feel free to grace us with some more of your flatulence.

PrintSmith wrote: That is actually not true at all - it is simply something the "progressives" love to tell themselves that a quick perusal of history will dispel as easily as a strong breeze dispels all other flatulence.

So according to your revisionist history, at the time of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of our nation, that slaves, women, native americans, etc. were allowed equal rights with white male landowners over thage of 18?

Perhaps you could provide us with links to your quick perusal of history that will dispel my post?

I see you choose to ignore what is clear, Dog.

2wlady wrote: I see you choose to ignore what is clear, Dog.

In what way? The founding fathers did not allow the "unalienable rights" of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be provided to slaves, indentured servants, to women, to native americans and for others, but limited those "unalienable rights" largely to white male landowners.