Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1413.8 | 4.0 | 0.28% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2442.3 | 8.0 | 0.33% |
| Oil (WTI) | 97.07 | 0.9 | 0.96% |
| LIBOR | 0.425 | -0.002 | -0.47% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.55 | -0.044 | -0.05% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.67% | -0.02% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 192.1 | 0.0 |
Markets are higher this morning on no real news as we head into one of the slowest weeks of the year. The Fed Heads will meet in Jackson Hole this week, although analysts aren’t expecting much in the way of new policy announcements. That said, the article does suggest the Street is leaning heavily towards additional stimulus, so the risk is to the downside in MBS and Treasuries. There doesn’t appear to be any market-moving economic data this week. Oil is moving higher in response to Issac. Bonds and MBS are up slightly.
One of the longest merger kabuki dances ended today, as Hertz finally gets an agreed deal with Dollar. I believe Hertz’s initial bear hug letter was released in 2007 or 2008.
The first read on Back-To-School looks negative. Teen Apparel Retailers may end up missing their comp expectations next Thursday. Some of the names in this space have been flying lately – AEO, GPS, URBN, HOTT, so they may be vulnerable to a disappointment. For those that are more risk averse, you can always short Abercrumble as the stock cannot get out of its own way.
The Republican National Convention is this week and I don’t expect it to matter to the markets one bit. They had to shorten it a day due to Issac. Greg Valierre of Potomac Research said that 98% of his Wall Street clients are voting for Romney.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
“The first read on Back-To-School looks negative. Teen Apparel Retailers may end up missing their comp expectations next Thursday. Some of the names in this space have been flying lately – AEO, GPS, URBN, HOTT, so they may be vulnerable to a disappointment. For those that are more risk averse, you can always short Abercrumble as the stock cannot get out of its own way.”
Another tax irritation for me aside from having non-profits be exempt from taxation is “sales tax holidays”. They should be done away with.
LikeLike
jnc:
I don’t get sales tax holidays either. As if FL didn’t have enough revenue problems, we designate one weekend a year for a back-to-school sales tax holiday.
3 minutes until we find out about AAPL. Looks like SMSN took a hit on the LSE.
LikeLike
Huh. Only up 2+%. Guess the market wasn’t surprised by the verdict.
LikeLike
Do you also have the Energy Star tax holiday weekend?
http://www.tax.virginia.gov/site.cfm?alias=EnergyStarSalesTaxHolidayFAQs
Waiting to see what they will do next.
LikeLike
Sales taxes are among our most regressive taxes (and I say that with regard to the effective net rate paid as a proportion of gross income) so a tax holiday give a little pocket change back to poor and working class parents while serving as a mild boost to retailers.
The new thing I’ve never heard of before is back-pack giveaways. Not to yell at the kids to get off my lawn, but the backpack I took to class all through college is about half the size of the typical elementary school kid’s nowadays.
LikeLike
“so a tax holiday give a little pocket change back to poor and working class parents while serving as a mild boost to retailers.”
Actually throwing away those ridiculous lists from the schools is a much better idea for poor and working class parents (no my kids don’t need post-it notes in three different colors even though I will pay for years of therapy because my kids were “the only ones” who didn’t have them).
LikeLike
jnc:
No Energy Star tax holiday yet. But we do have the permanent income tax holiday.
yello:
I agree that sales taxes are regressive. But the sales tax holiday is a cynical ploy to get more traffic into the stores so that people will spend money on non-“tax holiday” items (only kid’s clothes and school supplies are exempted, if they are below a certain price). Retail sales and sales tax receipts go up that weekend — and I don’t think that comprises only middle- and upper-class folk.
LikeLike
I was always under the impression the stores pay the sales tax anyway, so who does it hurt? It helps moms and dads at an expensive time of year and generates business for the stores, much like any other advertising gimmick, such as sales and coupons. As a parent to five, we always took advantage of whatever discounts were offered, especially at the beginning of the school year and Christmas.
LikeLike
My wife the teacher uses the tax holiday to freshen her professional wardrobe and to spend some of that money on supplies that teachers recycle back into the education system from their paychecks.
Banned,
Oftentimes hidden in those lists are classroom supplies (such as bathroom tissues for runny noses) which have been redlined from school budgets. Further erosion of our ‘free’ public educational system.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 27, 2012 at 7:50 am said:
Sales taxes are among our most regressive taxes (and I say that with regard to the effective net rate paid as a proportion of gross income) so a tax holiday give a little pocket change back to poor and working class parents while serving as a mild boost to retailers.”
No, it’s a subsidy to those who can shop on certain specific days. I’m unwilling to pay higher taxes just to shop on another day.
LikeLike
lms:
I was always under the impression the stores pay the sales tax anyway
Not in Florida.
who does it hurt?
The people that end up buying more than just those items that are on “holiday.” Should they know better? Of course. But theory doesn’t always match reality.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on August 27, 2012 at 8:10 am said:
I was always under the impression the stores pay the sales tax anyway, so who does it hurt?”
How do you figure that? It’s a line item on the receipt. The store acts as the government agent to collect the tax, but the customer is who is actually paying it.
In VA, there’s actually a modest fee paid to the retailers (the “dealer discount”) for acting as the state’s agent to collect the tax. It used to be nice and clean and take 5 minutes to do the tax form, but has gotten completely screwed up with the different rates for food vs other goods and now with pre-paid cellular 911 fees being collected and reported separately on the form.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 27, 2012 at 8:16 am said:
My wife the teacher uses the tax holiday to freshen her professional wardrobe and to spend some of that money on supplies that teachers recycle back into the education system from their paychecks.
Banned,
Oftentimes hidden in those lists are classroom supplies (such as bathroom tissues for runny noses) which have been redlined from school budgets. Further erosion of our ‘free’ public educational system.”
On the flip side of the “free” part of the public educational system, how much are the annual fees for the students where you wife works? A coworker just finished enrolling her daughter in a high school here and there are apparently around $200 in annual mandatory “fees” that have to be paid. This is a regular public high school, not charter or anything of that nature.
LikeLike
“Oftentimes hidden in those lists are classroom supplies (such as bathroom tissues for runny noses) which have been redlined from school budgets. Further erosion of our ‘free’ public educational system.”
If that wasn’t intentional sarcasm, then it is the best unintentional sarcasm I have seen in a long time.
LikeLike
Okay, I guess the back to school weekend is a true tax holiday………………..I was thinking of other tax holidays that are not legislated at other times of the year. Those are just advertised discount type of holidays and the retailer still pays the sales tax on those items. We never had the back to school tax holiday when my kids were in school…………………….woe is me………………..I’m getting old.
I read somewhere that retailers were going to pay the tax anyway and were forbidden by law to do so……………………….hahahahahaha
LikeLike
A coworker just finished enrolling her daughter in a high school here and there are apparently around $200 in annual mandatory “fees” that have to be paid.
I’m too cynical and jaded to even keep track. Between PTA dues and band booster fund raisers and lab fees, our checkbook used to just spin in September. The list of costs school districts can fob off onto the kids is long, byzantine, and erratic from area to area.
Where we are, making a kid buy a book is verbotten but when I was in high school we always had to get our own English lit novels at the local used paperback store. And don’t even get me started on the classroom sets of $100 graphing calculators for algebra.
LikeLike
If that wasn’t intentional sarcasm, then it is the best unintentional sarcasm I have seen in a long time.
I’ll take it anyway I can get it. My favorite rant guaranteed to get people to leave you alone at cocktail parties has to do with how schools are funded by property taxes and you are just taking out a mortgage to pay for your kids’ education in hopes that the market will reimburse you when you decide to move to a lower tax state for retirement.
In my county which is the highest performing in the state, houses are easily $50k more than in neighboring counties. In neighborhoods with top-rated creme-de-la-creme schools, the premium can be $100k to $200k extra for what are rather ordinary 30-year-old ranchers and 3 bedroom colonials.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on August 27, 2012 at 8:39 am said:
Okay, I guess the back to school weekend is a true tax holiday………………..I was thinking of other tax holidays that are not legislated at other times of the year. Those are just advertised discount type of holidays and the retailer still pays the sales tax on those items. We never had the back to school tax holiday when my kids were in school…………………….woe is me………………..I’m getting old.
I read somewhere that retailers were going to pay the tax anyway and were forbidden by law to do so……………………….hahahahahaha”
Correct. I’ve also seen the same thing happen at certain retailers during the actual tax holiday if the item isn’t on the “approved” list of back to school items. Best Buy comes to mind.
I actually run a small side computer consulting business and I refuse to sell anything over the tax holidays. The margins aren’t worth the paperwork hassle.
LikeLike
Full transcript of the AP interview with President Obama. I always prefer full interview transcripts rather than highlighted clips or summations.
http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21399827/ap-interview-transcript-president-obama
LikeLike
“With refineries shutting down along the U.S. Gulf Coast, traders are weighing this up and seeing there may be a glut of crude oil in the market,” Carl Larry, analyst at OilOutlooks in New York said.
“Isaac is also adding to talk of a possible release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, so traders are cautious at these levels after a 2-month long rally,” he added. ”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48797079
Emphasizing of course just how important it is to do that SPR release for our economic ( cough, electoral) well-being
LikeLike
Proof that God really is a Republican?
He sent a hurricane to keep Donald Trump out of the convention.
LikeLike
In the latest CNN poll, 6% of Americans say they have never heard of Joe Biden. The other 94% answered, “we wish”.
Click to access rel8a.pdf
LikeLike
Every time I see progressives/liberals/Democrats/PL commenters refer to Republicans and/or the Tea Party as the “American Taliban” (See Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom” on HBO), it’s worth taking a second to remember exactly who the Taliban are and what they do:
LikeLike
The law of unintended consequences:
LikeLike
“Proof that God really is a Republican?
He sent a hurricane to keep Donald Trump out of the convention.”
Obviously a snarky comment, and cute. But going “meta” on you here, since it’s at least the second time you’ve mentioned it, in what way is Trump damaging to the Republican party electorally? It might embarass some elites, but is there any evidence he has directly effected a Republican election outcome?
LikeLike
Emphasizing of course just how important it is to do that SPR release for our economic ( cough, electoral) well-being
Fat lot of good that SPR release will do without any refineries to send it to. First Richmond now Isaac. All we need is for something to happen in NJ/PA and we’ll be biking to work.
LikeLike
Mike, there was that fire here at a Chevron refinery as well which sent our prices higher.
LikeLike
lms:
Yeah, that’s what I was referring to with “Richmond” — the Chevron Richmond refinery. Sorry about my shorthand.
As a token of apology, a link to Kathleen Parker’s piece in Newsweek that has the blogosphere in a tizzy.
From lms; Thanks Mike, I was trying to figure out what happened in Richmond, VA for some reason. Can’t wait to read Parker………lol I especially love it when she sets conservatives hair on fire.
ps That link isn’t working for me.
LikeLike
“what way is Trump damaging to the Republican party electorally?”
Well I guess that depends on your opinion of Trump, AND on which voters you think the election will turn. For instance if you say the most important thing is for the GOP to push every wheelchair riding, chain smoking (snark) member of their base to the polls, then Trump may be neutral or a positive (despite the fact that he had an under 50% approval rating among Republicans when he was “running” for president.)
If on the other hand, you think that independents are the key, then I would suggest that a “rich guy” who lies about his worth, is an egomaniacal self-promoter and a proudly self proclimaed birther is probably not a good choice to get that big stage photo op with Romney.
LikeLike
Parker is both right and wrong.
If you’re just trying to win elections, then of course “ideological purity” is bad for business. However (standby for condemnation) if you believe that you are leading a revolution, it’s essential as Lenin proved, and as Mao on the Long March”, embraced.
LikeLike
Interesting as per our various and sundry discussions of the last few days:
“Abortion access in a post-Roe world”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/abortion-access-in-a-post-roe-world/
LikeLike
Conventions should be funded by the parties themselves, not by the taxpayers:
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-06-08/who-pays-for-the-conventions-we-all-do/
LikeLike
Teen fashion consciousness undermines back to school sales.
LikeLike
Here is just a sample of 13 bills that Republican Houses at the Federal and State level have tried to pass or have passed in the last year…………………….only a sample as there are many variations on the same themes. Not all of them have to do with abortion/contraception and the framing will be objected to……………I concede that up front Scott, nevertheless women are watching.
LikeLike
lms:
Not all of them have to do with abortion/contraception…
In fact only two of them related to contraception, and neither of those entailed attempts to restrict legal access to contraception.
LikeLike
banned
Parker is both right and wrong.
Either way, she was reading my mind.
LikeLike
lms:
The funny thing is that since I’m a fiscal conservative, it could have been so easy for the GOP to sweep me off my feet. However having left the Catholic Chruch once, I have no desire to rejoin it’s surrogate.
LikeLike
However having left the Catholic Chruch once, I have no desire to rejoin it’s surrogate.
That is an interesting perspective. I have always thought that Catholics have been duped into an alliance with fundamentalist evangelicals over the abortion issue at the expense of other social issues important to Catholics such as the death penalty. Rick Santorum and Todd Akin may be just one end of the bell curve on Republican thinking, but there is a well-defined slippery slope from official positions to their druthers.
The shotgun wedding between small government conservatives and social issue conservatives has been an uneasy one for a long time. At some point religious zealots will become a liability for pro-business policies at which point it will have to be determined which tail wags the dog.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 27, 2012 at 11:28 am said:
However having left the Catholic Chruch once, I have no desire to rejoin it’s surrogate.
That is an interesting perspective. I have always thought that Catholics have been duped into an alliance with fundamentalist evangelicals over the abortion issue at the expense of other social issues important to Catholics such as the death penalty. “
The split these days seems to be between those who take religion seriously at all, regardless of denomination vs the “meh” majority.
LikeLike
The other issue with contrasting extreme positions held by certain Republicans vs the attitude of the majority of identified Republicans is the ability of single issue groups (ex gun owners) to effectively leverage coalition politics based on the group’s willingness to vote solely on the basis of that issue. Thus, their ability to use the party as a vehicle for an agenda that polling would indicate may not be supported by the majority of the party itself.
LikeLike
Worth a read:
“The Cheapest Generation
Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy
By Derek Thompson and Jordan Weissmann
September 2012 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-cheapest-generation/309060/
LikeLike
Interesting (but small) study on how a New York voucher program positively influenced college attendance for African Americans.
Didn’t Obama cancel the program in DC?
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/23-school-vouchers-harvard-chingos
LikeLike
Hilarious Fisking of two David Brooks columns.
http://patterico.com/2012/08/27/david-brooks-vs-david-brooks-on-paul-ryan/
LikeLike
McWing:
Hilarious Fisking of two David Brooks columns
Fantastic. You’d think a columnist of his status would have an intern to check stuff like this.
LikeLike
Jonathan Chait in his own way agrees with what I wrote in response to the Parker column. if you’re looking to create a revollution rather than win an election, only the ideologically pure can go along.
“Team Romney White-Vote Push: ‘This Is the Last Time Anyone Will Try to Do This’”
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/2012-or-never-for-gops-white-base.html
LikeLike
“Michael Cohen: Obama needs to make a stronger case that the stimulus did work — and that the sluggish recovery can be blamed on Republicans who got their way when the spending ended”
The first idea is correct, the second is not.
LikeLike
Scott
In fact only two of them related to contraception, and neither of those entailed attempts to restrict legal access to contraception.
Is there some reason you don’t recognize the “personhood” bills as directly affecting access to birth control? A similar bill to many of the ones various states are attempting is going through committee in the House. Clearly it won’t pass now with the Dem Senate and President, but can you see why some of us might be worried what could happen if both of those change hands?
I think it’s clear from your comments the past few days that you’re either not concerned about these possibilities becoming reality or you don’t care if they become reality whether you agree with them or not. We all sat by while our civil liberties were eroded in the name of security and now we’re being asked to sit back and not worry while a two or three day old zygote has more rights than a woman who was raped or even a teenage girl who possibly made the mistake of her life. Just this, in addition to redefining rape and the urge to dismantle Planned Parenthood has some of us nervous. I don’t trust politicians to get this right especially when someone who is supposedly as well respected as Paul Ryan on the right, because of his supposed economic brilliance, also supports most of this legislation. If Romney wins it could very well be Romney or Ryan for the next 16 years…………….yikes.
LikeLike
lms:
Is there some reason you don’t recognize the “personhood” bills as directly affecting access to birth control?
Probably because it was number 13 and I had grown so weary of the over-the-top hyperbole from the first 12 I wasn’t reading carefully enough.
But in all seriousness, it is not at clear to me that the bill would in fact do what the writer claims, ie make the pill and the IUD illegal. According Planned Parenthood, both birth control pills and IUDs work by preventing the sperm from meeting the egg. If that is the case, then the writer is simply wrong.
Even if PP is peddling false info (I had previously thought that an IUD prevented implantation, not fertilization), it is still not clear that the personhood law implies that an IUD would be illegal. I doubt very much that current illegal killing laws have contemplated the circumstances presented by an IUD, which would necessitate either further legislative clarification or judicial interpretation.
LikeLike
lms:
I think it’s clear from your comments the past few days that you’re either not concerned about these possibilities becoming reality or you don’t care if they become reality whether you agree with them or not.
If by “these possibilities” you mean contraception becoming illegal, then no, I am not concerened in the slightest. It will never happen. I recognize Democratic fear-mongering about contraception for what it is…an attempt to preempt discussion about the real topic, ie abortion.
LikeLike
Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just said to KLAS-TV’s George Knapp: “George, I got a call—I have sources just like you, some you trust some you don’t. I don’t have as many as you but a long time friend very wealthy, I’ve known for 30 years, he has had business dealing with Bain, he owns a private equity firm,. he said he has not paid taxes like you and I pay for 10 yrs you should look into it. It’s what I did.”
The nice thing about imaginary friends is they’re always there to comfort you when you need attention!
We have no reason to believe that Harry Reid has ever paid taxes either since he has never released HIS returns and never will:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79419.html
That’s the problem with having a scurrilous cowardly bastard for a Senate Majoriy Leader. When Obama needed him, he recoiled from the fight and hid. Now that the battle is over, he’s writing himself up for a medal.
LikeLike
should be quotes in the above. it came from the Maddow Blog.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me but this is awesome!
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tampa-republican-conventions-code-pink-vagina-protesters-365541
I even think they’ve been VAJAZZLED!
LikeLike
McWing:
Maybe it’s just me but this is awesome
So the convention has human-sized vaginas in attendance? Maybe Taibbi will be covering the convention, providing some gender balance.
LikeLike
I even think they’ve been VAJAZZLED!
Anyone remember the vagina doorway in Patch Adams?
LikeLike
Scott, most IUD’s don’t always prevent fertilization but they also affect the lining of the uterus to prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. Just a FYI. Also the morning after pill affects a fertilized egg (zygote) that hasn’t been implanted yet. Does that sound like birth control or abortion to you?
LikeLike
lms:
Does that sound like birth control or abortion to you?
From a philosophical point of view, I think there is a difference between directly destroying the fertilized egg itself and altering the woman’s body environment so that the egg can’t do its natural thing. The former is more like what we traditionally call an abortion, while the latter is not. Obviously, from a practical point of view, I realize there is no difference, at least until it becomes viable outside of the mother.
LikeLike
“So the convention has human-sized vaginas in attendance? Maybe Taibbi will be covering the convention, providing some gender balance.”
Rimshot.
LikeLike
I personally think this poll is an outlier. If its not though, I expect the Obama campaign to initiate Armageddon.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-obama-romney-neck-and-neck-ahead-of-party-conventions/2012/08/26/62882360-efc3-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html?hpid=z1
LikeLike
So the convention has human-sized vaginas in attendance?
The “Read My Lips” signs were a classy touch.
LikeLike
yello:
The “Read My Lips” signs were a classy touch.
I missed that. That’s good.
LikeLike
lms:
I wasn’t able to see/listen to your Ryan video from earlier until now.
According to Ryan, rape is just another method of conception……………sheesh
What he said was, “The method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” Do you think he is wrong?
LikeLike
Code Pink isn’t exactly know for subtlety.
**Added to comment. These are the real crazies though.
LUDOWICI, Georgia (AP) — Prosecutors say a murder case against four soldiers has revealed they formed an anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal government.
One of the accused troops, Pfc. Michael Burnett, pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter and gang charges in the December slayings of former soldier Michael Roark and his girlfriend, 17-year-old Tiffany York.
Burnett told a judge that Roark, who had just left the Army, knew of the militia group’s plans and was killed because he was “a loose end.”
Prosecutor Isabel Pauley says the group bought $87,000 worth of guns and bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the president.
LikeLike
Scott
Do you think he is wrong?
I would say don’t ask me, ask a woman who is carrying her rapist’s fertilized egg while Republicans apparently want to take away even her access to Plan B in order to ensure it will be implanted in her uterus against her will.
LikeLike
lms:
I would say don’t ask me, ask a woman who…
You’re here, and you’re the one who posted the link and you’re the one who made the comment. So the question properly is posed to you.
But no worries, I think by trying to evade it, you have answered it nonetheless.
LikeLike
Scott
But no worries, I think by trying to evade it, you have answered it nonetheless.
I’m giving you the context Scott. You already know what I believe regarding abortion and birth control…………………….do you agree with the Republicans who are trying to give person hood rights to fertilized eggs that haven’t even implanted into the uterine wall? That’s the context of these bills and some forms of birth control and Plan B. I believe Republicans are going too far and even farther than some in their own party approve of……………………and that’s the context of what’s at stake. What’s next, murder charges? No? Why not, if zygotes are babies?
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/texas-counties-consider-going-it-alone-on-medicaid-expansion/2012/08/26/f35686dc-e322-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_print.html
So far the counties looking to end run Perry are Harris [Houston], Bexar [San Antonio], Dallas, Tarrant [FW], Travis [Austin] and El Paso.
These 6 counties all have county wide clinic support for the poor. I also think there are medical schools or adjunct teaching hospitals in each of these counties.
LikeLike
lms:
You already know what I believe regarding abortion and birth control…
Yes, which is why I didn’t ask you about what you believe regarding abortion and birth control, but rather asked you if you thought what Ryan said was incorrect. Again, your reluctance to give a direct answer seems to provide the answer nonetheless.
As is too often the case, those who would demonize Ryan for his position on rape exceptions (like you) refuse to focus on the real source of disagreement. Instead you want to pretend that he doesn’t care about rape victims or that he is diminishing the crime of rape. That may well prove to be a fruitful electoral strategy for Ryan’s political opponents to take, but we here at ATiM ought to be able to distinguish between demagoguery and reality. If you step outside of the framing of the issue that the feminist left has imposed on the issue of abortion, you would be able to see both that Ryan’s position on exceptions for rape is not crazy, and that the real source of your disagreement actually lies elsewhere.
I have said this many times, but despite the left’s attempt to turn the issue of abortion into a “women’s rights” issue, it is, at it’s core, an issue about the rights of the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever (henceforth to be called ZFBW). When regarding the legality of abortion, the question that must be answered is: Does a right to life inhere in a ZFBW, and if so at what point does the state gain an interest in protecting that right? Now, people may and do disagree over the answer to that question, but whatever the answer is, it surely does not change depending on whether the ZFBW is the product of consensual sex or rape. Why would it?
We pretty much all agree that at the very latest the state has an interest in protecting a life once it has been born. But would you consider making an exception for rape victims? That is, allowing victims of rape to have until, say, the first birthday before killing the ZFBW becomes illegal? I’m guessing you wouldn’t, and I doubt anyone here else would either. The notion would be absurd.
So why should it be any different if the point at which the state gains an interest in protecting the life is earlier than birth? Why would the point at which the state gains an interest in protecting a given life depend upon whether that life resulted from consensual sex or rape? You have indicated that you would be amenable to prohibiting legal abortion after the point of viability. Would you make rape an exception to that? That is, most women have until the point of viability to decide whether or not to abort their ZFBW, but victims of rape get an even longer window? Again, I’m guessing you wouldn’t, and so why would you expect Ryan to make an exception from wherever he thinks the state gains an interest in protecting the ZFBW?
In fact Ryan’s position on rape exceptions is perfectly logical and reasonable when viewed form the perspective of the rights of the ZFBW. You may think that he is not reasonable about the point at which he thinks any ZFBW, whether the product of rape or not, should get protection from the state, but if so, that is the source of disagreement, and that is where the argument belongs. Demonizing Ryan, or anyone else, over not making exceptions for rape victims is just demagoguery, and avoids coming to terms with the real source of disagreement.
.do you agree with the Republicans who are trying to give person hood rights to fertilized eggs that haven’t even implanted into the uterine wall?
In the past I provided a fairly lengthy and detailed comment/post laying out my thinking on the whole issue of life and rights as they relate to abortion. Unfortunately I can’t find it. But in brief, philosophically it seems to me that life begins at conception, ie when the egg gets fertilized, and this is, of course, human life and therefore worthy of protection. However, I am forced to conclude that any morality which can reconcile the rights of the mother with the rights of the new life is, from a practical point of view, indistinguishable from one that sanctions abortion until the point of viability. So ultimately I think you and I are very close to being in agreement on where abortion policy itself should be (if I understand your view). But, of course, Roe prevents us from ever achieving, or even negotiating over, what we think is the most sensible policy. That is why I oppose Roe, and will join forces with those who also oppose it, even if we happen to disagree on where policy should ultimately be.
LikeLike
Scott, I realize that you and I aren’t very far apart in our personal opinions of abortion, which is why I used the example of a pregnancy caused by rape. It’s Republicans who normally hang by the thread of rape, incest and health of the mother, not me. That’s why Ryan’s stand was so shocking to me as it goes against even the majority of not only Americans but his own party.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that conservatives were able to overturn Roe, under Ryan’s leadership that could mean that even rape victims or children raped by male relatives would not have access to largely harmless, and if used within 72 hours, drugs to prevent the egg from implanting. See I do think there is a difference. If we were to eliminate legal abortion, and not make those exceptions, then we would be a very cruel and vengeful society.
Under the conditions that exist now where abortion is legal I don’t believe we need any exceptions except for the the health of the mother, which should be between the family and the doctor. But if somehow Republicans were able to overturn Roe, and not even provide exceptions for rape or incest, per Ryan, then I would be objecting strenuously and it’s the reason I have so little respect for people like Ryan who find all forms of conception equal.
I don’t know if I explained that satisfactorily but I hope you see my point, whether you agree or not.
LikeLike
lms:
That’s why Ryan’s stand was so shocking to me as it goes against even the majority of not only Americans but his own party.
I don’t know whether it goes against what the majority of people think, but I don’t find it shocking. I find it principled and consistent. And it is probably the position you would take relative to your notion of the ideal restrictions on abortion, ie no exception for rape.
If we were to eliminate legal abortion, and not make those exceptions, then we would be a very cruel and vengeful society.
And others maintain that to allow abortion at all makes ours a cruel society. I prefer to appeal to reason rather than emotion.
But if somehow Republicans were able to overturn Roe, and not even provide exceptions for rape or incest, per Ryan, then I would be objecting strenuously and it’s the reason I have so little respect for people like Ryan who find all forms of conception equal.
Two things. First this seems to imply that to overturn Roe is to outlaw abortion, necessitating the exceptions you talk about. That implication is wrong. Overturning Roe in and of itself would not change abortion policy anywhere. Change would require new laws to be written, and they could easily – indeed almost certainly would in most places – end up being fairly close to your ideal, and therefore no exceptions needed to make you happy.
Second, you are misrepresenting what Ryan has said. He did not say that he finds all forms of conception equal. He said that the method of conception does not alter the definition of life. That is, a life that is the product of rape is no less a life (and presumably no less deserving of protection) than is the product of consensual sex. You haven’t presented any reason to think that claims wrong.
LikeLike
Scott:
Unfortunately I can’t find it.
Maybe this is it.
LikeLike
Scott
And it is probably the position you would take relative to your notion of the ideal restrictions on abortion, ie no exception for rape.
No, obviously you missed my point, I’ll assume I didn’t explain it well. I support an exception for rape and incest if elective abortion becomes illegal. I find it to be a much more principled position to protect the well being of a woman who has already been violated over the well being of a two day old fertilized egg. The subject is emotionally charged on both sides so I don’t particularly see how it is possible to keep emotions completely out of the debate and I tire sometimes of trying to keep up the pretense of being devoid of passion for the sake of ATiM. (Edit, that wasn’t what I envisioned when we set out to do something different)
Regarding the legal implications of over turning Roe, I’ll leave that up to the scholars but I doubt I would be happy with whatever alternative a “principled” right to life advocate such as Ryan would replace it with considering his personal preferences seem to be consistent with the Catholic Church. Whether he would ultimately try to impose his religious views on the rest of us, I don’t know, but I’d prefer not to take that chance considering he has already put his name to legislation leaning in that direction.
LikeLike
lmsinca-
Maybe I’m missing Scott’s point here, but I think when he says “And it is probably the position you would take relative to your notion of the ideal restrictions on abortion, ie no exception for rape.”
He is saying that your ideal abortion restriction focuses on viability and that would not change even if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. So he is correct unless you think pregancies caused by rape or incest could be aborted even after viability.
I tend to agree with Scott regarding Ryan’s comment. It seems like a perfectly logical and rational extension of his belief that life begins at conception. Lest I agree too much with Scott, I disagree with his apparent blind spot with respect to some of these personhood laws and comments made by Republicans. The fact that overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal isexactly why the focus is personhood laws and discussions regarding contraception. It seems to me that they are very much trying to make abortion illegal and if they accomplish that I sincerely doubt they would stop there. I suspect they would next move to contraception. Now whether they would succeed is another story, but I’m not so quick to just toss this aside.
LikeLike
ashot:
Welcome back. Good to hear from you.
Maybe I’m missing Scott’s point here…
I think you got my point exactly.
It seems to me that they are very much trying to make abortion illegal
This is no “blind spot”. Of course I know that this is exactly why they are proposing these personhood laws. I said so explicitly just yesterday: ” But all of these “guerrilla campaigns” are designed to do one thing – end the practice of legal abortion.”
…and if they accomplish that I sincerely doubt they would stop there.
I don’t know which “they” you are talking about, but what makes you sincerely doubt this? Certainly there are some people who would outlaw contraception if they could, and naturally such people would ally themselves with the pro-life movement, because the elimination of abortion is a necessary pre-condition to the elimination of contraception, but such people represent a tiny minority. As I pointed out yesterday, roughly 50% of the population classifies itself as pro-life, while only about 11% of the population thinks contraceptive use is wrong. So there is no reason to suppose that efforts to eliminate legal abortion are, on the whole, just a preliminary step to eliminating legal contraception.
In fact I find the notion pretty crazy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 99% of all women who have had sex have used artificial birth control (including 98% of Catholic women) and among sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 69% use artificial birth control. According to this report, my earlier numbers actually understated support for birth control, with 89% of the population, 87% of Republicans, and 82% of Catholics having no problem with contraceptive use. The use and approval of contraceptives is ubiquitous throughout the nation as well as across religious and political affiliations. The idea that a few high profile evangelicals (whose profiles are high in no small part due to Dem efforts to make them high) are going to somehow be able to make contraception illegal despite this ubiquitous support for it, well, it just defies explanation.
It does show one thing, though…Dem propaganda efforts to portray opposition to abortion as signalling the impending doom of legal contraception have certainly been effective.
LikeLike
I said so explicitly just yesterday: ” But all of these “guerrilla campaigns” are designed to do one thing – end the practice of legal abortion.”
My apologies. A hazard of not visiting often enough. Something I hope to remedy.
As for the rest of your comment. If abortion becomes illegal and states pass laws indicating life begins at conception, wouldn’t they be obligated to at least attempt to outlaw contraceptives that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching? Maybe I need to take a closer look at these personhood laws. Do they focus on post-implantation? If so, then that concern goes away. If they focus on fertilization, the threat to at least some forms of contraception seems much more real.
I don’t think banning contraception is likely. And given my misunderstanding regarding your position on the ultimate goal of these measures, much of my post is moot. Another interesting thing I should look at is whether or not comments like Santorum’s have more historical precedence than I am aware of. It seems like the sort of comment that probably has been said before. It is possible that this minority position has always existed within the Republican party and has always failed miserably in its efforts to create change.
And thanks for the welcome back. I was really just avoiding the place because I didn’t want to hear you gloat about Chelsea winning the Champions League. Hazard has proven to be one heck of a signing so far, eh?
LikeLike
ashot:
I don’t think banning contraception is likely.
I agree, obviously.
And thanks for the welcome back. I was really just avoiding the place because I didn’t want to hear you gloat about Chelsea winning the Champions League.
Hah! That was quite a feat, eh? They were lucky….clearly not the best team, but back when they were they lost, so it all evens out in the end.
LikeLike
lms:
I support an exception for rape and incest if elective abortion becomes illegal.
Yes, I know. But regarding my point, the relevant question is whether you would support an exception for rape if elective abortion became illegal post-viability.
I doubt I would be happy with whatever alternative a “principled” right to life advocate such as Ryan would replace it with…
Luckily, neither Ryan nor anyone else in the US is a totalitarian dictator with the ability to implement whatever laws he wants. So if you ended up being unhappy it would be with the alternative that a majority of your fellow citizens would replace it with, not Ryan. And if that was the case, well, welcome to democracy. I am perpetually unhappy with the choices made by my fellow citizens.
LikeLike
I know what he’s saying ash, but now both of you are missing my point. Paul Ryan would make no, zero exception, even in the first few days after being raped because he believes that the method of conception is inconsequential to the life it created. If we were to outlaw elective abortion altogether my position would be to ensure that the option of at least Plan B exists for women who have been raped as I place much more value on their lives than a few cells floating around in her body that haven’t even implanted in the uterine wall yet. This is the point of my objection to Ryan’s views and all the “fertilized egg as person” bills being pushed across the country. I consider Plan B a form of birth control and even if it is ultimately not legally recognized as such for all women, then the exception should be rape and incest.
Paul Ryan is entitled to his “principled” views but I happen to place my values elsewhere and even most Republicans, while they don’t support elective abortion across the board, would make exceptions for rape and incest, if they’re to be believed, even Romney. In this regard I believe Ryan is the outlier and it is one reason why I think his selection along with the very unpopular Akin’s comments have become something of a focus in the election. Are Dems going to capitalize on it, you bet, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a true issue that some women are actually worrying about.
LikeLike
Are Dems going to capitalize on it, you bet, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a true issue that some women are actually worrying about.
Ahh.. now I get what you are saying. I think I also demonstrated that I disagree with Scott largely brushing this off as a non-issue and as just a cynical, political ploy by the Democrats.
LikeLike
Ahh.. now I get what you are saying.
Thanks. Scott and I have been going around and around on this for days now so I think I’m done with it for awhile. He’s never going to agree that this is even an issue other than for political purposes which would make me either an operative or a dupe (I don’t believe I’m either) so we’re at a stalemate again…………………..big surprise huh?
LikeLike
But regarding my point, the relevant question is whether you would support an exception for rape if elective abortion became illegal post-viability.
I’ve already answered that question.
Under the conditions that exist now where abortion is legal I don’t believe we need any exceptions except for the the health of the mother, which should be between the family and the doctor.
I assumed you knew I was also referring to viability as that is more in line with my personal preferences anyway, or even a little earlier to be on the safe side. Personally I believe if women become pregnant by any means they should be able to determine whether abortion is the best choice for them very quickly………….rather than dragging the requirements out by all sorts of roadblocks, speed it up instead. The rest I guess we disagree on and I’m very familiar with disappointment in politicians and fellow citizens.
LikeLike
ash
Maybe I need to take a closer look at these personhood laws
I wish someone besides me would as there’s one in the House that Ryan supports.
Do they focus on post-implantation?
No, and several supporters freely admit they are trying to outlaw certain forms of contraceptives for the express reason that they believe a fertilized egg is a human being regardless of implantation, and so it seems rather unlikely that these are just unintended consequences. One of the reasons these measures keep failing, so far, is that they will affect the current available birth control measures so many women rely on, such as IUDs. Of course it takes a counter campaign to get the word out as many people don’t seem to understand how some forms of birth control and Plan B work.
Scott is correct though, we all know the goal is criminalization of abortion and also correct that the numbers overwhelmingly support birth control measures………….that’s why this is so crazy (Scott’s term). I can hardly be blamed for mentioning the fact that not only Ryan, but quite possibly the Republican Platform Committee, have gone into crazy territory.
Anyway, I’ve had it for now. I should be the one pushing the boulders up the hill.
LikeLike
lms:
I wish someone besides me would as there’s one in the House that Ryan supports.
I read it. This is the relevant language:
So clearly this is meant to prevent legal abortion. But does it threaten legal access to birth control in which a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting itself in a uterus? I suppose under a liberal theory of jurisprudence, in which the words of a law can mean pretty much whatever a judge wants them to mean, it could. But if we consider the words of the law itself and apply them faithfully, what it grants is “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood”. So the question then becomes, is the right to implant oneself in the uterus of a woman a “legal and constitutional attribute and privilege” of personhood. I think you will search the constitution in vain for any indication that such a right has been granted to US citizens. And although I am no legal historian, I suspect you will also search US jurisprudential history in vain for any precedent in which the right of a person to implant itself in the uterus of a woman was established.
So, as long as the words of the bill are applied for what they actually say and mean, it seems to me contraception is safe.
.that’s why this is so crazy (Scott’s term).
Just to be clear, what I said is crazy is the fear that contraception is ever going to be outlawed.
I can hardly be blamed for mentioning the fact that not only Ryan, but quite possibly the Republican Platform Committee, have gone into crazy territory.
Unless you can demonstrate that Ryan and/or the Republican Platform Committee has expressed opposition to legal birth control, I think you can be blamed for implying something that isn’t true, or at least has not been established with evidence.
LikeLike
I suppose under a liberal theory of jurisprudence, in which the words of a law can mean pretty much whatever a judge wants them to mean, it could.
I don’t think it takes much lawyering to go from life begins at fertilization to killing a fertilized egg is illegal. Adopting the position that a fertilized life is guaranteed constitutional rights, preventing the egg from implanting is essentially starving that life. This connection seems a bit more clear given the opposition to the morning after pill. Here’s the problem though, with the exception of the morning after pill, contraception methods occur prior to fertilization, so before life begins. How can the government prohibit an action that occurs before life begins on the basis that they are trying to protect a life?
LikeLike
ashot:
Adopting the position that a fertilized life is guaranteed constitutional rights, preventing the egg from implanting is essentially starving that life.
Consider an analogy. Suppose I lock my door every night to keep people from coming in, and one night this prevents a freezing man from coming into my house for warmth, and he freezes to death outside. Have I “killed” him? Have his rights been violated? I think not. Likewise, taking steps to make sure nothing attaches itself to your uterus does not mean you have “killed” something that tries to implant itself and fails because of your efforts. If a person has no right to attach himself to your house without your consent, he also has no right to attach himself to your uterus without your consent.
How can the government prohibit an action that occurs before life begins on the basis that they are trying to protect a life?
Also a good point.
LikeLike
lms:
I did a bunch of reading about those bills last year when it was on the ballot in Mississippi, as well as the transvaginal ultrasound bills, abortion-restriction bills, etc., etc., etc., and it just became too sickening. And there are too many people who try to make them sound reasonable.
LikeLike
Michi
I just re-read, for about the tenth time, the person hood bill that Ryan co-sponsored with 62 other Republicans, which luckily hasn’t made it out of committee, and it clearly states at the moment of fertilization. IMO, Ryan is a radical on not only rape issues but also contraceptive issues.
Two states have already passed these bills through their legislatures but the ones who tried to pass via citizens votes have failed so far. “Person hood” is an actual movement and obviously they’re trying to reverse choice but they’re also trying to reverse any exceptions for rape and incest as well as undermine some forms of birth control. I’m only taking a break………………..I won’t stop talking about it.
LikeLike
The actual R platform is here. http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#Item10
We oppose the FDA approval of Mifeprex, formerly known as RU-486, and similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception.
LikeLike
More excerpts from the Republican platform (all emphases added):
LikeLike
Here are questions a lawyer from Mississippi raised prior to the vote on Prop 26 there and also prior to a symposium to explore the legal questions. It took me awhile to find this again.
But pre-embryonic personhood has implications beyond the abortion context. To be consistent, we would need to be committed to outlawing any form of birth control that has efficacy after fertilization occurs, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), the morning after pill, and other methods (regardless of form — pill, patch, shot or otherwise), that do not specifically prevent fertilization from occurring. We must be willing to restrict a couple’s choice as to the birth control method they will use, notwithstanding any medical reasons for choosing one method over another.
There are also implications regarding the availability of fertility treatments. In proposing Amendment 26, the sponsor has suggested that the amendment says nothing directly about whether IVF would be outlawed. It doesn’t need to. The IVF process carries with it the known risk that not all of the pre-embryos implanted will result in fully-gestated pregnancies. If two out of three pre-embryos are lost in the process, this would seem to be an unacceptable loss of life. If we are committed to pre-embryonic personhood, we should be committed to banning IVF and other similarly risky fertility treatments until such technologies are safe for all persons (including pre-embryos) involved.
And what about women who experience miscarriages? It is commonly understood that as many as 50 percent of all naturally fertilized ova are spontaneously expelled from the woman before, during, or shortly after implantation. The old wives’ tale advises newly pregnant couples to wait three months to announce the pregnancy. A commitment to pre-embryonic personhood would require us to investigate these miscarriages to ensure that no foul play was involved in the loss of these persons. This does not necessarily mean that all women experiencing miscarriages would be prosecuted; however, our legal framework requires an investigation when there has been a loss of life.
http://msbusiness.com/2011/09/op-ed-life-and-law-%E2%80%94%C2%A0the-commitment-to-pre-embryonic-personhood/
LikeLike
ash
contraception methods occur prior to fertilization
No, not all of them.
LikeLike
Scott
I think you can be blamed for implying something that isn’t true
I’ve made my argument and believe it is true and I’m not alone out here on the plank. I’ve also been respectful and non incendiary in case anyone cares. If someone can show me legally that this doesn’t mean what I think it means then I’ll listen, otherwise I’m not remotely convinced by Scott’s argument that I am wrong.
LikeLike
lms:
Nice job lifting a sentence fragment from my post and pretending it says something other than what it said.
LikeLike
Oh please, I already made my case and I believe I’ve proven it as well so obviously in my mind I’m not implying something that isn’t true. You have yet to prove me wrong.
And your freezing man analogy completely misses the mark. That freezing man was just deemed their child by person hood legislation and so no, the mother wouldn’t be allowed to let him freeze.
LikeLike
lms:
I already made my case…
You have made no case that Ryan wants to outlaw contraception. Which, despite your attempt to portray it otherwise, was what my comment referred to.
LikeLike
Scott:
Suppose I lock my door every night to keep people from coming in, and one night this prevents a freezing man from coming into my house for warmth, and he freezes to death outside. Have I “killed” him? Have his rights been violated? I think not. Likewise, taking steps to make sure nothing attaches itself to your uterus does not mean you have “killed” something that tries to implant itself and fails because of your efforts. If a person has no right to attach himself to your house without your consent, he also has no right to attach himself to your uterus without your consent.
Boy, talk about stretching an argument to it’s absolute breaking point. This is completely weak. In trying to convince us that the Republicans supporting Personhood bills, and the folks writing them, don’t mean to outlaw contraception you are in serious need of a chiropractor.
LikeLike
Mich:
In trying to convince us that the Republicans supporting Personhood bills, and the folks writing them, don’t mean to outlaw contraception…
You are confused. Unlike others, I make no pretense of knowing what they mean to do beyond the obvious desire to prevent abortions. I was only discussing what the language, if it is understood for what it actually says, implies. And I am not trying to convince you of anything. On this topic I don’t believe I am capable of convincing you of anything that runs counter to your existing beliefs. You are not open to being convinced of anything on this topic, at least by me.
LikeLike
Scott:
Scott:
On this topic I don’t believe I am capable of convincing you of anything that runs counter to your existing beliefs.
True. And you don’t listen to me, either.
LikeLike
I make no pretense of knowing what they mean to do beyond the obvious desire to prevent abortions.
Ah, and if only all were so ideologically pure as you are. . .
LikeLike
I make no pretense of knowing what they mean to do beyond the obvious desire to prevent abortions.
Well not specifically. You do argue pretty strongly that there is no way contraception could be made illegal because that position is so unpopular. You cite polls in support of this position and pretty much say Santorum is an isolated radical when it comes to contraception. I feel like inherent in your argument is the argument that no sane politician would make that a policy position when it is so unpopular, Santorum aside. So there is a bit of a pretense of knowing that no Republican politician will attempt to make contraception illegal since it is such an unpopular position.
As others have pointed out, your freezing man analogy is weak. I certainly would be in trouble for locking my 9 month old son outside of our house to freeze. The law, criminal and civil, recognizes certain relationships where a higher duty is owed. I don’t think it is a stretch to think a Court may find a higher duty in the case of a brand new life.
One item on the Republican platform is to ban the Morning After Pill. So they clearly do want to make at least on form of birth control illegal. Again, I don’t know how a court could prevent a woman from taking a pill or having an IUD implanted (not sure that is the right word) when such an act occurs before a life is even contemplated.
As the article lmsinca quoted points out, there are all sorts of unintended consequences that could/would arise from these personhood bills. Can a pregnant woman still drink alcohol? How about smoke? What if she stops eating or does any other number of acts that she hopes induce a miscarriage? Can the government force her to eat in order to protect that life? If not, can they prosecute her if a miscarriage occurs?
LikeLike
ashot:
So there is a bit of a pretense of knowing that no Republican politician will attempt to make contraception illegal since it is such an unpopular position.
Well let me dispel that impression. There is definitely a chance that some Republican or Republicans somewhere will try to make contraception illegal. My point is just that they can’t succeed, at least not outside some small locality. There is far too much use and popular support, among all demographics including Republicans, for it to ever become a significant reality.
I certainly would be in trouble for locking my 9 month old son outside of our house to freeze.
Yes, but that is not analagous. When the IUD is put in place (the analog to locking the door), there is no son in existence. So she is not, in terms of the analog, locking anyone outside. And from that point forward, no action is taken by the woman, so how can she be said to be “doing” anything to the fertilized egg? It is possible, I suppose, to view the women as “neglecting” the egg, but how can she be seen to neglect something that she doesn’t even know exists, and indeed did not exist when she took the action upon which the causes the “neglect”?
If it didn’t, there would be no point in passing these personhood bills
I think the point of these laws is basically a workaround to Roe. Roe prevents states from passing laws directly restricting access to abortion. So a strategy of attempting to make abortion subject to existing laws has been developed. If Roe did not exist, and states could regulate abortion directly, then I suspect these personhood laws probably would not exist.
One item on the Republican platform is to ban the Morning After Pill. So they clearly do want to make at least on form of birth control illegal.
Well, I suppose that here we get into the semantics of what is a contraceptive and what is an abortifacient, I think it is probably true that the morning after pill is viewed by more people as the latter, and thus would run up against more opposition.
Again, I don’t know how a court could prevent a woman from taking a pill or having an IUD implanted (not sure that is the right word) when such an act occurs before a life is even contemplated.
Agreed.
As the article lmsinca quoted points out, there are all sorts of unintended consequences that could/would arise from these personhood bills.
Indeed. Things sure would be a lot more straight forward without Roe in the way.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose that here we get into the semantics of what is a contraceptive and what is an abortifacient, I think it is probably true that the morning after pill is viewed by more people as the latter, and thus would run up against more opposition.
Right, a far more productive discussion would be to see if we can agree that personhood bills could/would make illegal methods that pevent implantation or destroy a fertilized egg provided that those actions took place after sex. (That is as clear as mud, but it’s the best I got right now) I’m guessing lmsinca would be worried that they would go after IUDs and other contraceptives (pretty clear Santorum would). Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, but limiting the discussion to what will come about as a result of personhood bills, I think you and I are largely, if not entirely, in agreement.
Things sure would be a lot more straight forward without Roe in the way.
I agree that the personhood bills are largely an attempt to work around Roe. I am less certain that they would not exist if Roe did not exist. Obviously no real way of knowing.
Besides, if you want to get rid of Roe, you should do it the way the Constitution intended: Win election then have your President appoint a judge for life based in large part about his political stance on a single issue. Then hope he/she manages to sneak past a Congress who bases their opposition on that one stance as opposed to the judicial qualifications of the nominee. Like I said just like the Constitution intended.
LikeLike
Scott
You have made no case that Ryan wants to outlaw contraception
Because that’s not the case I was trying to make. I clearly stipulated that the person hood bills, which he does support, have the potential consequence of limiting choices in birth control, ie those that affect the implantation of a fertilized egg, and also would restrict a rape victim’s use of the morning after pill. I believe Ryan is on the radical philosophical end of the spectrum regarding these issues. That’s my point in a nutshell and the reason some of us are worried about him getting too close to the White House.
LikeLike
Here are a couple more links for consideration. The group promoting all these bills is called Personhood USA and Mason is their leader. I read one quote where he even said calling zygotes or embryos fertilized eggs was tantamount to using the N word.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/01/136850622/abortion-foes-push-to-redefine-personhood?ft=1&f=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NprProgramsATC+%28NPR+Programs%3A+All+Things+Considered%29
And while Mason of Personhood USA says he doesn’t think his proposals would interfere with most forms of birth control, he doesn’t deny that some could.
“Certainly women, my wife included, would want to know if the pills they’re taking would kill a unique human individual,” he says
The medical profession doesn’t even consider a woman pregnant until the egg has implanted.
As I said earlier 63 members of the House have sponsored a Personhood bill that is hopefully forever stuck in committee and Paul Ryan is one of them. Two states have already passed similar bills through their legislatures and several more are trying so it’s not just some crackpot with a cause promoting this legislation, although when the consequences are understood the majority of people don’t support the bills.
I don’t think it’s particularly unreasonable for some women and hopefully men to be a little worried about what’s happening.
LikeLike
Anyway, I’ve spent too much time on this already, but as many of you already know I can be pretty stubborn. We’re going to the beach for a few days tomorrow so I’ll be gone for a little while. I may check in later but still have a lot to do to get ready……………
LikeLike