STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

esquiress · Marc Jacobs

RE: Palin's daughter

relrel · Marc Jacobs

esquiress wrote:

D wrote:

Furthermore, is this an important subject? I don't even take Roe v. Wade standings into account anymore - I firmly believe it will never be overturned (the societal impact is too great in regard to freedom and overpopulation), and a president's or presidential candidate's stand on it I do not take into consideration.

I disagree. I think it is one of the most important issues of our time.

There are a myriad of ways that the Roe v. Wade decision can be limited and curtailed, and in fact has been limited and curtailed.

For example, the Gonzalez v. Carhart decision last year. The decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart could have turned out very differently if there had been more pro-choice supreme court justices. The decision was 5-4, after all. And here's what Justice Ginsburg had to say in her dissent:

"Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey,between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.
I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

In my opinion, here's a recipe for undermining Roe v. Wade:

pro-life president

pro-life Supreme Court justices

pro-life legislators in Congress and the Senate.

No matter where you stand on the subject, the decision in Roe v. Wade should not be taken for granted.

Here's a link to the Gonzalez v. Carhart case by the way:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

-- Edited by esquiress at 20:19, 2008-09-03

I agree totally with Esquiress- not just abortion rights, but basic reproductive rights are being eroded on a daily basis in this country. I'm talking about the ability to get a relatively cheap, safe abortion whether medical or surgical, the ability to pick up a pack of birth control pills at the pharmacy of your choice, and also the ability to be able to support your young children on a single paycheck. It's not just about overturning R. v W. That probably won't happen- but what will happen and what has been happening is that in certain states and in certain cities, it's harder and harder for a woman to make informed decisions about her own reproduction. It's tricky to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, it's nowhere near as tricky or difficult to make couseling mandatory before an abortion, or to make it like getting a gun with a 48-hour wait. In fact, getting a gun is probably much easier in some states than getting an abortion. But it's not just about abortion, it's also about access to birth control. Better birth control=less abortions.

If McCain wins this election, we are all screwed.

I guess my whole reaction to Palin's daughter is just one of laughter. If she loses (or possibly even if she wins) there's totally gonna be a Lifetime movie about her.

NCshopper · Hermes

I think Palin's daughter's pregnancy is going to be a non-issue. People don't vote for the vice-president, they vote for the president and given that, they're certainly not going to vote for or against McCain based on Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Also, conservatives (who were going to likely going to vote Republican anyway) will look at this and hold her up as being an anti-abortion model and the democrats won't use this as a campaign issue. So in terms of the campaigns, I don't think there's an advantage or disadvantage to be made of this news.

That said, how much would it suck to be Briston Palin right now? Being 17 and pregnant probably sucks enough as it is, but all of a sudden for the whole country to know who you are and your whole history has got to be awful.

Teresa · Kate Spade

I also take into consideration whether the candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. I have a hard time voting sometimes because I am pro-life in all regards. Whether it is death penalty or abortion. I know it is unrealistic to think Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and I know there would be serious results if that were to happen. HOWEVER, I cannot justify voting for someone who is pro partial birth abortions and who doesn't want parents notified of minors recieving abortions. At the end of the day, no matter how I justify it, it is still the killing of a child if you ask me.

blubirde · Chanel

collegegirl5858 wrote:

I also take into consideration whether the candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. I have a hard time voting sometimes because I am pro-life in all regards. Whether it is death penalty or abortion. I know it is unrealistic to think Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and I know there would be serious results if that were to happen. HOWEVER, I cannot justify voting for someone who is pro partial birth abortions and who doesn't want parents notified of minors recieving abortions. At the end of the day, no matter how I justify it, it is still the killing of a child if you ask me.

First off, I agree with both Esquiress and Relrel on the Roe v. Wade issue, although I do think Roe v. Wade can be overturned - quite easily actually. I believe that if Roe v. Wade comes before the Supreme Court (in a case with similar facts where R v. W is the applicable law), it's over with, purely and simply. I'm not sure today's SCOTUS would take such a case but if they did, they have the majority to overturn.

Secondly, Obama is anti-late term abortion and while I don't know his stance on parental notification, I can't imagine it's a make or break issue for him. You didn't state which candidate you support, and you don't have to, but if those are your issues, know that you have both candidates to choose from and can base your decision on something else, such as the death penalty.

Andrea Mitchell interviewed a CA delegate tonight on MSNBC. The delegate was female and supposedly "leery" of Palin before her speech. She's also pro-choice. After Palin's speech she was very gung-ho about her. She said Palin was going to "lead" her in the ways that are important to her. Interestingly, she said security issues are more important to her than her pro-choice stance, at least at this very moment. When Andrea Mitchell pointed out that Palin discussed neither foreign affairs nor security and in fact had very little exposure to either, the CA delegate insisted that she felt Palin could "lead" us. Lead us where, I wonder?

jah · Dooney & Bourke

At the end of the day, I think we all decide which issues are most important to us. The issue that is the "driving force" for me is the economy and I strongly believe if you review the plans for business that Obama/Biden laid out against the ones that McCain/Palin have outlined, the McCain/Palin ticket plan is much stronger. Taxing business will not improve our economy and if you listen carefully to Obama/Biden, with the exception of small business, this is exactly the idea.

The McCain/Palin plan would decrease corporate taxes and incent American Corporations to invest in R&D which is essential to keep this country innovating. So, to answer the question of where Palin will lead us - with McCain (and a supportive Congress), this would be one area where she could help...

At the end of the day, I'm fine with paying more taxes personally if it means that we will have a better world, but it really scares me when words are thrown around regarding taxing big business as economically it doesn't make sense... The economist in me gets really irritated when this is represented as a "solution" to our problems. Why don't we stop spending a bunch of money on stupid stuff and keep better track of the money that is spent instead of penalizing Corporations for strong profits (frankly, it surprises me that anyone with an investment portfolio thinks this is a reasonable idea).

Many of the world's best economists agree that the McCain/Palin plan is much better for our economy, including the heads of the Economics departments at Stanford, Princeton, Northwestern - the list goes on and on...