Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
An illustration
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, April 26, 2007

The other day, in a post entitled "We Get the Government We Deserve", I touched on the appalling lack of understanding most of our fellow citizens have about our system of government, traditions, founding principles, etc. Ms. Lori Reimherr of Chicago chose to come to my aid by illustrating my point in a letter to the editors of USA Today on the abortion issue:
The U.S. Supreme Court decided it was not enough that experienced doctors, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Public Health Association believe that the procedure critics call "partial-birth abortion" sometimes is the safest way to terminate an unsafe pregnancy ("Justices back abortion limits," News, Thursday).

What about women who suffer from heart disease, kidney disease, immune deficiencies and bleeding disorders?

Doctors will have to tell these women, "Sorry, the best treatment I can give you sounds too distasteful to your legislator." This is another example of the Bush administration trying to legislate morality at the expense of individual rights.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said it best: "Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." U.S. legislation has been reduced to blown-up, inflammatory pictures instead of facts and respect for women's rights.

Lori Reimherr

Chicago
In a single letter she managed to get all three branches of government involved, blame it on Bush and call a court decision "legislating morality" (even while the "Bush administration's" party isn't in power in the Congress). Most appalling is the fact that the editors of USA Today thought it smart enough to print.

*sigh*
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I love that terminating a living entity is considered safe from restrictions and is part of "a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course" while me, trying to purchase a firearm that statistically will not terminate a living entity should be restricted, regulated, taxed, monitored, and controlled.

Me? I abhor abortion. It’s murder in my eyes, the same way squishing sea turtle eggs is. However, I understand that there are no absolutes in life and that sometimes it is the lesser of many evils just like capital punishment or lethal force in self defense.

It would make me happy to see abortion totally legal, but so frowned upon by society that only those who absolutely need it use it and have it done as safely and humanely as possible.

The fact that there are people who relish abortion and even make t-shirts and jewelery to celebrate it saddens me to no end.

And yet I would not ask my representatives to ban it outright.

A three day waiting period with intrusive background checks and requiring a permit, though... That I’d consider ;)
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
OK, so Reimherr mentions some medical issues that bear on the issue at hand, and that might not have been adequately considered in policy decisions. She also quotes a Supreme Court justice on a matter of the relationship between the legislature and judiciary. These points are controversial, so you address them . . . how? Not at all. Instead, you react to her blaming the Bush administration, and to the phrase "legislating morality" which is generally guaranteed to cause liberal-haters’ knees to jerk. Supposedly, your flat dismissal of her letter is based on a perception that she’s blaming the wrong branch of government, but even that unstated objection is wide of the mark. The case is Gonzales v. Texas, which was brought by Bush’s Attorney General before a bench including more than one Bush appointee, so blaming the Bush administration is not at all inappropriate. Similarly, the decision is regarding the constitutionality of Texas legislation, so objections to "legislating morality" are not out of place either. This is about the Bush administration and about legislating morality. While it’s not 100% accurate to put the two together in one sentence to indict the Bush administration for legislating morality, that could be attributed to poor phrasing and does not justify a conclusion that Ms. Reimherr does not understand the roles of the different branches of government. Presenting those roles simplistically and ignoring the myriad ways that they interact exhibits at least the same level of ignorance on your part as on hers.

Of her letter and your response, McQ, which would a rational and honest person - even one who disagreed with Reimherr on this particular issue - conclude was "smart enough" to merit publication and discussion? Which one brought something even mildly interesting to the debate table, and which was just empty insult?
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
She also quotes a Supreme Court justice on a matter of the relationship between the legislature and judiciary. These points are controversial, so you address them . . . how?
As usual platypus, you demonstrate an inability to understand the context of a post or, if you do understand it, you simply try to change the subject so you can falsely excoriate the writer.

Most who read this, you obviously excluded, will have the mental acuity to understand - given the the initial cite, the title, the highlighting and the statement of what it "illustrates" - that the post has nothing whatsoever to do with the abortion debate. It just so happens that was the subject of her letter. It could just as easily have been about cattle rustling.

If you want to discuss the abortion topic, fine. But don’t try to lecture me on what I should or shouldn’t have covered.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I agree that the letter was hella-lame, but how is it relevant that Bush’s party isn’t in power now? It was the party in power when Congress passed the bill in question, right?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"legislating morality"
Oh please, can we bury that canard?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
It’s you who misunderstood/misrepresented context, McQ, when you claim my response focused on the abortion debate. Most people with any mental acuity at all can see that it didn’t. I explicitly addressed the same point most people would have concluded you were trying to make about people confusing the three branches of government. If that’s not the point you meant to make, then you just didn’t express yourself very well and my point about the lameness of your post is made in another way. Reimherr’s letter was still of far better quality than your response, and that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

If you want to pick an example that has to do with a particular subject to illustrate a point, fine. Don’t bitch and launch personal attacks when they show that the example does not in fact illustrate that point. That proves only that you’re a small child in the body of an old man.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
That proves only that you’re a small child in the body of an old man.


ooh McQ, he showed you. You certainly think twice about taking his lunch money at recess again.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
I wonder if Ms. Lori Reimherr, complained when Chicago’s City Council outlawed my (individual) right to enjoy Foie Gras in a resturant? Seems its not legislating morality if one agrees with the proscription.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Can we bury the "activist judge" canard too, now that the judges are being activist the way the liberal-haters want them to be?
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
Can we bury the "activist judge" canard too, now that the judges are being activist the way the liberal-haters want them to be?
How do you define "activist"? Just because the judges rule against your wishes isn’t de facto evidence of activism. Making new law from the bench would be activism, but upholding an existing law is not.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Making new law from the bench would be activism, but upholding an existing law is not.
It would be if the law was contrary to the Constitution. Overuling the legislature is definitely something a constitutional, conservative court should often do, and to fail to do it is "activist".

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Just because the judges rule against your wishes isn’t de facto evidence of activism."

If only that point had been made the thousands of times that the right complained about activist judges. In fact I have other reasons for branding these judges as activist, and you had no reason (beyond convenience) to assume otherwise, but I’m not going to get into a real digression about it after McQ already got apoplectic about an imagined one. I don’t need any psychos showing up on my doorstep, thanks.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
Activist judges created a "penumbra" and "auras" where none exist. Is refusing to recognize these ersatz concepts activism? Liberals such as Platypus would have us believe so.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
If only that point had been made the thousands of times that the right complained about activist judges.
Please give us some examples of times that the right complained about activst judges when in fact the judges weren’t being activist.
In fact I have other reasons for branding these judges as activist,
Please give us some examples of how you think the current court is being activist; since you made the claim, you need to back it up.
and you had no reason (beyond convenience) to assume otherwise,
I wasn’t making any assumptions, simply stating that a ruling contrary to your views isn’t necessarily activist. That applies to both left and right. Don’t attribute any assumptions to me unless you have direct evidence that I actually made such an assumption.
but I’m not going to get into a real digression about it after McQ already got apoplectic about an imagined one.
A real digression? Do you mean "discussion"? Is this your way of ending a debate where you had no real argument?
I don’t need any psychos showing up on my doorstep, thanks.
If you’re calling me a psycho who might show up at your doorstep, you owe me an apology. I don’t give a tinker’s dam about you or where you live.



 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
ooh McQ, he showed you. You certainly think twice about taking his lunch money at recess again.
When this is the best he can bring to the game ...
That proves only that you’re a small child in the body of an old man.
... it’s really not worth the effort capt. joe.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
This is another example of the Bush administration trying to legislate morality at the expense of individual rights.
I totally agree. How dare the government impose their morality on me and forbid me my Satan-given right to sacrifice virgins. But on the other hand, I’m glad the Democrats want to take away my right to enjoy my income and use it to provide healthcare to everyone. How moral of them.

*sigh* All sarcasm of course, I do enjoy the hypocrisy.
 
Written By: Mundian
URL: http://
.. it’s really not worth the effort capt. joe.
you’re right, that was sort of pathetic
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Let’s be honest. When voters think of Presidential candidates and the abortion issue, they are thinking about who the next President might appoint to the Supreme Court.

This Court is headed in the direction in which the President pointed it. So yes, the President is indirectly responsible for the Supremes’ decision.
 
Written By: Doug Purdie
URL: http://
Can we bury the "activist judge" canard too, now that the judges are being activist the way the liberal-haters want them to be?
Oh, I don’t hate liberals.

Just you.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
What a lively debate.

I have some thoughts on the whole "legislate morality" thing, but I’ve already written them on my blog so I won’t write them all again (that’s not a shameless plug, I swear...it is relevant to the topic).

Suffice it to say that liberals are up in arms about "legislating morality" because they don’t believe in morality at all and they won’t accept that legislation must be based on morality, and that morality cannot be measured on a sliding scale.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://www.tagjungle.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider