Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control

Sure you are. If I'm trying to institute a Christian theocracy, you're auditioning to be the counselor at camp reeducation when they're all locked up. And I'm sure you'll remind them that they didn't get locked up for their beliefs, but for being nasty little theocrats and voting their conscience.

 

Fair enough. If you don't mind explaining what you meant, though, I'd appreciate it. While we rarely agree on a lot of these things, as a general rule I value what you have to say.

 

My hillbilly ignorance had led me to believe that jingoism meant blindly following a slogan, to ends that fail to even question the meaning of the slogan.

So, when you referenced nullification not being mentioned in the Federalist papers, etc., and I pointed out that maybe if it had just been written into a private letter instead it would have had a chance, and you said "Perhaps if it were completely at odds with Constitutional design a convenient metaphor wouldn't have been adopted," I was disparaging the weight of convenient metaphors. We're left worshipping cute phrases devoid of whatever meaning they might have originally meant.

Windy enough?

 

Ah. Well, if you're accusing me of doing so with respect to the "wall of separation", you'll notice I rarely if ever use the phrase. I wouldn't dispute that many out there tend to seize upon bits and pieces to support their view without trying to understand context.

 

No, it wasn't an accusation that you had done it. Just saying that if we're going to depend on convenient metaphors, to hell with it. Indeed, I was meaning the "many out there" had done it.

My "of course you don't" was reacting to the thought that you hadn't recognized, as you described, the many out there that tend to seize upon bits and pieces.

 

Something I've noticed about Constitutional law in particular: lay people tend to screw it up a lot.
Another something I've noticed about Constitutional law in particular: so do people with legal or historical training.

 

Who is talking about locking up anyone? I've never once called for that or for the criminalization of anything aside from better regulation of Wall Street and of the environment (unlike Christianists). I'm for maximum freedom and I'm against Christianists trying to impose their minority world view on the rest of us. I've never suggested they should be locked up, only that their views often run contra to our Constitutional principles and therefore, even when blessed by the legislative process, their actions and views should be struck down by the courts.

Sally Kern anyone?

 

Speaking of Christianist nutters, OKC's very own Ralph Shortey, Senator for South OKC filed this marvelous bill for the 2012 session:

These are your people. Wow.. human fetus consumption by people and livestock. Who knew this was a problem?

 

Riddle me this, then. Who is talking about instituting a Christian theocracy, as you've accused me? I've never once called for that or the criminalization of believing other things.

Oh, you don't like it when someone exaggerates your views and puts words in your mouth? Well then, pathetic hypocrite, don't do it to me.

Joseph Stalin anyone?

 

I would think that Shorty is trying to get at stem cell research by combining the R&D clause with baby eating.
I have to admit, I kind of admire the sheer off-the-wall wording.

Wonder if he's aware that some of the enzymes used in commercial baking are derived from...human hair. That one's for real, not an overblown fantasy.

 

Well he also filed the R&D bill.

Guess I'm going to have to move my fetus tissue barbecue up to sometime before session starts. Bummer.

 

Birth Control? Legality? Anything?

Ok, how about this. What kind of changes to constitutional law/precedent would have to occur such that it would be possible for the states to outlaw birth control? Anyone?

 

The Court would have to explicitly overrule Griswold v. Connecticut. Since there's a huge body of law that's predicated on Griswold, that would have the effect of calling into question whether states could outlaw homosexuality and abortion, among other things. It might even overturn some of the search and seizure jurisprudence, since I think some of the Fourth Amendment cases cite Griswold (don't quote me on that though.)

An amendment stating that the 9th, 4th, and 15th amendments should not be construed to imply a right of privacy would also do it, or even more narrowly an amendment stating that states have the right to regulate birth control.

 

/thread

 

Whoops. Typo. 5th Amendment, not 15th Amendment, obviously. Sorry about that.

 

I'm going to leave Dr. Woods and his new book right here:
[video=youtube;S2YaTVRR90g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2YaTVRR90g[/video]

 

Let me say that I haven't read his book yet, but I stumbled upon this video tonight and it's in line with some of the things I was arguing.

 

1 hour and 27 minutes and 35 seconds into this.....John King asks the Candidates about Abortion. Newt basically tries to doosh King for how he poses the question but then Newt tries to doosh the other candidates as to whether they are Pro-Life. No question as to what kind of changes to constitutional law/precedent would have to occur such that it would be possible for the states to outlaw birth control/abortion....lol. Santorum basically says that Newt and Romney have side-stepped the question of Pro-Life for years.

At 1 hour and 35 minutes and 30 seconds the room erupts as John King nearly tries to keep Ron Paul out of the conversation....that changes.

Then Ron Paul (The only guy that's a Doctor) pipes in and basically says he can reverse Row v Wade by calling abortion a violent act and allowing the States to deal with it as such. You then don't have the Government involved in Birth Control or Abortion and you don't need any change to Constitutional Law.

I'm not sure that will fly in this Country as Ron I believe is right that in the 1960's it wasn't the law that changed about abortion....it was the morality of Americans that changed. As a Doctor he believes that if a Woman comes to see him and she's pregnant.....he has two patients. I believe he's right and when you abort your child.....you are killing it. So to keep you from being charged with Murder....the Congress got involved and changed the law. The law won't ever change as to do so....you need to change the morality of the people.

Basically Rick, Newt and Mitt are all full of hot air and using abortion and Pro-Life just shouldn't be a political topic as they lack the will of the people to change and unless the people change you won't change the law.

The best way for them as Pro-Lifers / Christians to change people is to convince folks to be Christians and follow the morality that a Christian Life asks of us. If that occurred...the law wouldn't even matter as most folks would just see the law as something immoral people use to kill their babies to keep from spending the rest of their life in jail. If you as a Christian believe they will answer to God for these acts.....then they are in much bigger trouble than the 25 to Life that murdering your child would probably bring.

Now....were do we go from there?

Also...if we took Ron's approach and let States decide....will it lead to also ending the need for Congressional Law to address Stem Cell Research, or cloning etc?

[video=youtube;8-fU-knxT0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-fU-knxT0U[/video]

 

I of course remember my Father and Uncle (Both Doctors) discussing these topics in the 1960s. Then girls were I think going to Arkansas to get an abortion and they could get it as long as their Mother or Father was there. I remember the stories they would tell about girls who couldn't or wouldn't tell their Parents and then the Parents were calling them or other Doctors out to try and keep their daughters from hemoraghing to death because they went to someone that said they could help them with their problem. They indeed would abort the child but the Mother would go Home bleeding sometimes and or die of infection or end up sterile for the rest of her life. Some really horrible stories I heard.

I like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum but either of their approach surely can't be the best solution as to go backwards in time and change the law to States law and avoid the entire Morality Issue will lead to mass hysteria.

These are awful solutions they both have as they intend to try and say that this is a Dirty Lib vs Pure Christian Issue and it is an issue of morality and a health issue unfortunately.

The whole thing got out of control back in the 1960-70s and we seem to be stuck with these idiots all trying to use it as a Political Issue instead of them truly trying to do something that is good medicine and good policy and addresses Morality vs your Reproductive Rights as an American.

 

I will not answer your questions, ouflak. Okay, I may not get any cred from you, but frankly speaking the questions just seem too silly. And, I know that I shouldn't over estimate the intelligence of some state legislatures.

I can show disdain even if I recognize that some people believe that a soul is created at the time of conception.

I don't think that there is anything in the Bible that supports that idea, but I am obviously not a biblical scholar.

I can appreciate the fact that the Catholic church disapproves of contraceptives. Again, nothing scholarly here. I just wonder with 6 billion people on the planet whether we should be so worried and willing to apply morals in terms of contraceptives.

Although I would very much hate that the topic went back to abortion, that isn't supported by biblical and