North
Texas
Liberal

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- a Judiciary Committee member who opposed confirming Roberts and Alito -- said she's "truly shocked" at "a major strike against woman's right to choose. ... This decision clearly demonstrates the real impact on privacy rights that has occurred through President Bush's efforts to nominate judges whose views are out of the mainstream of American legal thought."

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, called it "the height of arrogance. The five Justices who voted to ban this procedure must believe that having `juris doctor' degrees entitles them to instruct the nation's medical professionals on patient care.

Rudy Giuliani issued a statement: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it." But in 2000, Giuliani said he agreed with President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, saying then -- in response to a question about whether if he, as a senator, would have "vote[d] with the president or against the president" -- that he would have "vote[d] to preserve the option for women."

Senator Barack Obama: I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

John Edwards: "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake -- starting with, as the court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Amy Hagstrom Miller, board chairman of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers: "There is definitely a concern that this ruling could come down and really affect procedures done as early as 12 weeks. The providers want to know that what we do is okay. We are the kind of people that comply with laws."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "According to the expert testimony … introduced, the safety advantages of intact D&E are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems......The majority's decision "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition: "Clearly, this decision paves the way for the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade. Our hope is that the Department of Justice will move aggressively to ensure the bipartisan banning of this barbaric procedure is immediately enforced. "

Senator Sam Brownback: “I applaud the Court for finding that the constitution ‘expresses respect for the dignity of human life,’ and hope that this decision signals the Court’s willingness to revisit and reverse Roe v. Wade.”

After the recent abortion ban was signed into law in South Dakota by Governor Mike Rounds, no one was more outraged than the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Ms. Fire Thunder is a former nurse and was angered that a governing body consisting mainly of white Republican men would make a law restricting women from making a personal choice on abortion. Free to make her own decision on the issue, she has come to take the opposite stance.

“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty. I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”

Yes, you read that correctly. President Fire Thunder plans to open a Planned Parenthood branch in the state of South Dakota and there's nothing the Republican legislators can do about it.

A mailing address and an email address can be found here if you'd like to help finance this effort. The Oglala Sioux Tribe doesn't have a lot of disposable income, so in order to take on such a large project, they're going to need our help. If you can't afford to help with resources presently, at least drop an encouraging email to President Fire Thunder and let her know that you support her work for women's rights.

With the president's poll numbers in a free fall, and Republican dissent emerging in Congress, Democrats are setting to run the 2006 campaign as a referendum on Bush's policies. Republican party strategists, however, think they know the key to winning in the fall: turn out the base.

As Fred Barnes, in an article for The Weekly Standard, outlines it:

House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion.

There couldn't be a better testament than this agenda to the fact that Bush's capital is - spent. And although it sounds arrogant and even risky to run on an agenda that is so marginalizing when the largest disaffection in recent polls has been among moderate Republicans, the truth is that the RNC has no choice. They are paying the price now for the incredible party discipline of the last five years. The Republican congressional leadership followed Bush doctrine in lockstep right up to the edge of the cliff, and there is no backing away now.

"Dave Sachett of the Tarrance Group said, in a memo to Mehlman, that distancing oneself from the president is a "flawed strategy" and would not protect a Republican candidate "from the generic backlash against the administration or the congressional leadership." Rather, it would turn the campaign into "a national referendum on President Bush and the policies of the administration and the congressional leadership"-- just what Republicans fear in 2006. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter/Consumer Research said a campaign that becomes a referendum on Bush could also chill Republican voter turnout. "Anything we do to depress turnout, by not running as a unified party, for instance, could very well lead to serious consequences in November."

Well, why not? It worked before. And they might get lucky. Moderate Republicans may choose to stay home in November rather than vote for a Democrat, if the party of opposition fails to prove it is a viable alternative. But the Democratic strategy may not necessarily equate to many specifics, something that frustrates Republicans.

Blunt, however, wants to force Democrats to present an agenda. Contrasted with Democratic plans, "our ideas always look better," he says. "Their best day will be the day before they release their agenda. Suddenly [Republican] policies will look like the policies that would work best in the future."

The Democrats learned this piece of political jujitsu from the Republicans' torpedo of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Republicans trashed it without presenting a viable alternative, and therefore, scuttled any possible compromise. The Democrats displayed the same tactic successfully during the debate on how to save Social Security, and although they have taken hits for not being the party of "ideas", the political fallout has been manageable. But the key to successfully implementing this strategy is a strong offense in order to keep the focus on your opponent's shortcomings, rather than your lack of specifics - a tactic at which the Republicans excel. Fortunately, five years of Bubble Boy's bungling has given the Democrats plenty to attack. It remains to be seen whether they have the stomach for it.

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer had a segment on the South Dakota abortion legislation tonight. In an interview with Fred De SanLazaro, State Senator Bill Napoli (R) was asked how he could insist the legislation, which bars all abortions except when the mother's life is at risk, would allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. Here's his response:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Digby has the analysis here.

The state of Mississippi, a conservative bastion and a strict opponent of abortion, is following the lead of South Dakota and attempting to ban all abortions in the state. The Republican Governor Haley Barbour has said that he hopes that the bill comes to his desk with exceptions made for rape and incest, but that he would probably sign it even without those provisions.

Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."

This really goes to show that Barbour is another conservative puppet. He obviously cares more about pleasing his Republican legislature and the radical conservative voters in his state than protecting women if he'll veto his own opinion before he'd veto the monumental legislation.

Now, the legislature in Jefferson City is proposing that Christianity be made the official state religion of Missouri. This is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution... but the Republicans in Missouri can't let a silly little thing like the Constitution impede them.

Seriously... what is this country coming to these days?

Edit: Upon further research of Missouri law, it's interesting to note how misleading the original article from KTOV out of St. Louis is.

The bill was filed as House Concurrent Resolution 13, meaning that even if passed it will have virtually no effect and will not be considered an actual law (according to the Missouri House glossary).

An act of the House or Senate or of both together that ordinarily has no effect of law. It either commends some achievement, expresses an opinion, urges another entity such as Congress to take some action, or takes some internal action such as establishing a committee. See also Concurrent Resolution and Joint Resolution.

Regardless, this is a waste of time and money, and the Missouri House is "recommending" something that is blatantly unconstitutional.