posted on November 5, 2005 04:18:59 PM new
Another thing I just don't feel that the liberals or those who are pro-abortion GET...is this piece of this article is the same thing that CA voters will be voting on come Nov 8th.
And that is the laws are NOT written to allow one spouse to have MORE control over the decision making process....just that they be made AWARE of it.
Same thing with this age argument about the parents being NOTIFIED....does NOT mean they can deny their daughter STILL getting an abortion.
The liberals HIDE behind the 'no changes at all to abortion' theory....and make it sound like they're trying to REVERSE these issues. THey aren't.....their trying to make it 'fair' to both the spouses and the 'parents'.
Can't see a darn thing wrong with that.
-----------
WSJ
BY JAMES TARANTO
Saturday, November 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
When President Bush nominated Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court, it didn't take long for extremist groups to alight on his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, as a pretext to oppose him.
Planned Parenthood's Karen Pearl called the opinion "outrageous" and said it proved Judge Alito is "far, far out of the mainstream."
Planned Parenthood mostly lost the Casey case, in which a three-judge panel unanimously upheld all but one of Pennsylvania's abortion restrictions. The next year, a 7-2 Supreme Court majority agreed.
But by 5-4, the justices affirmed the decision of Judge Alito's two colleagues that struck down a provision designed to encourage a married woman to inform her husband before having an abortion.
This was a modest effort to balance a wife's "reproductive rights" against her husband's. The law did not provide for spousal consent, only notification. The wife's say-so, in the form of a signed statement delivered to the physician performing the abortion, was sufficient to establish that the husband knew.
And a woman seeking an abortion had the alternative of affirming that her husband was not the father of her unborn child, that he could not be located, that the pregnancy was the result of marital rape, or that she feared physical abuse if she informed him. In any of these cases, no notification was required.
posted on November 5, 2005 04:22:00 PM new
Great post Logansdad! Too full of common sense for any neocon to get but good points!
Ya, the government is sooooo concerned about our marriages !
posted on November 5, 2005 06:21:09 PM newyou forgot one thing logansdad. Marriage is a legal contract in this country. Valid as any other 'legal' contract between two people. You cannot enter into a legal contract with say, a business partner, and then willfully set out to deceive them.
So when the husband cheats on his wife, he should "notify" his wife he cheated, and possibly got another person pregnant.
More than likely the aggrieved partner will win the suit.
That is what a divorce settlement does if both parties (ie husband and wife) can not come to terms.
So I guess you are saying "marriage" is just a contract of what party A and party B are responsible for doing during the term of the contract.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 6, 2005 02:43:50 AM newSo I guess you are saying "marriage" is just a contract of what party A and party B are responsible for doing during the term of the contract.
In terms of the law. Yes it is,...it is a legally binding contract. Why do you think its so much harder in most states to get divorced than it is to get married?
And do it well.