posted on October 31, 2005 06:34:11 AM new
Can someone please tell me how you consider someone to be a strict constitutionalist when they support the requirement of a husbands consent for a married woman to have an abortion? I'm sorry but that is making up law to support your personal opinion. Isn't that what conservatives have labeled "Judicial Activism"?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 07:06:55 AM new
Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift she makes me gag said Alito's role as the sole dissenter on the 3rd Circuit court in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision (search), which struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women to inform their husbands before they got an abortion, could cause Democratic objections.
You think?
"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.
The decision by the court considered one of the most liberal circuit courts in the country was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (search) cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.
-----
Does this mean that the 'fight' is on? LOL
He'll have his conservative base solidly behind THIS nomination.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 31, 2005 07:11:34 AM new
McCain has already hinted the GOP will use the nuclear option to get this nomination in if the Dems try to filibuster.
posted on October 31, 2005 07:21:18 AM new
As well they should, imo.
Imo, President Bush, by nominating Miers was trying to avoid all that....but the GOP was ready for the 'fight' and were very disappointed that he nominated someone many on the left approved of.
posted on October 31, 2005 07:50:24 AM new
Sorry to disappoint the people living in the 1890's but men do not own their wives anymore.
A woman should have the right to decide about what she does with her body period.
""but the GOP was ready for the 'fight' and were very disappointed that he nominated someone many on the left approved of.
""
posted on October 31, 2005 08:08:42 AM new
Not a good argument, ....especially since men have to obtain their wives legal consent to have a vascetomy. Works both ways.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 31, 2005 08:14:06 AM new
Old Shumer (D)NY is already on Fox News WHINING on and on about this nomination.
No where is it written that the President has to/should replace O'Connor with an alike Judge. And it's already pissing the dem leaders off that a conservative will have that seat, rather than a 'swing vote' like O'Connor was. Too BAD....So sad.
This is going to be GREAT fun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 31, 2005 08:16 AM ]
posted on October 31, 2005 08:47:06 AM new
::.especially since men have to obtain their wives legal consent to have a vascetomy.::
Would you care to show the state(s) where that is a law Linda?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 08:52:29 AM new
fenix: 1982, Marietta Oklahoma, it was the law that I had to sign consent for the ex to have vasectomy. I haven't had a reason to look up the current law(s). Of course it might have changed, I just know I had to come with him, and sign consent.
posted on October 31, 2005 08:58:26 AM new
fenix, I can't copy paste! go to google, put in : consent for vasectomy should be the first one, you can view as pdf or html.. that is what I believe the form I signed, spouses consent.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:14:15 AM new
The only Oklahoma law I can find regarding Vasectomy deals with habitual criminal sterilization. I don't doubt that you had to sign a consent, I just doubt that it is actual law as opposed to the preference of the doctor involved. When my mother went in for a tubal ligation, the doctor at the time tried to require her to have my fathers consent because she had less than two children. It was not the state law, just the preference of the doctor.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:18:08 AM new
fenix, I'm pretty sure it was law in 1982.(only OK,dunno?) I didn't want to go with him, and I read the literature, and it said I did have to sign, on the day of the vasectomy. Now? I have no idea
I even remember the exact date Nov 19, 1982.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:18:10 AM new
From the Planned Parenthood website....
Are there special requirements?
You are not required to have the consent of your wife or partner, but you should discuss the operation with her beforehand. Sometimes waiting periods are required to allow more time for thought before the operation. For federally funded vasectomies, you must
* be at least 21 years old
* observe a 30-day waiting period after signing a statement of informed consent
* be free of the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of consent
* reapply if the procedure is postponed for more than 180 days
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:26:38 AM new
Near - I cannot find anything that would relate to such a law, nothing showing that one exists or has been repealed.
Besides - do you really picture the male dominated legislature of Oklahoma allowing that law to go thru in the first place?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:31:09 AM new
oh, I could definitly see them requiring wives to tell their husband that they are having an abortion! But I am pretty sure it was.
The reason I remember the date, is when I went with him, (I didn't want to, because I was in my 9th month of my youngest daughter) is he went in, and I sat down, saw my dr come through the door at 8am, and told Dr B, 'I think I'm in labor' and he checked right then, and yep I was, so dumbsh*t ex, got a bed (a vasectomy isn 't that bad!) right next to me in the labor room!! the nurses waited on him since he was moaning and crying about how much it hurt! jerk! so he had his vasectomy on the morning my youngest was born!
posted on October 31, 2005 09:31:43 AM new
I think you are confusing Law and morality Ron. Doesn't that go against the basic premise of a"Strict Constitutionalist".
Of course you SHOULD discuss such matters with your spouse, but what is it in the constitution that makes you believe that not only should you be legally required to do so, but that you must be legally required to convince them to feel the same way.
I think that one of the big problems these days is that conservatives seem to have confused the Constitution of the United States with the Holy Bible. Just because a law should be moral does not mean that all that is moral should be a law.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 09:36:18 AM new
LOL - Near. Like I said, I don't doubt that his Dr required it, just that state law requied it. Like I said, my mothers Dr required it (tried to at least) but state law did not.
BTW - I definately see the good ole boys of OK trying to require the husbands permission for an abortion but you think they would pass a law requiring the wives for a vasectomy.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 11:20:57 AM new
All male patients that wanted a vascetomy were required to have their wives sign a consent form in CA.
And Near, same thing for us when my husband had his done. Just as the law requires that when a husband is making changes to his, say, retirement plan, his wife MUST be made aware of it....must sign a consent form that's she HAS been made aware of it. This is no different.
It's HIS child too....and it's THEIR retirement funds....and it could be according to state laws rather than a Federal one. But the male patients I scheduled for this procedure....HAD to sign or the surgery would not be preformed. Period/./
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 31, 2005 11:22:50 AM new
Washingtonebayer, don't you think a married person that would go behind the back of their spouse might already have marital problems? To me, needing consent when you're an adult is ridiculous. We don't own our partners when we get married.
P.S. If you need consent to have your tubes tied, etc., you should also need consent from both partners when they decide to have children. What about a woman that wants more kids but her husband doesn't or visa versa?
[ edited by kraftdinner on Oct 31, 2005 11:26 AM ]
posted on October 31, 2005 11:24:16 AM new
Dear, dear Ron, having equal rights does NOT automatically mean marriages will have secrets and lies...they do anyway and ALWAYS have.
Whether she does it with or without telling him, she has the right to do with her body what she pleases.
HE DID NOT BUY HER, HE ONLY MARRIED HER....you do NOT possess or own your spouse...."owning" another person (slavery)is against the law.
posted on October 31, 2005 12:38:22 PM new
Ron- "So by not having spousal consent, then the marriage can be built on lies and secrets."
I would guess you are only considering what we would consider a "normal, healthy" marriage with a statement like that. Unfortunately, some marriages are NOT normal, healthy relationships.
What happens when there is an abusive relationship and the man rapes his wife and pregnates her? Should she be comdemned to facing her husband who may force her to have the baby because he is her husband? I suppose so, if you don't believe the individual should choose. But, if I'm not mistaken, Ron, you are pro-choice aren't you? How about a situation where a mother is in a car accident and her husband is away on a business trip, out of town, etc. and a decision must be made to either abort a child or risk losing the mother, or possibly both?
Neocons love to cast a shadow on pro-choice, always pretending they are anti-family, anti-child. If you surveyed every person who is left of center, I would take an educated guess that a majority of those people would say they are pro-choice, but on a personal level, they wouldn't abort a baby unless there are extreme circumstances. I would easily fall into that category, as would most people, even those who are far left. I also think there are a very large group of those on the right who feel the same way.
and many on the religious RIGHT disapproved ...