Big Surprise. Democrats killing babies and coddling terrorists.

I hope he sees this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: I hope he sees this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/

That sure is mindnumbingly stupid.

Nice headline

+1

It makes sense. It's just futile to encourage them for a dude.

bulldg4life: DrillSergeantPoopyPants: I hope he sees this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/

That sure is mindnumbingly stupid.

Every poll I've ever seen, and most Catholics I personally know, would agree with Obama here.

This is the reversal of an asinine policy that prioritized stupid religious dogma over actually improving the lives of anyone.

When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.

Another good first step from Obama...

Reality over religious rhetoric for the win.

I think parents should have the right to abort up until age 18.

It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social policies of the conservative administration of Republican former President Ronald Reagan.

Former President Bill Clinton rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.


Nu huh!
Uh huh!

You're a poopy head!
No you're a towel!

He should have waited a few weeks to do this, I think.

This is the real reason Obama's closing down Gitmo. He's going to turn it into a state-of-the-art Infant Freedom Center that will export abortions and gay sex around the world. On its lowest level, though, accessible only by Obama's most trusted henchmen, will be a research facility. Every aborted fetus from every dark corner of the world will be sent there, and using the most advanced cloning techniques available Obama will begin growing an army of soldiers fashioned after the most aggressive genes of the most violent and despicable terrorists killed in battle on the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Picture every suicide bomber who's ever died merged into one body fashioned from an aborted fetus carved out of some third world slut. That's what we'll be fighting in the future. Obama's army. Obama's army of Terrorist Aborted Fetus Clones.

HoboSong: I think parents should have the right to abort up until age 18.

I think many should have the obligation to abort

Pocket Ninja: This is the real reason Obama's closing down Gitmo. He's going to turn it into a state-of-the-art Infant Freedom Center that will export abortions and gay sex around the world. On its lowest level, though, accessible only by Obama's most trusted henchmen, will be a research facility. Every aborted fetus from every dark corner of the world will be sent there, and using the most advanced cloning techniques available Obama will begin growing an army of soldiers fashioned after the most aggressive genes of the most violent and despicable terrorists killed in battle on the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Picture every suicide bomber who's ever died merged into one body fashioned from an aborted fetus carved out of some third world slut. That's what we'll be fighting in the future. Obama's army. Obama's army of Terrorist Aborted Fetus Clones.

+1

pavinrtheway: He should have waited a few weeks to do this, I think.

Why?

It was a stupid policy and needed to be recinded as quickly as possible to proper aid can be given again.

Begun, the Uterus Wars, have.

So much for human rights. Dredd Scott would be so proud of you all.

TheGrayCat: pavinrtheway: He should have waited a few weeks to do this, I think.

Why?

It was a stupid policy and needed to be recinded as quickly as possible to proper aid can be given again.

The Antichrist was scheduled to be born next week, now he might not and Obama's true Satanist agenda may never come to fruition

pavinrtheway: He should have waited a few weeks to do this, I think.

No, do it now so it gets buried in the news cycle among the flurry of decisions his administration is making

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: http://www.catholicvote.com/

After all that nonsense about the birth certificate, and now you tell me you guys had his sonogram?!

Pocket Ninja: Obama's army of Terrorist Aborted Fetus Clones.

I, for one, welcome our new Terrorist Aborted Fetus Clones overlords.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: So much for human rights.

No no, torture was banned yesterday. We're good.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: So much for human rights. Dredd Scott would be so proud of you all

I would like to amend my previous comment.

bulldg4life: That You sure is are mindnumbingly stupid.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: Big Surprise. Democrats killing babies and coddling terrorists.

I hope he sees this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/

Here'ssomething I've been dying to ask a "pro-life" voter for some time now:

When i was a kid going to Catholic school and marching annually in the "march for Life" we were told that since President Reagan was so staunchly pro-life it was only a matter of time before ,i> roee v. Wade was overturned, buit first he'd have to fight the democratically controlled house for supremacy..

Thent he excuse in the 90's was president Clinton and an insufficently Conservative supreme Court. In the early Bush II years it was that darn Democratically controlled Senate.

The about 2005 we had two new ultra conservative supreme court judges (shifting the balance of power to 6-3, a comfortable margin allowing for even one defector), a Republican president, And two republican chambers of Congress.

And then flodgates opened and laws reversing Roe and outlawing abortion were swiftly passed, challenged and upheld right?

Oh wait. No they weren't. In fact NOTHING was done on the abortion from until Bush's last minute "freedom of conscience" regulations as he headed out the door.

Why?

Could it be that despite their eternall pledges of fidelity to the pro-life cause, Republicans aren't actually interested in ending abortion? Could it be that they know that pro-lifers are their most reliable "single issue" voting black and they day that they actually gave them what they wanted, (by outlawing abortion) they know they'd defect from the coalition because economically and all other social issues they align better with democrats?

Is it possible, in a word, that if you "vote pro-life" you are, in fact being played for suckers by the Republican party which pays only lip service to your ideals?

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: Democrats killing babies and coddling terrorists.

You forgot kicking puppies, having man-on-dog sex, and shiatting on the 'Merican flag.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: that all goes without saying.

Magorn: Hmmm. I could make the same argument about the poor and democrats. What's your point?

Magorn: Here'ssomething I've been dying to ask a "pro-life" voter for some time now:

You do know that he's a troll, right? You're not going to get a logical answer and you'll be pushing it if you expect something coherent.

bulldg4life: DrillSergeantPoopyPants: So much for human rights. Dredd Scott would be so proud of you all

I would like to amend my previous comment.

bulldg4life: That You sure is are mindnumbingly stupid.

Whatever. You've simply decided an entire class of human being is totally expendable based on a whim. Congrats. You are now on a moral par with slaveowners.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: Whatever. You've simply decided an entire class of human being is totally expendable based on a whim. Congrats. You are now on a moral par with slaveowners.

Dude...what?

That doesn't even make sense.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: Hmmm. I could make the same argument about the poor and democrats. What's your point?

No you cannot. The legality of abortion is a law, poverty is not.

It would take far less effort to overturn Roe then it would to end poverty, especially since poverty is relative.

Abortion is more valuable to the GOP while it's legal and they have proven time and again that they do not actually want to overturn Roe, despite what they say while running for office.

DrillSergeantPoopyPants: So much for human rights. Dredd Scott would be so proud of you all.



Duly noted...

We get an abortion thread AND a confederate flag thread today?! What a gift.

/how did i not know Obama was a leftie?

bulldg4life: Dude...what?

That doesn't even make sense.

He's right, Drill, you don't make sense. And I say that without snark. Try making sense.

Magorn:

There's only so much the GOP can do. Any change on this issue will come from the Supreme Court, not from the legislature. It all comes down to Kennedy. I think that you'd see a pretty solid 4-4 split on overturning Roe, and I think that in the end Kennedy would probably side with the liberal block.

KaponoFor3: There's only so much the GOP can do. Any change on this issue will come from the Supreme Court, not from the legislature. It all comes down to Kennedy. I think that you'd see a pretty solid 4-4 split on overturning Roe, and I think that in the end Kennedy would probably side with the liberal block.

You're right, but they could continually move legislation that would challenge it and then at least fight it in the SC. I'd disagree with them, but at least then I'd take their concern seriously.

I mean, if they truly see this as the killing of babies, and run on it as such a consistent part of their platform, well why not show some teeth and fight?

This is an outrage. True Christians know that the only moral abortions are the ones as a result of rape, incest and rape.

KaponoFor3: There's only so much the GOP can do.

He's right, Magorn. In between quintupling the national debt, starting wars in far-away lends for questionable reasons, and selling guns to our enemies to fund revolutions in South America...how could we expect them to focus on such insignificant domestic issues?

Of course, I am left in a quandary. If they stop doing such things, they might actually figure out how to solve the Roe vs Wade "problem" and that'd be bad.

Good. If we believe abortion is part of the right to privacy, why would we oppose it in other countries?

I Said: You're right, but they could continually move legislation that would challenge it and then at least fight it in the SC.

Yeah I don't disagree with you there, just saying that despite the GOP's continual harping on the issue, it really isn't up to them. Another way to look at it is that pro-abortion/pro-choice advocates may not think that now is the best time to go challenging anti-abortion laws given the make-up of the Court right now -- they might think it's a losing proposition.

Plus, case law is pretty settled right now on the abortion issue. There would need to be something unusual happen that would allow the court to make a huge, sweeping statement to overturn Roe v. Wade. No matter what others think, the SCOTUS takes precedence VERY seriously and will not overturn it on a whim, even if they personally disagree with it. It makes sense, because if they didn't take precedence seriously, you'd have continual changing in the interpretation of laws whenever a new SCOTUS was sworn in. That's not something the legal field needs. We attorneys and judges like consistency if nothing else.

I Said: You're right, but they could continually move legislation that would challenge it and then at least fight it in the SC. I'd disagree with them, but at least then I'd take their concern seriously.

I think this is where Magorn was going with his question.

It is an empty threat that is constantly whipped up around election time because it guarantees a segment of the population will show up at the polls.

I Said: KaponoFor3: There's only so much the GOP can do. Any change on this issue will come from the Supreme Court, not from the legislature. It all comes down to Kennedy. I think that you'd see a pretty solid 4-4 split on overturning Roe, and I think that in the end Kennedy would probably side with the liberal block.

You're right, but they could continually move legislation that would challenge it and then at least fight it in the SC. I'd disagree with them, but at least then I'd take their concern seriously.

I mean, if they truly see this as the killing of babies, and run on it as such a consistent part of their platform, well why not show some teeth and fight?

If they flood the courts with cases eventually they will stop making it up there. They need to wait until there are enough judges that agree with them to have a shot, and that isnt happening soon.

Yaknow what? At this point, I'm almost ready to have Roe v. Wade overturned just to scare the living shiat out of imbeciles like DrillMasterPoopyPants. A year without abortion rights would be terrifying for everyone, but maybe, just maybe, it would stop people like him from spewing their holy-roller bullshiat all over the place.

The best stance on abortion came from Bubba: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

bulldg4life: Of course, I am left in a quandary. If they stop doing such things, they might actually figure out how to solve the Roe vs Wade "problem" and that'd be bad.

LOL, be careful what you wish for. While I think Kennedy would side with the liberal block, it's a toss-up, he could go the other way, and that would seriously piss some people off (though the ultimate effect of overturning Roe would merely mean that abortion becomes a state issue, which in and of itself would spawn massive amounts of litigation)

It's not like the Democrats don't do the same things with their constituents, either. Sexual orientation is still not a protected class on the federal level (though that may change soon). The war hasn't ended. Pelosi didn't impeach Bush despite promises to do so, etc. etc. etc.

Both parties use their constituents in this manner because they know the constituents have no other choice. Gay America will not support the GOP, and (in general) the religious community is not going to support the Democrats in overwhelming numbers.

adamgreeney: They need to wait until there are enough judges that agree with them to have a shot, and that isnt happening soon.

It's likely a clear 4-4 split right now with Kennedy being the clear swing vote. Neither side probably wants to push the issue right now because of uncertainty with the result.

KaponoFor3: Plus, case law is pretty settled right now on the abortion issue. There would need to be something unusual happen that would allow the court to make a huge, sweeping statement to overturn Roe v. Wade. No matter what others think, the SCOTUS takes precedence VERY seriously and will not overturn it on a whim, even if they personally disagree with it. It makes sense, because if they didn't take precedence seriously, you'd have continual changing in the interpretation of laws whenever a new SCOTUS was sworn in. That's not something the legal field needs. We attorneys and judges like consistency if nothing else.

I agree. But then, from the standpoint of what the GOP should really be doing, is explain that and move to social programs (I know, I know, but this is a big issue to their constituents and so they might turn a blind eye to the term "social programs") that would lower the rate of abortion.

Until they stop running on something that they likely will not ever do (unless there's some huge unforeseen event), I can not take them seriously on this particular issue.

KaponoFor3: It's not like the Democrats don't do the same things with their constituents, either. Sexual orientation is still not a protected class on the federal level (though that may change soon). The war hasn't ended. Pelosi didn't impeach Bush despite promises to do so, etc. etc. etc.

I think this is important to note - *everyone* does this. Everyone challenges current law through the courts. Liberals challenge discrimination against gays, conservatives challenge laws against guns.

This is why the whole 'activist' judge thing is so retarded. It has a serious place in legal discussions but as a political argument its idiotic.

KaponoFor3: It's likely a clear 4-4 split right now with Kennedy being the clear swing vote. Neither side probably wants to push the issue right now because of uncertainty with the result.

Kennedy signed on to the majority in Casey. I don't think there's a high chance he'd flip.

KaponoFor3: adamgreeney: They need to wait until there are enough judges that agree with them to have a shot, and that isnt happening soon.

It's likely a clear 4-4 split right now with Kennedy being the clear swing vote. Neither side probably wants to push the issue right now because of uncertainty with the result.

I think that it is very, very unlikely that he would side with Scallia and crew. I can't imagine it getting overturned any time soon. Maybe after the Obama presidency is over if we have another Republican president that can put some people in there.

adamgreeney: Maybe after the Obama presidency is over if we have another Republican president that can put some people in there.

It'd be tough. If you think Stevens and Ginsburg will both step down/die during the Obama terms that would lock in 2 young liberals to replace them. And Scalia is sort of getting up there...

It would be hard to change the composition of the court very much. While Bush was lucky he got to nominate two very young people, he didn't really replace any 'liberal' justices with conservative ones. O'Conner is sort of swingy but she wasn't really liberal.

bulldg4life: You do know that he's a troll, right? You're not going to get a logical answer and you'll be pushing it if you expect something coherent.

He had me until I saw how hard he was reaching. If you're going to abandon all pretense of being realistic then you may as well go full satire. Not sure why he's trying to pretend to be somewhere in between.

DamnYankees: adamgreeney: Maybe after the Obama presidency is over if we have another Republican president that can put some people in there.

It'd be tough. If you think Stevens and Ginsburg will both step down/die during the Obama terms that would lock in 2 young liberals to replace them. And Scalia is sort of getting up there...

It would be hard to change the composition of the court very much. While Bush was lucky he got to nominate two very young people, he didn't really replace any 'liberal' justices with conservative ones. O'Conner is sort of swingy but she wasn't really liberal.

And Roberts isn't nearly as conservative as they thought, which is good.