Published: November 03, 2011
Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from this past Sunday was: Do you think that Federal Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled correctly in blocking the part of the new state abortion law that required women seeking abortions be shown an ultrasound image of their womb?
* * * * *
Since when is it legal to "require" (here clearly a synonym for "to force") a patient to doing anything, unless the patient is in the process of threatening his/her caretakers?
CHRISTA JONES
* * * * *
Many women have been told or erroneously believe that what they are carrying is just a "blob of tissue." I don't think there is anything wrong in requiring them to accurately see what is in their own bodies. Physicians share X-rays and MRI reports all the time with their patients. What makes this any different?
ROSE M. WALSH
* * * * *
Absolutely! Thank you, judge, for blocking the ultrasound requirement. It is unbelievably patronizing and condescending.
ANNE PAISLEY
* * * * *
Judge Eagles did the right thing to block part of the state abortion law. I wish she had blocked more and demanded the women have counseling if the abortion is completed.
ELIZABETH R. ERVIN
* * * * *
Hypocritical? This law purports to compel a physician to engage in specific speech demanded by one Republican ideological group, and therefore violates the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. It also violates Art. 1, Sec. 14 of the North Carolina constitution, which states that "freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained . . . ," and Sec. 17, which states that "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited." Judge Eagles is right to be a "strict constructionist," much to the chagrin of the party that claims "strict construction" and smaller, less-intrusive government as fundamental principles.
JOHN K. MOTSINGER SR.
* * * * *
I think it is ridiculous that people on death row get chance after chance to get their death sentence repealed, but innocent, unborn children get no basic protection whatsoever to help save their lives.
STEVE SHORE
* * * * *
The injunction also includes omitting an audible description of the details of the ultrasound, prescribed by the legislative majority. Absolutely I think Judge Eagles ruled correctly, as this piece of radical right-wing ideological legislation is infringing on the patient/doctor relationship and is governmental invasiveness at its worst. Rather than playing "doctor" and "spy," our legislators need to spend their time seriously focusing on creating jobs. They continue wasting our tax dollars as they conjure up legislation to undermine the people of North Carolina. Next in line could be a "personhood" amendment, as is now happening in Mississippi. Thankfully we have our court system to help keep such extreme ideology at bay.
ANNE G. WILSON
* * * * *
Yes, absolutely!
GARVEY BAUGUESS
* * * * *
It seems the fundamental Christian version of Sharia is taking abortion back to biblical times, when the priests were the ones who performed abortion.
DAVE DANNER
* * * * *
Yes, it was a correct ruling. Most women already know what a fetal ultrasound looks like, and if they don't, this is not the correct time to enlighten them. Abortion, right or wrong, is legal in the U.S. Therefore, women shouldn't be subjected to perceived harassment in seeking legal treatment. Stop trying to make laws on done deals like abortion, Congress lawmakers; do what you were elected to do. Create jobs.
PATRICIA STOCKMEISTER
The Sum It Up question from this past Sunday was: Do you think that Federal Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled correctly in blocking the part of the new state abortion law that required women seeking abortions be shown an ultrasound image of their womb?
Since when is it legal to "require" (here clearly a synonym for "to force") a patient to doing anything, unless the patient is in the process of threatening his/her caretakers?
CHRISTA JONES
Many women have been told or erroneously believe that what they are carrying is just a "blob of tissue." I don't think there is anything wrong in requiring them to accurately see what is in their own bodies. Physicians share X-rays and MRI reports all the time with their patients. What makes this any different?
ROSE M. WALSH
Absolutely! Thank you, judge, for blocking the ultrasound requirement. It is unbelievably patronizing and condescending.
ANNE PAISLEY
Judge Eagles did the right thing to block part of the state abortion law. I wish she had blocked more and demanded the women have counseling if the abortion is completed.
ELIZABETH R. ERVIN
Hypocritical? This law purports to compel a physician to engage in specific speech demanded by one Republican ideological group, and therefore violates the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. It also violates Art. 1, Sec. 14 of the North Carolina constitution, which states that "freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained . . . ," and Sec. 17, which states that "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited." Judge Eagles is right to be a "strict constructionist," much to the chagrin of the party that claims "strict construction" and smaller, less-intrusive government as fundamental principles.
JOHN K. MOTSINGER SR.
I think it is ridiculous that people on death row get chance after chance to get their death sentence repealed, but innocent, unborn children get no basic protection whatsoever to help save their lives.
STEVE SHORE
The injunction also includes omitting an audible description of the details of the ultrasound, prescribed by the legislative majority. Absolutely I think Judge Eagles ruled correctly, as this piece of radical right-wing ideological legislation is infringing on the patient/doctor relationship and is governmental invasiveness at its worst. Rather than playing "doctor" and "spy," our legislators need to spend their time seriously focusing on creating jobs. They continue wasting our tax dollars as they conjure up legislation to undermine the people of North Carolina. Next in line could be a "personhood" amendment, as is now happening in Mississippi. Thankfully we have our court system to help keep such extreme ideology at bay.
ANNE G. WILSON
Yes, absolutely!
GARVEY BAUGUESS
It seems the fundamental Christian version of Sharia is taking abortion back to biblical times, when the priests were the ones who performed abortion.
DAVE DANNER
Yes, it was a correct ruling. Most women already know what a fetal ultrasound looks like, and if they don't, this is not the correct time to enlighten them. Abortion, right or wrong, is legal in the U.S. Therefore, women shouldn't be subjected to perceived harassment in seeking legal treatment. Stop trying to make laws on done deals like abortion, Congress lawmakers; do what you were elected to do. Create jobs.
PATRICIA STOCKMEISTER
-The more the Republicans campaign, the higher the president's numbers are going.
ReplyDelete-40 Republican representatives join call for increased revenue.
Well I checked on the site about 10 last night figuring I would find banging bucks. Instead...monkey talk. Simian satire is a pleasant change of pace.
ReplyDeleteBonobos can get downright nasty.
ReplyDeleteArthur, I'm told they should never be invited to the family reunion.
ReplyDeleteConsidering some of the family reunions that I have been to, the bonobos would fit right in.
ReplyDeleteWhen my son was about 5 I took him for a jungle walk in the Philippines. Like many who have never been to such a place, he expected it to be quiet and peaceful, thus was shocked by the incredible noise generated by monkeys and flocks of parrots. Times Square has never been so noisy.
At a family reunion held at a rural church the following year, I found him outside sitting on a tombstone in the graveyard. "Too much like the jungle in there," he explained.
"Stay calm, all is well".
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I figured Rush would be able to communicate with apes.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet Rush has got a face like a mandrill.
Rush, you're an idiot. I call you an idiot as often as I can.
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
Bobby, nitwits are incorrigible. Why else are there still so many Obama supporters.
ReplyDeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteSum it up: Well, the answer to the question is yes, she did rule correctly and is backed up by the fact that a similar law in another state was also struck down. Mr. Motsinger provided the most definitive answer as to why the ruling is correct. Mrs. Wilson, a regular poster on the Journal site also had a very good response. The question of the constitutionality of the bill has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is wrong or should be performed.
Her ruling won't stand. There was nothing wrong with the N.C. law that required a potential mother to view/hear a sonogram of his fetus' heart prior to an abortion.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing that we allow females to kill their own children without so much as a blink, yet we require a test to drive.
It's as screwy as having our own Justice Department suing a state that is attempting to assist the federal government enforce its immigration laws.
But that's what you get when you get Democrats in charge.
As I have said before, we need not fear any foreign enemy. When it falls, the US will fall through the vast ignorance of its people who cannot understand such simple principles as:
ReplyDelete1. The government has no business meddling in the relationship between a doctor and his patient...standards of medical practice have always been and always should be set by the state medical board and not by a bunch of legislative ideologs.
2. All external relations and border matters are the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. States cannot make treaties with foreign countries, nor can they make laws that contradict federal laws.
Neither of those basic principles has anything to do with political parties. Bush II's administration proposed new laws that amounted to amnesty for most illegal aliens. The Obama administration is deporting far more illegal aliens than any administration before it.
But in the end, the know nothing fools who parrot the same Rush/Beck?Fox nonsense will be the ones that bring the USA to its knees.
• By 60% to 37%, those in swing states say they and their families aren't better off than they were three years ago — a version of the question Republican challenger Ronald Reagan posed to devastating effect against Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1980.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-03/swing-states-poll-obama/51062622/1?loc=interstitialskip
But there always the nitwits of the world that refuse to wake up.
Bush II's administration proposed new laws that amounted to amnesty for most illegal aliens. -
ReplyDeleteIn addition to raising taxes, running up the deficit and increasing the debt ceiling multiple times, Ronald Reagan also did grant amnesty to all undocumented workers. Under the current R environment, Reagan would never receive any consideration for a place on the ticket.
How true, nor Bush I, nor Nixon nor even Ike. And I doubt if Romney can get the nomination either. He has cruised along with between 18 and 24% support while the others zoom up and zoom down like kids on a trampoline.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP asylum is now firmly in control of the inmates...who will get the nomination is anybody's guess.
Mr. dotnet.....you're a lot like Rush, the resident idiot. You get about half your facts right, then you go on a liberal babble to make yourself into a bigger fool than you started out as.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about Reagan granting amnesty. It was the wrong thing to do then, and it would be the wrong thing to do now.
I'd probably qualify as an Eisenhower Republican nowadays. A sobering thought when I remember that after my grandmother voted for Ike instead of Stevenson (in '56), my grandfather didn't speak to her for two days.
ReplyDeleteHe left Marshall out to dry with McCarthy, but his military industrial complex speech was prophetic.
Arthur....you'll be a good Republican one day I'd bet. Remember, today's Democratic Party is nothing like your granddaddy's.
ReplyDeleteThousands of old North Carolina Democrats switched parties under Reagan, a few more switched when Clinton started losing control of his DNA. Now, the rest of the older Democrats are pulling the plug with Obama dragging the country into a pit.
Sure, there's a lot young Obamaites out there. But they'll soon switch when they start working for a living.
It takes a true idiot to stick with Obama and the Democratic Party at this point. Not that I'm mentioning any names, Rush.
Arthur, I'm afraid that being an Eisenhower Republican would make you not much of a Republican at all nowadays. He did once state that he was a "liberal Republican" but the truth is that he was bored with his job as president of Columbia and really, really, really did want to be president of the US.
ReplyDeleteHe was courted by both parties in 1948 and declined, then, at the last minute in 1952 grabbed the Republican offer. He was a a weak president, refusing to defend the great General George Marshall against the paranoid ravings of Joe McCarthy, and failing to advise JFK of the CIA's impending and ill advised Bay of Pigs invasion.
His one decisive moment, his decision to stop the treaty mandated 1956 election in Viet Nam, led to one of the greatest disasters in US history. And his one shining moment, his "military-industrial complex" speech, was ignored, leading to our present situation as a nation ruled by that complex.
His only actual accomplishment was to push through the building of the interstate highway system because he believed that it was needed as a crucial part of our national defense system. Of course, it was obsolete before it was completed and has not necessarily served our best interests.
It makes one wonder why he wanted so badly to be president.
Later, Colin Powell, in the same situation, turned both parties down and might now have been the ideal solution, but he made the mistake of joining the W administration and ended up slinking away in shame having served Dick Cheney's deceitful purposes, so is now unavailable. C'est la vie.
It is interesting to note that party switching began with the civil rights movement of the 1960s as racist Democrats crawled over to the Republican camp.
ReplyDeleteIt also might be noted that two of the current GOP contenders for the 2012 nomination, Ricky and Newt, began their careers as Democrats, not through any feeling for the party's goals but as matters of convenience for their own personal aims.
The vast majority of switchers, beginning with the palmy and deluded Reagan days, have been not between parties but from both parties to independent status, with more coming from the GOP than the Democrats. Registered independents now make up the second largest group of voters in the nation, a close second to Democrats, with the GOP falling ever farther back into third place.
Another 'High Tech Lynching'..............
ReplyDeleteGet off the symbolic crack pipe....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/ad-compares-herman-cain-to-clarence-thomas-warns-of-high-tech-lynching/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cornel-west-on-cnn-herman-cain-needs-to-%E2%80%98get-off-the-symbolic-crack-pipe%E2%80%99/
I guess the radical democrats don't want a Republican black man to become president.