Reader,
It seems I left out some important elements of the abortion debate. Below are tidbits of information I left out.
Democrats(liberals) get 90% of the black vote and 70% of the hispanic vote, typically.
African American females are 3 times as likely to get an abortion as a white female.
Latinas are 2.5 times as likely to get an abortion as a white female.
70% of whites are Republican.
Do the math.
A system that is pro-choice leads to far more Republicans.
A system that is pro-life leads to far more Democrats.
This change is delayed atleast 18 years, after the passing of the legilation, as that is the voting requirement.
As Roe v. Wade was in 1973 meaning 33 years, there is a missing democratic block of about 15 years. (those aged 18-33)In which a huge number of democrats don't exist.
I hope this makes my point easier to understand.
Regards,
LeftyRighty
| | | |
|
|
R.E. Knowlton III
You say that people have forgotten the tenth amendment and that it makes Roe v. Wade a pile of crap. I believe you are using the tenth amendment for the proposition that since the constiution doesnt speak clearly on the right of abortion or right to privacy that states then have the right to regulate in any way in which they chose.
If that is so, then you are clearly wrong in your application. In order for that to work the constitution must be silent on the subject or clearly grant that power to the states. And if that states promulgate a rule it is then subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Our Supreme court having been faced with the question as to whether this right to privacy exists has held that there is in fact a right to privacy, not just in this case but in the many cases before it... read the opinion of the court if you would like to see all of them ( i have a copy on my pc if you would like me to send it to you).
So the tenth amendment means nothing in this case becasue the court has held that there is a right to privacy and that the texas abortion law in that case violated the womans right to privacy. Since they have that constitutional right states may never touch it.
The only way they can is of course to have another Supreme Court panel say there is no right of privacy which will not mean just over turning roe v. wade but also the many cases before it. Which is always possible, but my personal view is that I hope they don't.
Please send that file onto me as I would like to check it out. I have talked to many lawyers about this subject and most tend to agree that the tenth amendment does apply. If it doesn't how can you explain the varying restrictions from state to state and how can you also explain the Dakotas?
Thanks for addressing what I had to say. Again, I look forward to reading the file that you mentioned.
R.E. Knowlton III
I sent you an email to your socialwriter email address... just curious if you got and if so... your thoughts. If not ill just post it. Look foward to hearing from you.
Penname
There's also the way consumer captialism feeds the hedonistic attitude towards sex and sexuality that fuels the rate of unwanted pregnancy -- again, an economic force driving public and private morality.
But I really appreciate you pointing out the political ironies here. I don't think that either political party really understands the philopsophical and economic implications of child-bearing and child-rearing. That's why the words "family values" are as ashes in their mouths, as far as I'm concerned.