Thank you for confirming my statement above as true. Are you so stubborn or dense as not to see that what I said was TRUE..AND YOUR OWN POST PROVES IT !!.........for whatever political reasons, and no matter what his latter regrets, RR signed a liberal abortion bill in California. Do you not understand what you read.
And that quote from RR you used also confirmed GipperGal’s statement that Palin is more consistently pro-life than all of the so-called pro-lifers who make an exception for rape and incest. As she said, the crimes of the father should have no bearing on the life of the baby. And your constant talking about life being protected by the constitution is just plain stupid in light of the 1973 Roe decision. Do you not understand that baby's are being killed legally in this country and a constitutional amendment, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to you IS A DEAD END. And we have to find a better way to stop the killing. And don't you lecture me about the pro-life people and their views. I am outside an abortion clinic every Saturday morning praying for the innocents. And you, Sir , are a fool if you think we will not support SP on this issue.
Furthermore, I think you owe GipperGal an apology for totally misrepresenting what she said.....both on the life issue and the tax issue in Alaska. You just talked over her arguments and facts the same way you did my comment about RR........
All right wise guy. I was feeling a bit bad for getting short with you, and was actually composing a conciliatory post when this one came in, but now the gloves are off. SHOW ME the "very liberal parts" of the act. Put your money where your loud mouth is.
Ronald Reagan signed the CA Therapeutic Abortion Act of '67. That much my post admits. I never said he didn't sign the act. My fight with you is that it was not a "very liberal abortion law". The article I posted plainly shows the truth that the spirit of the law was not followed, and having read the law, I know that to be true. I have played this game with libs and moderates for years. It is a tired old accusation. Go read the law and show me it's very liberal language.
Quite as the article said:
It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.
(emphasis mine.)
The article further explains, by way of quoting the ACLU for the next bit of history:
A progressive measure 35 years ago, the Therapeutic Abortion Act now is archaic, confusing, and unconstitutional. A lawyer researching the Health and Safety Code today would read that abortion is legal only if a hospital committee determines that the pregnancy will gravely impair a woman’s physical or mental health or a District Attorney concludes that the pregnancy probably resulted from rape or incest.
(emphasis mine.)
So what Reagan signed was a law allowing abortion in the case of direct and specific threat to the health of the mother, as determined by a committee of health professionals, or in the case of rape or incest as determined by a district attorney's office... and only in the first twenty weeks of pregnancy.
THAT is your definition of a VERY LIBERAL ABORTION LAW.
Hospitals (and primarily psychiatrists) set up rubber stamp committees- "Mental health" is the loophole Reagan refers to.
Now. Do I agree with the law? No, I do not. I do not agree with abortion in the case of rape and incest, though I would grant that health of the mother (when truly at risk) is a decision best left in the hands of the family.
But the spirit of this law was *not* liberal by any means. In fact, historically, it was quite a bit more conservative than most of the abortion laws that came before it.
It attempts, as is plainly clear, to allow doctors the room they need in life and death matters, with the concurrence of a supposedly honorable determinative body. And in rape or incest, the woman (the victim of the crime) must apply for the abortion- The District Attorney is the determinative body. These restrictions are plainly in place to prevent wholesale abortion, and to assure the legitimacy of the claim.
As the article goes on to say, it was not until '72, when the CA SC overturned all the protections in the act that it became a "very liberal abortion law", and became abortion on demand.
So what your assertion actually proves is that you neither read the article or the law, and simply chose to try and pummel me.
And that quote from RR you used also confirmed GipperGal’s statement that Palin is more consistently pro-life than all of the so-called pro-lifers who make an exception for rape and incest.
Except that she hangs up all those great pro-life values when she walks through the door to her office, as she, herself stated, as quoted upthread.
And your constant talking about life being protected by the constitution is just plain stupid in light of the 1973 Roe decision. Do you not understand that baby's are being killed legally in this country and a constitutional amendment, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to you IS A DEAD END.
I am not particularly interested in a Constitutional amendment, although I would support it if offered, if only for the clarification. The Right to Life is inherent, and requires no amendment. What is wrongly decided in Roe is that anyone, including the august justices of the SCOTUS have the right to take Life without due process of law. That is the only correct position Constitutionally, and nothing else will do.
And if you care to talk about dead ends, with ()bama in office and a Democrat Senate, three justices will retire before the next election, and Roe will be safely ensconced for another 25 years. Add that to the 30 years of promises already endured because of a feckless Republican party, and you begin to see what a dead end a challenge in the SCOTUS truly is. We tried it your way for better than 20 years. We will not go back. It is not profitable, nor is it a "new" way... IT was the dead end.
And don't you lecture me about the pro-life people and their views. I am outside an abortion clinic every Saturday morning praying for the innocents. And you, Sir , are a fool if you think we will not support SP on this issue.
Good for you, but I heard the same from the Pro-Life folks who supported MccAin't, all the while, every Evangelical Protestant source I know, and every Pro-Life source I know, was basically stone dead in the water.
I will guarantee you, just as I guaranteed them, It is a non-starter. If you care to argue the finer points, we can, but what matters is that the main-stream Pro-Life position is set upon a Constitutional protection, and they will not back down. Twenty years of no-show pandering has made them quite insistent.
Furthermore, I think you owe GipperGal an apology for totally misrepresenting what she said.....both on the life issue and the tax issue in Alaska. You just talked over her arguments and facts the same way you did my comment about RR.....
I owe GG nothing. she stands on the sidelines and throws poo at me, without the decency to reply to posts she obviously cannot defend, and without the courtesy of a ping when she is insulting me. I misrepresented nothing at all.
I demand to know how a 28% increase in one year is fiscally conservative, That has not been answered even yet. I asked how it is that Wasilla is paying more in taxes after Pain than before- that is not answered yet. The same goes for the windfall profits tax... What I got in a nutshell was, "Oh yeah, well Reagan..." and a bunch of gloss and excuses. FiCons aren't gonna buy it any more than I am. These are decidedly not Conservative things.
As to your comment regarding RR, as I said here, read the damn law. I did not come here to argue with you, but if that is what you want, then lets go.