Hahahaha. Unconstitutional is what the Supreme Court says it is.

remember “conservative” doesn’t mean “religious right wingnut”

You wouldn’t even keep Scalia and Thomas on this. let’s review just what this law violates: Equal protection clause, precident on medical privacy, and the right against self-incrimination (as the only way it could possibly be enforced is state compelled testimony on how a pregnancy came about. either that, or they would have to attach a presumption of guilt and force them to prove otherwise, also unconstitutional.)

trust me, Small government “original intent” type conservatives HATE people passing unenforcable laws that violate the constitution. It won’t ever get out of the State House. they’re just bring up the idea to score cheap points with narrow minded constituants.

The Republicans’ goals for this bill (henceforth to be known as the Turkey Baster Bill), however, are far greater than just assaults on civil and reproductive rights. In this second post, we will examine the how this bill exemplifies Republican wedge …

The laws say whatever they say, so you can just read them instead of relying on our second-hand lying. Usually the problem with them is they make no exception for the life or health of the mother, which is of course crazy.

(I think the problem with the pro-choice side is that they’re too honest and don’t lie enough. For example, NARAL’s TV ad opposing John Roberts didn’t use the word “abortion” once. I agree that the debate is, as the ad said, all about “privacy” and not really the killing of fetuses. If NARAL had lied and said that the right to kill a fetus was its main concern, people would have been very angry at the prospect of Roberts taking away that right.)

Take this “partial birth” terminology . . .

I agree it’s mainly a crock to get people upset. The primary concern of mainstream anti-abortionists are the vast majority of abortions that take place in the first trimester, not relatively rare medically necessary ones occuring later. Those are also the main concern of the pro-choice side, although they do a similar thing by pretending abortion is primarily about the relatively rare “hard” cases (rape, incest, life-threatening).

We think those bills are a trojan horse, designed to eliminate many more procedures.

Agreed.

And you don’t help your case with TRAP restrictions that attempt to make abortion services uneconomical so there’s no clinic.

Actually, these DO help our case to the extent they’re upheld. But you see a lot of that sort of stuff in laws that make otherwise legal stuff (cigarettes, alcohol) hard to get by imposing silly regulations and taxes.

subpoenaing medical records under false pretenses in a transparent attempt to find an example that you can claim is a frivolous late-term abortion, etc.

Even under Roe v Wade the state can forbid medically unnecessary third trimester abortions, so it’s not necessarily friviolous. Again, while obvioulsy most women wouldn’t get an abortion that late frivolously, some do flush their newborns down toilets or kill them later after birth.

The simple truth is, there is no middle ground.

Agreed.

Even people who are willing to give ground on some issues (I’m not one of them; I’m for abortion on demand without apology)

Ohhhhhhhh you sound like a very bad person.

think your side is way too far in the grasp of fundamentalist extremists to make a deal with.

I’m not in the grasp of those who would make no exceptions for life or heath. I think you’re on the fundamentalist side of pro-choiceism, though (note that nobody else raised their hand on Dan’s question about support for economically motivated late-term abortions).

The simple truth is, there is no middle ground. Even people who are willing to give ground on some issues (I’m not one of them; I’m for abortion on demand without apology) think your side is way too far in the grasp of fundamentalist extremists to make a deal with.

Count your votes very carefully. I count 4 pretty sure to say it’s constitutional (assuming Mier gets in). That’s not much margin, and I ain’t sure about at least one of the others.

The idea isn’t to get it struck down, the idea is to use it to reverse precedent.