Rachel Maddow does an excellent job of showing how rights can be taken away by making whatever it is that people are trying to do inaccessible. Inaccessibility substitutes for making an act illegal. Its a rather cowardly, un-democratic means of getting one’s own political way. Maddow also interviews the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Maddow explains how hospital regulations would financially burden abortion providers rather than making abortion safer (Double wide hallways, swinging doors, 15 mile proximity to emergency room, etc.) Cuccinelli’s explanation is vague and full of weasel words, so that the average Virginian really doesn’t know what is being said.
Cuccinelli attempted draconian, technically illegal abortion legislation while he served in the Virginia Senate. He was unable to ever pass his legislation. Now he attempts to circumvent legislation by simply declaring his opinion to be law. His attempts to codify his own opinion won’t fly for long.
Cuccinelli will not last. Most people don’t like having other people in their bedrooms. It remains to be seen if McDonnell will execute Cuccinelli’s opinion into state policy. Meanwhile, Cuccinelli has driven Virginia so far to the cultural right that he endangers other Republicans who might not be extremists.
Finally, Maddow addresses something the rest of us have been aware of for a long time. There is a tendency to bully those who are pro-choice. Many pro-choice people feel too intimidated to admit they are pro-choice, much less hold their legislators accountable for their votes. Every woman in Virginia must decide that the women of Virginia are capable of making their own morally appropriate choices. They need to decide today that they will not allow others to define them. Pro-choice is not being pro-abortion and do not let anyone tell you it is.
Cuckoonelli doesn’t respect women to make their own moral choices.
Trash link alert. Trash link alert. Rachael Maddow has zero credibility. Not even MSNBC’s own Joe Scarborough can stomac watching her.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/24/video-scarboroughs-head-explodes-after-making-the-mistake-of-watching-msnbc-primetime/
Moral choice to have an abortion, now that’s an oxymoron!
You know, I’ve always said that Rachel Maddow looks like Eli Manning. However, I have found a more accurate doppelganger for her… a young Anthony Weiner.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/anthony_weiner_is_not_ashamed.html
@hello
Hmmm–in the link you provide, it notes that Maddow was apparently not on. But why get confused with facts? They’re not necessary if you live far enough to the right.
Right back at ya George… 🙂
Also, you may want to brush up on your reading comprehension George… the article says:
“Just to be clear, if he was watching MSNBC prime time last night, his head was almost blown off byLawrence O’Donnell, in for Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow.”
Let me break this down for you… this mean that Lawrence O’Donnell was in for Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow was on in her regular spot.
But why get confused with facts, huh George?
Hello,
How about a novel idea……debate the facts. Women have a LEGAL right to control their bodies, end of discussion. I GUARANTEE you, if MEN got pregant, and they were the main bread winner, abortion would not even be a discussion point. HOW DARE you or anyone else TELL me what I can and cannot do with my body or my daughters body.
Oh, and Hello, so how many foster children do you support? How much of your salary do you donate to women on welfare? How much time do you invest being a big brother?
Oh, I am definately not intimidated to voice my pro choice opinion! Especially today as I am very cranky cuz I have a stupid summer cold.
If you read your posts, it would become crystal clear why.
Elena, why debate the facts if I don’t like a certain source? I learned it from Moon, if she doesn’t like when you post a certain link she just throws out the “trash link alert” and doesn’t even look at it, debate it or talk about it.
“HOW DARE you or anyone else TELL me what I can and cannot do with my body or my daughters body.” – What the F are you talking about?!?! I AM PRO-CHOICE!!!! Please point out one single place where I have ever said anything of what you accuse me of! I will be awaiting your apology for putting words into my mouth, yet again.
To answer some of your other questions…
– I do not support any foster children.
– I DO donate to women on welfare with taxes taken out of my salary.
– I have a 16 month old son so I have no time for ‘big brother’ these days. However, before my son came along I had a troubled little brother in high-school about an hour away in MD. I drove up there once or twice a week and called him every day to check up on him for about a year and a half and to ensure he wasn’t getting into any trouble, so you could say I spent about 30 hours a week being a ‘big brother’.
– I also donate 3% of my salary to the United Way to a charity that helps battered women because that is the only way my mother was able to escape my abusive father when I was 2 years old. The charity not only saved my Mom’s life but probably my life, my brother and my sister life so I give them 3% of my salary every year.
Any other questions about my personnal life?
Hello always deflects with a sophomoric deflection like….hey…what about this or that off-topic distractions.
and good for you, hello, for doing those things. I am glad you mother escaped. In this case, you didnt deflect and I am glad. Also, hats off for helping out a troubled kid. Actually, I am glad ELena questioned you. DIalogue enabled us to find out good things about you.
I have friends that are pro choice, friends that are anti abortion, and some that are anti choice. It’s the ones that are anti choice that frustrate me the most. Not only would they like abortions to become inaccessible for women, but they would like all methods of birth control to become inaccessible as well, even for married couples. However I may feel about abortion, I get extremely pissed at those who would like to remove a woman’s right to choose to prevent getting pregnant in the first place.
Wow! LOL!
is there any studies that show that the current regulations are not sufficient for clinics? that the soon to be proposed regulations would improve the outcomes? Why not enforce the same regulations on all procedures – lipo, plastic surgery, oral – why stop at abortion? (because Cooch is turning it into a political issue).
Of course the regulations are sufficient. Kook is trying to impose his political will through a devious track. He is disingenuous.
Now he is sticking his nose into the Leesburg courthouse situation.
@Pat.Herve
Pat that is actually a very good question. Could it have something to do with whether you believe you are dealing with one person or two? So why are the medical standards different, just because the age is different?
Moon, I appreciate your medical skills here to flatly decree that the standards are sufficient as they are – but could there also be some disagreement on that within the medical community – I mean before going off half cocked on the issue..
DB, I agree other than anti choice and anti abortion generally mean the same thing. (but I see your point)
There are many people who are anti contraception and anti choice for sure.
Abortion is sad. I don’t think anyone thinks it is a good way to spend an afternoon. But I believe there are plenty of cases where it is a very morally appropriate choice.
The bottom line is that women will always find a way if they are desperate enough. Women with some money will always find a way. The fact that it is difficult to access won’t stop abortion. It has been going on for thousands of years.
I think the idea that making abortions less dangerous for woman isn’t a bad one and I don’t buy into the arguement that clinics will close rather than comply. Those arguements were trotted out with the smoking ban and some of the same people arguing against regulation were for those regulations.
Now, each regulation should be looked at to see if it does serve a valid public interest or if it’s just a way of diminishing business. I’d only the support the former.
I don’t think any of these regulations will move us back to the days of back alley abortions.
Roe v. Wade is settled case law and Cooch says as much. Within the bounds of Roe he only simply states that the GA does have the power to regulate it. His statement wasn’t really earth-shattering IMO.
No TP, actually there is no disagreement in the medical community when medical standards are being considered. Now political agenda? You had better believe it.
Actually, I am more familiar than you might realize about the requirements and have been for years. Since you don’t know me, you are on mighty shaky grounds.
Marin, clinics will close if each provider has to spend a million dollars retrofitting halls and doors in rented property. Basically the idea is to drive the cost of operation up so much that it is easier to close your doors.
It is another method of making abortion so inconvenient that people just give up. So did killing abortion providers. That’s just another approach.
MH, understood but my arguement is that restraunts used the same arguement (increased business costs might force some to close) and it still got passed. Some people on here even thought it was a good idea to force the government to regulate these private establishments.
So, in for a penny, in for a pound, right? If the govt can regulate smoking at a “bar” why can’t they (further) regulate a clinic that provides medical services.
“Of course the regulations are sufficient. Kook is trying to impose his political will through a devious track. He is disingenuous.”
Funny how you ALWAYS find some way to call him by something other than his name but if ANYONE dares call Obama (not that I ever have) anything other than Mr. President they get a stern talking to and are threatened to be banned…. and you call me ‘sophomoric’. LOL!
Call him by his name or don’t throw out the ‘sophomoric’ accusations.
marin, the difference is that the no smoking ban will only cost a restaurant money IF they want to still allow patrons to smoke. It costs them nothing to adhere to the law, and have a no smoking restaurant.
They already do regulate the clinics – what Cooch wants is to increase the regulations and standards – but are these increased regulations needed? What is the cost to the clinics, and to VA to enforce those standards? Make abortions hard enough to get and the poor will suffer, as the wealthy can easily go out of district to achieve their desire.
Funny how there are those that are against abortion, but somehow find it ok if the ‘fertilized egg does not attach itself to the uterus’ – through the use of birth control – and they are not pregnant.
So to put it politely… get off your high horse.
Quick history lesson, you know where that saying comes from? From the middle ages and it fits like a glove in this particular situation:
“A high and mighty air or attitude is a high horse. An arrogant, pretentious, or unyielding mood is a high horse. A sulky or resentful attitude is a high horse.”
(again, don’t know if this is on the pre-approve list of links or not…) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/336110/origin_of_the_expression_high_horse.html?cat=37
Pat,
I can see where you are going but the abortion clinics are making the case that they’ll be thrown out of business by compliance with new regulations. In much the same way that those bars ‘could’ continue to provide services in the same manner as they had been in the past if they would install newly required equipment and make small structural changes to the business.
As Elena pointed out we can also bring in the gun issue on this as well. The cost of a permit may act as a restraint to those wanting to legally carry a pistol concealed. The $50 doesn’t touch me but what about a person making $7/hour? To your point, I have more options available to me where someone of less means does not.
But, when people have made the case that banks, insurers, oil companies, etc should have less regulation than more – we’ve been screamed down as saying the government should take care of us and protect us from ourselves. Why doesn’t that same line of thinking cover these clinics? What makes them that special?
I guess I’m looking for some consistency here. Posters here bang on the gavel asking for more federal or state regulation but when we talk abotu this one issue — suddenly the idea of regulation is foreign.
Let’s be clear about one thing. The AG’s opinion here will not stop 1 abortion.
You know what, Elena and I don’t see eye to eye on a ton of things but I still respected her. However, until I get a full apology that respect is evaporating rapidly…. that is all Ill say about that.
Did I miss something? Does the attorney general have the authority to implement regulations? The political question comes later when debating new laws or putting in regulations.
As far as I could tell, the attorney general answered a legal question as to the extent that regulations could be done. He answered that it had to conform to the supreme court decisions.
So what have I missed before I get my bowels in an uproar?
Wow, does everything have to be argued as if something actually was done?
I dare say that if one addressed it to Mr. Holder, the US Attorney General, he would probably have answered it the same way.
I’m not a good conservative when it comes to abortion. To me, it’s mostly a “mind my own business” thing. I never felt like I should be telling anyone else what to do with their reproductive lives. Besides, most of the radically pro-abortion folks I’ve met, I wouldn’t want procreating anyway. I’m not wild about the babies left on a shelf to gasp to death, or jamming a metal instrument into a baby’s brain, but in the first month or so, have at it, slaughter away!
I think everyone should mind their own business. I don’t think any of us have a right to tell someone else what to do. @ Slowpoke. My personal opinion on the subject if very different from my political opinion.
Additionally, the closer one comes to term, the more repugnant abortion becomes. Those kinds of abortion are rare and generally for medical reasons. It is still a sad situation.
Rez, Mr. Holder does not have a track record for trying to get legislation passed that accomplishes the same thing as his ‘opinion.’ Actually, the ball is now in Gov. McDonnell’s court. The video explains it.
Hello, I have never threatened to ban you. Perhaps I have told you you will be in moderation. I really can’t recall. No one has been banned. Several people are in moderation. I don’t allow their comments to go through.
I also don’t care whether you respect me or not. You make obnoxious statements on the blog on a regular basis. You forget that you are a guest. You will not get an apology from me for saying that you are being sophomoric. Defecting away from a topic rather than addressing it is sophomoric in my opinion. I don’t need to ask your permission.
@Moon-howler
But the point is that a lawyer will give a lawyer’s answer. They would have been the same. They haven’t even had a legislative session that involved any of the Attorney General decisions. He has only advised about the legality of things, which is what an attorney general is SUPPOSED to do!
This blog is really starting to sound like another to me again.
Rez, do you feel his opinion is correct? I do not. I also know why he is saying it. I do not plan on being silent on things I feel are wrong.
Perhaps when we start calling human beings dog food I will accept that we are becoming like ‘another blog.’ Right now, I am trying to manage a blog while Elena is sick and I am on vacation. If anyone is offended, sorry. The internet service also sucks.
I am pro-choice. That is not going to change.
Absolutely I believe his opinion is correct. He was asked if it can be done. He responded that if the people doing the regulation follows Supreme Court opinions, it can. I am so glad you know “why” he is saying it.
So do I.
He is saying it because it is the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court and his job is to advise the Commonwealth on what the parameters exist. He cannot ignore a delegate when the question is asked.
You can complain about a lot of things if you wish, but no one has said that the attorney general’s opinion is wrong. It is what it is.
If you want to complain about the final outcome, it is usually wiser to wait until the people that do it like the GA and Senate or the Governor rather than something which is fairly vanilla.
And yes, it is becoming as nasty as the other blog if you want to know. Some of us tire of the nastiness and expect that people argue facts rather than “I know what he is thinking, that bastard.” No one likes a “holier than thou” attitude coming from either the right or the left.
Grow up and if you want to have any credence it would be helpful if you admit your prejudices. Sorry, but some of us that are really in the middle are tired of people who are claiming to be.
Finally, tell me one instance that the Attorney General of Virginia, who was elected and deserves the same deference as any elected person including the President, tried to “get legislation passed that accomplishes the same thing as his ‘opinion.’” He was a delegate I believe and that is the proper role of the delegate to get laws passed. But when has that happened since he was Attorney General.
No one wants you to change from being pro-choice if that is your inclination. But I battle when it is time to do it and not in the preliminary stages when the parameters are given. To do so now before even the first proposal is given is absolutely silly.
Well done.
He was a state senator. You obviously have not watched the video.
He has attempted on several occassions to have abortion clinic regulations upgraded to hospital status. And yes, he did it to make abortion more inaccessible to the women of Virginia because he is opposed to abortion.
If that is arrogance, so be it. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck on reproductive rights issues. I also know that a legal opinion is meant to throw up obstacles. And you are right, it is just a legal opinion.
Those of us who have been in the pro choice trenches for many years know that anti choice people have tried to whittle away at abortion right by any means possible. There is no political middle ground. You either have rights or you don’t. That is sort of like being sort of married or sort of pregnant. It is like you are sort of in favor of gun ownership. You either are or you aren’t.
Pro-choice people don’t wait until the wolf is at the door. They call it out when they see it. You are free to think anything you want to think about me Rez. Water off a ducks’ back.
Frankly, what I think of you doesn’t matter since I am here to discuss legitimate issues and not personalities.
You are more than happy to let ridiculous comments go if they are from a certain political spectrum but immediately attack when it is isn’t.
Your blog–and most see through the effort. It is a shame that you don’t. This will always be “anti-” since it the other side of the same coin. It has no identity because it is only civil debate if we agree with you. So people like Starry can say the most obnoxious stuff but others can’t. And not to just call out Starry, but there are so many who can say what they want with no rein, but gee, someone takes up another side and they are banned–sound familiar from the other site? Ask your buddy “Censored”, isn’t that what happened? Stop being holier than thou and I will accept your opinions. But arrogance is a terrible thing to display.
Your “Pro-choice people don’t wait until the wolf is at the door.” is one of the funniest lines I have seen. It is the sum of why we are in the hateful situation we are in this country. People spit at the least provocation before anything has taken place. I am sad that you and your friends feel that you are so much better than me because I ended up doing some pretty good things in my life. At least my time, which is probably short, will be lived with caring in my heart rather than hatred.
C Ya
Who has been banned? No one. Who is in moderation? No one you know.
It might surprise you, Rez, to learn that I have no idea who Starry Flights even is. I am not sure who you are calling my friends.
I certainly don’t think I or my friends are better than you. I don’t even understand what that has to do with anything or where it came from.
Tell me, was it the abortion issue that you found so offensive?
I hope your time will be long.
But, the choice is yours. I am sorry you feel that way. You have always been polite to me. Obviously you don’t feel I have been polite to you.
Well, with Rez leaving, that drops the average IQ here by about 10 points (which I’d say is about 70). 😉
Vaya con Dios, Rez!
@Moon-howler
Who has been banned? No one. Who is in moderation? No one you know. [ad nauseam]
You’re picking nits, and don’t see, or you ignore, the bigger picture. Re-read Rez’s post. Start here….
“You are more than happy to let ridiculous comments go if they are from a certain political spectrum but immediately attack when it is isn’t.”
Dude is spot on!
I’d be sad if Rez stays gone. He made some very excellent points that I tried to hit on but must not have had the right words to convey.
Nothing has changed since a day before the opinion to a day after the opinion. The real fight is at the GA level assuming the the Board of Health doesn’t want to take action.
Ring, you are free to have your opinon of me also.
I keep hearing that I have banned people. That is not true. Anyone in moderation was migrated over from anti. I don’t think it is nit picking to correct an error.
As for attacking people….that sounds fairly thin skinned to me. There are people and you know who you are, who make a special trip here to say something nasty and and not even address the topic where they post.
Take your IQ comment. That is rather typical coming from you. why should I snarl at anyone who makes a crappy comment to you? That isn’t a comment that stimulates discussion. That is just a crappy thing to say. You have absolutely no room to talk about anyone’s behavior.
Well, arguing with liberals is a tricky business. You have to accept that you’ll never change anyone’s mind, and that liberals have different rules for debating than conservatives. It’s OK, people are just different. It can drive you to drink unless you can keep those rules in mind and play by them. Why do we do it? Heck, I wish I knew. To folks like Rez: You’ll be fine as long as you remember that 1. This isn’t your blog (don’t like the rules? Create your own blog!) 2. You won’t change anyone’s mind about anything religious or political. and 3. Every once in a blue moon, you’ll find something you all agree on, and that’s kind of cool!
That is his choice Marin. I will miss Rez also.
Nothing has changed and it won’t change unless the State Board of Health choses to take up this issue or unless McDonnell directs them to change the regulations for first trimester abortions.
I don’t agree with the smoking issue either but I cannot equate abortion rights to smoking rights. As someone pointed out, restaurants don’t have to change their business because they no longer allow smokers. They can retrofit if they want to continue smoking.
On the other hand, abortion providers would have to spend huge sums of money just to stay in business. That is the big difference. The hospital regulations also will not make abortion safer. It is an outpatient procedure.
I don’t dipstick for approval before I post a thread. I am pro-choice and so is Elena. We will cover issues that are related to reproductive rights, and without apology. That makes us nothing but pro-choice, just the same as Republicans for Choice or the organization, Catholics for a Free Choice.
Marin, as you feel about gun rights, I feel about reproductive rights. I don’t want the government interferring. I will make my own morally appropriate choices as I have done my entire life. Most pro=choice people see any intrusion into this area as a whittling away of rights. You of all people should understand.
From the Washington Post:
Marshall asks the governor to upgrade abortion clinic regulations:
And further explantion about Cuccinelli’s motives:
.
To my friends here, I do not anticipate a much longer life and I apologize to all that I may have offended.
I only ask that when you debate, do so with honor and compassion for the other side. No one side is right all the time and we must always be cognizant of the wonderful fabric that we (all of us) simple threads provide to this nation. It can be a wonderful place and the potential for an outstanding tapestry is still with us.
But I am out of patience with pettiness and since I can see that although I have tried to add a civility to things, it may not be shared. To those that do not share my civility, please find it in your hearts to think before you speak, and more importantly to listen, and truly listen to those that disagree with you. Not everyone is trying to create ill for others even if they disagree. Sometimes a simple “tone it down” would have been a welcome comment.
I am truly hopeful that some day, we will eventually see a way to win in concert with an opposing view since that is what we are called to do. We are not in this life to be victorious over others but to be victorious WITH all others.
I do not mean to ask people to change their minds, but I would pray that they could have dialogue with each other.
Peace to all of you.
Peace to you also. Rez, I hope I misread your first sentence. You have offended no one.
Please email me.