Scott Brown is owning the dems in the commonwealth state

This is an incredibly rare situation. The overwhelming majority of abortions are due to the mother deciding she just doesn't want the child for whatever personal reasons she may have. I can't remember the numbers, but something like 2% are "life of the mother" abortions if I recall correctly.

 

To me it seems you're more in favor of an oligarchy, as long as its your group of people in power.

Any party that controls the house, senate and oval office at once is very bad for the country.

 

Its rare but not impossible. A friend of mine recently gave birth very prematurally where that possibility arose. Thankfully she was at one of the best hospitals in the country where specialists were on hand but that isn't always the situation.

My point is that if your religious beliefs are so narrow that you can never be involved in that situation then even a 2% possibility is one that you should avoid.

 

Just to follow up on my last point. Elective or non-elective is important but somewhat tangential to the argument. Leaving aside whether it is elective or not then should we carve out exceptions for every religious practice.

For instance the devout Jew who can't handle insulin made from pig pancreas could still get a non-kosher co-worker to do handle the insulin but then should that be codified as law that devout Jews in health care have that exception? What about someone's who religion forbids violence but they really want to be a police officer should the laws be written to give them that exception? In both cases while accomodation could be made you are placing a burden on others in the profession to make up for the person who cannot fully carry out the duties of the job.

I fully agree that reasonable accomodation should be provided but there are plenty of situations where that cannot be provided or that providing that accomodation is unduly burdensome on others. These might be rare but if someone's religious views are so strict they can't even consider the possibility of those occurences then it would be better off to avoid that situation altogether by not entering that field.

 

I don't care if it's liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. I want something other than "politics as usual" which is a synonym for "we're just going to oppose each other's ideologies and get absolutely nothing done" these days. I'm sure if the Republicans had a 60/40 majority, the Democrats would be trying to ****block their legislation in the same fashion, but at least meaningful changes would get through. When someone doesn't have a supermajority, nothing gets through, and policy will continue to lag way behind as it already does.

Like I said, I really don't give a crap WHO has the majority, as long as something gets done. I don't believe anything can ever get done in the current political environment if no one can cram legislation through. If there is a "bloodbath" in November and the Republicans suddenly have a House/Senate (60/40) majority, I'll be fine with that, too. I have absolutely zero faith anything will get done at all if there isn't a 60/40 split or greater in the Senate.

You're stretching the meaning of the word "oligarchy," however.

 

Emergency abortions where the mother's life is at stake aren't what's being talked about here. Not only are they more rare than the 2% number yanx posted, they almost never happen in third trimester where the mother's life is at stake. The article above indicated that the abortion the nurse was made to take part in was not an emergency, and was only classified as such by the hospital.

If there is a neutral and generally applicable law that did not have an accommodation than yes. We're just speaking in hypotheticals though.

Once again, these instances are rare, extremely rare in 3rd trimester (I don't even know if there is a documented case), and not a problem for Catholics as the intent is not to kill the baby but to save the life of the mother.

Once again, this just isn't the case. See above.

 

If you haven't read Smith you should. Essentially it is this, if the law is neutral and generally applicable, the government is not required to make exemptions for religious accommodation. This does not mean that they can't make exemptions. A lot of religious people don't like this distinction, but it was a better way of handling the problem than applying a weakened form of strict scrutiny to accommodation cases prior to Smith.

Her understanding of the situation proves she hasn't done much work with the religion clauses. It also indicates she thinks the legislature should not be willing to provide exemptions, which I think is a problem.

 

I don't buy it. I think if Brown does win there will be very little difference between Brown and Specter, Lieberman, Snowe, or Collins. He will vote with them 95% of the time.

One very important factor that people have overlooked is that Brown will have to run again in just two years -- in a general election in Massachusetts during a Presidential Year. He cannot afford to completely alienate himself from a constituency that went for Obama by 2:1.

Don't get me wrong, he will still be well to the right of Kennedy or Coakley. The Dems are losing a solid left vote and replacing it with a middling center right one. But I don't buy the "he's a wingnut" blabber. Dude has a record and it ain't wingnutty. I think he's a politician and is saying what he has to today in order to get Tea Bagger cash. He will happily say and vote completely differently before his reelection. The Baggers don't live in Massachusetts.

 

The idea that such a class still exists doesn't take into account the Republicans' new strategy of obstructing everything Obama wants to do in lockstep. The result is that Snowe and Collins are solid filibuster votes now except in very extreme cases and Specter is a solid Dem vote. The obstructionist strategy has eliminated the moderate middle. Lieberman and 4-5 conservative Democrats (Specter not among them) are the only votes that are legitimately up for grabs in this new landscape.

 

I can't believe this issue of "if someone is raped, blah, blah" is an issue in this election. that is such an extreme rare case that hardly affects anybody, in this country that I don't know why people get caught up in such a rare hypothetical. is a silly debate, "i'm not doing that abortion" find another hospital. sheesh

 

this race is hinging on people in Mass don't like either their healthcare reform or they don't want to help pay for the federal version when they have their own. period.

another case of dems, particularly obama being out of touch, they thought they could run any old candidate up their because its "kennedy's seat". hello, don't go around calling a senate seat, anybody's seat and don't take it for granted

 

"We're about to learn whether Obama can deliver electoral votes," wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas on his Twitter page.

 

protest babes!

 

Rare yes but that doesn't mean they never happen. A friend of mine had a very difficult birth recently where the issue did come up that complications in the pregnancy might mean that the either the mother or fetus couldn't be saved and a choice might have to be made. Fortunately she was at one of the best hospitals in the country so both could be saved.

 

Once again, this isn't the issue. If a significant choice exists where both are going to die, the Church does not require that they both die. Principle of double effect, not what is being discussed here.

 

The problem though I still see is that in an emergency situation a lot of unpredictable things happen and I'm glad the Church recognizes that. At the sametime a law or doctrine that lays down a rigid interpretation, and I will admit to not knowing Catholic law enough to know how rigid the interpretation is, I would say that you should avoide the possibility of being put in a compromising situation. Emergency medicine is one where a lot of difficult ethical situations arise.

That said let me give you another example. A fetus is through sonograms is found to be very deformed and likely not to survive much beyond birth at the sametime it appears likely that birth could potentially cause great harm to the mother. I suspect the case in the link you cited is something along those lines. Now a decision needs to be made soon but for whatever reason the only medical professional on hand is someone who is religiously against abortion what happens then?

The answer that is being argued in the case you cite is to wait until someone who doesn't have that religious restriction is available to perform the abortion the problem that I see is that waiting might lead to more problems and it puts a further burden on the rest of profession and the patient.

 

When would a 20 week sonogram demand that an emergency abortion need to be performed for a delivery that is still 20 weeks away? You are making hypotheticals that have no basis in reality.

 

Go Brown baby!!!! I don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't want. F that. Go Brown. Filibuster baby.

 

Me either. Unfortunately I still had to pay for the Iraq war. It sucked, but sometimes govt. just runs that way. I also didn't want to be forced to pay Gitmo, but sadly my tax dollars had to.

The difference between those things and health care is that health care will actually benefit the entire nation since we already paid for the uninsured when they go to emergency rooms and rack up huge costs. In fact it will help all of us since it will reduce the deficit as well.

The same can't be said of the Iraq war, or gitmo. I guess it sucked for me more than it does for you.

 

I don't agree. Snowe would have broken with her party if we had continued to woo her. Reid chose to go in a different direction and nab Nelson instead. Any Senator can be bought. Some are just more expensive than others.

Brown hasn't mentioned his party in his advertisements. He's running as an independent outsider looking to change party politics. Hell he's promising to take on Obama in a pickup basketball game once elected. These are not the signs of a man who considers Obama to be another Stalin. Obviously I don't think he is being entirely honest, but I don't think he wants to go down in flames two years from now. I suspect that he will get the support from industries to bankroll his reelection campaign and then go just liberal enough, and work with the President his state overwhelmingly supports just enough, to get reelected in Masssachusetts. Similar to Blue Dog Dems that stay just conservative enough to stay in office in their home districts. He does not have the long track record to defend that Collins, Snowe, or others have and he will have to build that reputation quickly. He won't have anything to run on if all he was was another "no" vote. If he can be the Senator that brought reform to his state than he has a platform, as well as negating the issue most likely to be used against him.