With
In a move to distance himself from President Bush, Lieberman put his support behind....President Bush.
"I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. . . . I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- and I will be heard." William Lloyd Garrison
With
In a move to distance himself from President Bush, Lieberman put his support behind....President Bush.
Democrats send a letter to the president, asking what specific policies he was going to put in place to curb our “addiction to oil.” This echoes the thoughts of many consumer groups, calling Bush’s recent obsession with our oil problem as merely a cosmetic campaign, not real policy. And sure enough, our imports from the
Democrats in the letter refused to detail how they would do it, or offer any advice on the subject. They could have pointed to Hillary Clinton’s initiative to become energy independent by 2020 (That’s 5 years before bush wants to reduce from only the Middle East, a small supplier to the US), or the Apollo Initiative, which creates 3 million jobs in the process. Lets step up Democrats, we’re clearly the only party that can put out plans to really help cut back on our oil use, just let everyone out there know.
The Supreme Court will rule on later term abortions soon, the first time an abortion case will come before the recently changed court. There is little doubt how they will vote also. The case comes from the “partial-birth abortion ban act” in 2003. “Partial-Birth” abortions are not aborting a part of the fetus, or aborting a fetus when it is halfway out of the mother, as the name would suggest. Instead, it refers to dilation abortion methods. These are rarely used, almost always to preserve the health or life of the mother. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in 2003 was never enforced, because the Supreme Court struck it down because it didn’t leave an exception for a woman’s health. The Supreme Court also said, 9-0, that the entire law wasn’t unconstitutional, only the lack of an exception for woman’s health made the law unacceptable. I assume this will be changed and the law will be enacted. The concern is that this will also ban second trimester abortions that are on less developed fetuses.
I personally have no problem banning 3rd trimester abortions with an exception of woman’s health matters. I’d love to have no abortions, but there is not an infrastructure in place for everyone to get the proper assistance in raising a child. It’s not easy to find an adoptive family. Orphanages were recently found to be much less helpful to a child’s growth than foster parents are. Also, we have pharmacists who decline to distribute birth control and contention over the morning-after pill. If birth control and education of it were readily available, and funding was in place to help a poor mother raise a child herself (fully funding head start, child care funding), then abortions will decrease. Abortion will never stop, like prohibition didn’t work – it’ll only become less safe if made illegal.