How do you negate this talking point I've been hearing since last night?

[Skidmore]

That if you support Roe v. Wade or the right to choice, then you are being political or demanding a political response for a nominee when asking. By this rationale, those who would differ from this are somehow neutral or apolitical. They are trying to set the position of anti-choice as the norm in these types of statements.

[johnlal]

1. Court precedent

Justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to have respect for court precedent. Roe v. Wade is not a political argument. It is settled law handed down by the highest court of the land. If a nominee already has disrespect for court precedent, it could signal a deeper problem- a lack of respect for civil rights decisions on a number of issues.

[Not Me]

6. "...lack of respect for established law" = activist judge

n/t

[Vickers]

2. Ask them, "If your daughter was raped by an escaped prisoner..."

"...who was of a different race, and ended up pregnant with a malformed, brain-dead fetus, should she be able to get an abortion?"

If they answer "yes" they are pro-choice (and probably racist).

If they answer "no" they aren't worth debating. They are in a total Kool Aid situation.

[nickinSTL]

3. If they answer "yes" they are pro-choice (and probably racist).

uh, that's an unfair characterization.

My answer would be yes...but not because of the race of the child, but the RAPE aspect (oh, and the malformed, brain-dead thing)

[Vickers]

12. I put the "different race" in there to further make their heads explode...

...not to try to tie anyone who would choose abortion in that circumstance to racism. My question was designed to be posed to a diehard RWer, many of whom I have found to be mild to virulent racists.

Sorry for the confusion. :toast:

[shugh514]

4. Roe v. Wade should be defended

as a Right to Privacy. Right to Privacy includes the right to make health/medical decisions without government interference. If Roberts does not agree, he should not be confirmed.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Law of the Land, Law of the Land - Most Don't Want RVW Overturned

Polls show most people don't want to change it, even if they oppose abortion. Only an activist judge would overturn it.

[brainshrub]

7. Roe v Wade is a human rights issue, not a political issue.

Protecting Roe v Wade is not a political issue, it's a human rights issue. Attempting to overturn RvW is like fighting against Brown v Board of Education.

Look at RvW from a historical context: For millennia, women were treated like chattel with no control of their bodies. In the United States, Women did not have the right to sue, contract, keep their earnings, or keep the financial property accruing from any real property (such as rent, profits, or sale price) until 1860. It wasn't until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment, that women were able to vote. As late as 1971 employers were allowed to refuse to hire women with pre-school children.

Women, and their bodies, belonged to their fathers, husbands or the state.

Thanks to the hard work of Liberals, today we take for granted that women are equals. RvW cemented women's rights and set up a legal bulwark against the government, or anyone else, from passing laws that treat women like property. Every anti-harassment law, every domestic violence law and a large chunk of civil-rights law has it's roots in RvW.

No wonder white conservative males hate it so much!

If you care about human dignity, if you believe that all people are created equal and if you think your daughter shouldn't be beaten by her husband, your duty as an American citizen is to support RvW.

[derby378]

8. Haven't heard this identified as a "talking point"

But I wouldn't be surprised - Religious Reich figures have been saying that RWW supporters "play politics with the lives of little pre-born baby boys and girls" for years now. Sheesh.

[Totally Committed]

9. It's the same argument they used against the GLBTers

who forced the Gay Marriage thing before the last election.

I am definitely and emphatically against women losing the Right to Choose. It is mysogynistic, regressive, insulting, and goddammit, people like me fought for years for it. Try walking a mile in the other guy's shoes. Then, if you think we are being obstructive or selfish, at least it comes from an informed place, and is not just a "talking point".

TC

[mntleo2]

10. What Is Wrong about Being Political?

They are being political, why is it that they can be political and the opposing side cannot? Isn't this about politics? I mean it is a political figure appointing a judge and that political figure is being, well, political with his choice, this is a given. He had to consider who on his side would vote for this guy and guess what? THEY ARE POLITICAL FIGURES TOO!! What do you mean am I being political? Of course I am being political.

God these people make me mad. I am sick, SICK of being on the run because of these sorts of accusations. I always try to turn it back on them: "What is wrong with having an agenda? Yeah sure I have an agenda, it is left and it is what I believe in. So what? At least I am being up front about mine, what about you???" "Fair And Balanced" is pretending you don't have an agenda. Look. Every freaking body has an agenda. HELLO????

This would be what I would say, my take.

Cat In Seattle

[peacetalksforall]

11. I think you can ask all the other questions and assume how he would

vote on Roe vs Wade given what he has said. They can phrase his quote about Roe vs Wade without putting a question mark on it - for the official record. Given what he has said, it would be redundant to have half of the Committee keep asking about it for the record. They can hammer him off the record.

[Dr Fate]

13. You mean politicians in the Senate- are GASP- political????

No one will ever accept that! I guess we better stop talking about issues so we dont look "political."

[geek tragedy]

14. The distinction between law and politics is a phony one. And I have two

words for anyone who disagrees: Terri Schiavo.