Abortion Clinic Violence is Cool With the Court Washington:
Hope all you fiscal conservatives who voted for Bush are happy, because today a woman's right to safe and legal reproductive choice was dramatically curtailed as the landmark ruling Schneidler v National Organization for Women was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Ever since that landmark 2003 ruling, abortion clinic violence was dramatically curtailed, because said violence was determined to be in violation of the Hobbs act or as it is more commonly known, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. This statute holds that when violence and intimidation is applied to interefere with commerce, the victim is entitle to triple damages from the perpetrators. As expected, abortion clinic violence dropped off dramatically in 2003 since even the threat thereof would financially destroy the offender. This ruling was overturned today, because get this, "Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act's scope," Justice Breyer wrote. To try to use the act as the National Organization for Women and other abortion-rights advocates have done broadens the Hobbs Act's scope well beyond what case law has assumed," he wrote. So women now have one less barrier to a complete removal of their rights why? Because this violence, The Judge says is not included in the statute. You can kill them, burn them, beat them as long as you don't rob or extort! Go Court! Regrettably .... More to come! Now am I exagerating to make a point dear reader? Obviously, but the indebatable result is quite succinctly, a woman's right (by way of access) to safe and legal reproductive choice was severely curtailed today. And if you disagree, riddle me this: will abortion clinic violence be more apt to increase or decrease with the removal of threat of triple damages?  ¶ 10:56 PM 0 comments

  Very Thin Books (first in a series)








1.) THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF MORALS: by Tom Delay (R) Texas

2.) DIAGNOSTICS FROM 2000 MILES : by William Frist MD, US Senate (R) Tennessee

3.) EVERYTHING I EVER KNEW ABOUT ANYTHING: Ronald Reagan (1913-2004)

4.) LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ AND killing 2,271 US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN: by George W. Bush, President of The United States of America

5.) ALL THE LOVE IN MY HEART: Ann Coulter  ¶ 6:06 PM 1 comments

  Don't Take My Word For It! Go see for yourself! How do members of Congress vote, and how they are rated by various
Political Action Committees? We ought to be
more concerned with how we are represented on issues of the day instead of a politician's ability to
out-debate Tim Russert, wave the flag, or mis-
diagnose Terry Schaivo from a distance of 2000 miles. Please visit project vote smart and develop your own informed opinion. Did you know that the boner on the right , House Majority leader, John Boehner (R) (OH), voted NO on defeated measure HR 1815, The Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Ammendment (that would have allowed women in Uniform access to terminate an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy at US Military Hospitals abroad, including patient funded services)? If that's your position dear reader, you are entitled to it, but don't salute the republican mantle if it isn't, because this is the position of your party's legislative leader (with major support of the party of course). If you like those no-bid Halliburton contracts, to put it "bluntly" you'll love House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R) (MO). And yes it works both ways. You will find records and endorsements of the liberal legislators below that may be deemed repellant.  ¶ 10:59 AM 0 comments

  Republicans say "F# You !" to Women serving our Nation in uniform. Upon researching the story above, your devoted blogger stumbled upon a remarkable piece of legislation defeated by the Republican conrolled House of Representatives. The following summary is from the NOW (National Organization for Women) website :



"Servicewomen and military dependents are currently prohibited from obtaining abortions at overseas military hospitals, even if they pay for the services themselves.This unfair, dangerous ban applies even in cases of rape, incest, and threat to maternal health. Denying our servicewomen stationed overseas the same rights that women are afforded at home is completely unacceptable and hypocritical. Why should these women fight to protect our freedom when they are not afforded those same rights? The ban is especially reprehensible considering the prevalence of sexual violence in the military. In one study by the Iowa Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 30 percent of female U.S. military veterans reported having been raped or suffered a rape attempt during their military service. It should be emphasized that there should not be any ban at all: Servicewomen and military dependents should have the same constitutional rights at U.S. military hospitals overseas as they would at a hospital or clinic in their home town. This ban, adopted by a right-wing anti-abortion rights majority in Congress in 1996 and later supported by an anti-abortion rights administration, risks the health and lives of military servicewomen and the female dependents of all service members stationed abroad. These women are now forced to turn to hospitals and clinics in less developed regions of the world which may not have safe medical procedures. "

PS: Despite the eloquent appeal quoted above, the measure to lift the ban was defeated 233-194 along primarily, but not exclusively party lines. Here is the voting record on the ammendment to HR 1815, Roll Call No. 216.  ¶ 2:55 PM 0 comments