Pre-Emptive Strike On Roe vs. Wade

[goofyfish]

It is all about framing the issue. This is one of the most cynically transparent attempts by the administration to further its conservative agenda.

Tommy Thompson sat in a Senate hearing earlier this year and with a straight face and studied conviction said the following:

"Prenatal services can be a lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available to all pregnant women."

To that end, President Bush's secretary of health and human services spearheaded the move that, by next month, will redefine a fetus as a child eligible for federally funded health care under the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Full text here.)

Let's see: we have over 40 million living, breathing, walking, talking, working, school-going people in this country with no access to subsidized health care - and the Bush administration is going to give it to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. I have no argument with prenatal care for women but, as the author says, why not create a special class of health care for pregnant women instead of creating - by administrative fiat - a whole new class of "persons."

This is just more of the cynical, hypocritical stuff I've come to expect from Team Bush. I'm only surprised that the new rule doesn't require the woman to be married, as well...

Peace.

__________________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.

• -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)

 

[wet1]

Just hold on goofyfish, it ain't over till the fat woman sings, so to say.

All government programs that I know of have qualifing standards to be met to be eligible for them...

 

[Xev]

*Drags burqua out of the closet*

 

[Tiassa]

Wet1--It's a rhetorical position, isn't it?

I remember hearing a news story some time ago along this very line, and it seems to me that Bush is out to set a rhetorical standard. The issue is not so much prenatal care, but whether to extend that care to the mother as the patient, or to the fetus as the patient. The object is that with such a law, when one challenges abortion rights, one now has new ammunition to present the case that a fetus is a human. Legal classification is a huge thing to the courts when nothing is particularly clear to them.

An odd analogy: The Supreme Court, in Bowers v. Hardwick, ruled that states have the right to make laws against homosexual conduct. While the liberal dissent pointed out that there was no device that allowed such a distinction for the purpose of writing laws, the conservative majority used as its foundation conventions of the people, and cited English Common Law from the 16th century.

If you can go into court and establish a line of sentiment evident among the people, you can build your case around that no matter what.

When I first heard about this, and it was a period of months ago, it seemed to me that the Bush administration sought to make the mother a non-person. The idea does "create a new class of person" and invests that class with certain rights.

Fair enough, though. One class of people cannot trespass on the rights of another class of people. So the first thing that would have to happen after birth is the engagement of due process before the law to lift those rights and return the child to a status that can be governed by the parents. As it is, upon arriving in the world, the child will have special rights that entitle it to operate outside the parents' authority.

We must recall that, after Missouri won its anti-abortion stance in the early 1990s, that a young man challenged a Minor In Possession of Controlled Substance charge on the basis that his driver's license age--twenty years and six months--was inaccurate, and that he was, in fact, of age when he consumed the alcohol, because the law said twenty-one years, not twenty-one years out of the mother. It was a brilliant exploitation of an ill-written law. The Bush administration is setting the stage for a civil rights war between parents and children, but of course I don't see why a lobby of lawyers would object.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

Re: Wet1--It's a rhetorical position, isn't it?

Originally posted by tiassa
I remember hearing a news story some time ago along this very line, and it seems to me that Bush is out to set a rhetorical standard. The issue is not so much prenatal care, but whether to extend that care to the mother as the patient, or to the fetus as the patient. The object is that with such a law, when one challenges abortion rights, one now has new ammunition to present the case that a fetus is a human. Legal classification is a huge thing to the courts when nothing is particularly clear to them.

An odd analogy: The Supreme Court, in Bowers v. Hardwick, ruled that states have the right to make laws against homosexual conduct. While the liberal dissent pointed out that there was no device that allowed such a distinction for the purpose of writing laws, the conservative majority used as its foundation conventions of the people, and cited English Common Law from the 16th century.

If you can go into court and establish a line of sentiment evident among the people, you can build your case around that no matter what.

When I first heard about this, and it was a period of months ago, it seemed to me that the Bush administration sought to make the mother a non-person. The idea does "create a new class of person" and invests that class with certain rights.

Fair enough, though. One class of people cannot trespass on the rights of another class of people. So the first thing that would have to happen after birth is the engagement of due process before the law to lift those rights and return the child to a status that can be governed by the parents. As it is, upon arriving in the world, the child will have special rights that entitle it to operate outside the parents' authority.

We must recall that, after Missouri won its anti-abortion stance in the early 1990s, that a young man challenged a Minor In Possession of Controlled Substance charge on the basis that his driver's license age--twenty years and six months--was inaccurate, and that he was, in fact, of age when he consumed the alcohol, because the law said twenty-one years, not twenty-one years out of the mother. It was a brilliant exploitation of an ill-written law. The Bush administration is setting the stage for a civil rights war between parents and children, but of course I don't see why a lobby of lawyers would object.

thanx,
Tiassa

People are easily impressed to consider that "brilliant."

 

[Tiassa]

What about useful?

People are easily impressed to consider that "brilliant."

And people would be easily impressed to consider that "useful". Perhaps, dear Prozak, you might expand on that point some?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

This is what I was addressing:

"We must recall that, after Missouri won its anti-abortion stance in the early 1990s, that a young man challenged a Minor In Possession of Controlled Substance charge on the basis that his driver's license age--twenty years and six months--was inaccurate, and that he was, in fact, of age when he consumed the alcohol, because the law said twenty-one years, not twenty-one years out of the mother. It was a brilliant exploitation of an ill-written law. "

I don't consider that a brilliant legal 'sploit, and suggest that the word "brilliant" be reserved for things which are complex or difficult.

 

[Tiassa]

Par brilliance

I don't consider that a brilliant legal 'sploit, and suggest that the word "brilliant" be reserved for things which are complex or difficult.

Sometimes the brilliant things are those which lead to simplicity.

To wit, and bearing scale in mind: in the early days of calibrating video game joysticks (it wasn't always part of the package), most of my friends and I struggled early on with the concept of how to make the dot sit stably in the center of the calibration window. And then one day a friend of mine was calibrating for Flight Simulator, and he just picked up the joystick, held it steady, and clicked the button. It was perfectly calibrated. Comparatively, it was brilliance.

In order to get away with an exploitation like that, one must first have cause, second have opportunity, and third, have the knowledge and intuition to take advantage of the situation.

Or take Apprendi v. New Jersey. Upon the reading of that decision, the ripple-effect was immediately known. Though Apprendi concerned a firearms case, its structure was such that it held massive implications for drug-related cases. Everybody who was watching knew that law & order was about to take a beating at its own hands.

Translating the principle from Apprendi to drug cases is not difficult. Arguing that translated concept is not difficult. But the lawyer who won Apprendi had to find a way to present an argument that had been rejected before, one concerning the nature of charging crimes as related to sentencing. Many lawyers tried. Many lawyers failed. But the argument put forth was simple and direct, and in its success became a stroke of brilliance. Very simply: how is a jury allowed to convict a man of a crime that (A) a defendant is not allowed to argue against, and (B) the jury is unaware of the charge? Amazingly, nobody had ever argued that point successfully before. In the end, the question only made a difference of about 17% of Mr. Apprendi's sentence, but because of that seemingly small victory, a massive tool of injustice has been crippled. It's simple, it's brilliant.

When you stop and think about Missouri, abortion, and illegal alcohol possession, a striking result appears: Every state that chooses to adopt "life at conception" laws must then revise every age-dependent statute accordingly, and derive a code of laws defining social obligations of and to that living organism. The hand-wringers had pointed this out before, but it was only a theoretical point, so nobody paid much attention. And then some smarmy dude busted for drinking goes out and makes people think about it.

Driving, drinking, voting, draft & conscription (federal), gun registry, lottery, porno, insurance, family custody, inheritance, financial trust, and other laws would have to be revised to accord with "life at conception". Think of it this way: how do you track the conception date? A preemie, then, gets to start drinking, buying porn, or whatnot, earlier than a full-term child born on the same day?

With such a simple stroke, a young man invited a philosophical hell onto Missouri. And that was quite brilliant, indeed.

However, I also wanted to mention that it's much easier to address your issues when you let us know what they are. And I thank you for doing so.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

Re: Par brilliance

Originally posted by tiassa
Sometimes the brilliant things are those which lead to simplicity.

To wit, and bearing scale in mind: in the early days of calibrating video game joysticks (it wasn't always part of the package), most of my friends and I struggled early on with the concept of how to make the dot sit stably in the center of the calibration window. And then one day a friend of mine was calibrating for Flight Simulator, and he just picked up the joystick, held it steady, and clicked the button. It was perfectly calibrated. Comparatively, it was brilliance.

In order to get away with an exploitation like that, one must first have cause, second have opportunity, and third, have the knowledge and intuition to take advantage of the situation.

Or take Apprendi v. New Jersey. Upon the reading of that decision, the ripple-effect was immediately known. Though Apprendi concerned a firearms case, its structure was such that it held massive implications for drug-related cases. Everybody who was watching knew that law & order was about to take a beating at its own hands.

Translating the principle from Apprendi to drug cases is not difficult. Arguing that translated concept is not difficult. But the lawyer who won Apprendi had to find a way to present an argument that had been rejected before, one concerning the nature of charging crimes as related to sentencing. Many lawyers tried. Many lawyers failed. But the argument put forth was simple and direct, and in its success became a stroke of brilliance. Very simply: how is a jury allowed to convict a man of a crime that (A) a defendant is not allowed to argue against, and (B) the jury is unaware of the charge? Amazingly, nobody had ever argued that point successfully before. In the end, the question only made a difference of about 17% of Mr. Apprendi's sentence, but because of that seemingly small victory, a massive tool of injustice has been crippled. It's simple, it's brilliant.

When you stop and think about Missouri, abortion, and illegal alcohol possession, a striking result appears: Every state that chooses to adopt "life at conception" laws must then revise every age-dependent statute accordingly, and derive a code of laws defining social obligations of and to that living organism. The hand-wringers had pointed this out before, but it was only a theoretical point, so nobody paid much attention. And then some smarmy dude busted for drinking goes out and makes people think about it.

Driving, drinking, voting, draft & conscription (federal), gun registry, lottery, porno, insurance, family custody, inheritance, financial trust, and other laws would have to be revised to accord with "life at conception". Think of it this way: how do you track the conception date? A preemie, then, gets to start drinking, buying porn, or whatnot, earlier than a full-term child born on the same day?

With such a simple stroke, a young man invited a philosophical hell onto Missouri. And that was quite brilliant, indeed.

However, I also wanted to mention that it's much easier to address your issues when you let us know what they are. And I thank you for doing so.

thanx,
Tiassa

I suppose what is "brilliant" to some people in terms of results seems obvious to me.

The early days of joysticks... and you mention flight simulator? Hehe... I seem to recall coding up a driver for one a few years before that.

One of my projects early on was a simple drawing program for making basic images, with the ability to draw lines or in dot-mode and also to erase. The solution to the joystick instability problem (small motions erratic) was a sliding window which determined the minimum sample size and kept all input beneath that unconsidered.

 

[Tiassa]

Practical solutions, Prozak

One of my projects early on was a simple drawing program for making basic images, with the ability to draw lines or in dot-mode and also to erase. The solution to the joystick instability problem (small motions erratic) was a sliding window which determined the minimum sample size and kept all input beneath that unconsidered.

Practical solutions to all your home problems.

Our solution is easier. You pick up the joystick, let it settle in your hand, click the button, and put it down. Gravity calibrates the joystick. It's worked for every joystick I've used since.

Practical solutions, Prozak.

It's like a friend of mine who works for Microsoft. He keeps telling me about .NET and how cool it's going to be. But I noticed that everything he tells me about it is from a developer's standpoint. So I just look at him and say, "Great, dude, but what about your users?" And he scratches his head, and I say, "Dude, how long have you worked for Microsoft? And what do you do? Okay, and the average user is expected to have ... what knowledge base?"

Or how about the guy who saved someone's life with a coffee stir-stick? He wasn't a doctor. He was a moron with a desperate idea that he got away with. In other words, all the medical knowledge in the world wouldn't have done any good. It just took some old fashioned brilliance.

The doctors said they never would have thought of using a two-hose coffee stir-stick and fishing line to breach a severed vessel. It was a pain in the ass to undo in the O/R, but hey, at least there was a patient to deal with.

Or the guy who taught me, in the eighth grade, how to read the bottlecaps on Pepsi bottles to win the free stuff in the giveaway. (The bottlecaps were sequenced. #1 got a free Pepsi, #A got $5.00, that sort of thing.) I paid for a Pepsi in January and didn't pay for another until May.

Brilliance, sir, includes simple application.

It's one thing to find the exhaust port in the technical readout, and fully another to figure out how to land a proton torpedo straight down the center.

--Tiassa