Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-07-2018, 11:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: This case was based on the Hobby Lobby case that was based on objections to interuterine devices and certain  drugs under the belief they cause abortions. Now do you truly believe that he thinks that taking the pill or using a condom is an abortion?

Do they cause abortions? And did the "Priests for Life" want just those excluded?

[GMDino]

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/contraception-confusion-judge-kavanaugh-and-priests-for-life/

Quote:It’s clear that in his testimony to Senator Cruz, Kavanaugh was repeating the words that the plaintiffs had used in their own briefs.   As Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, explained in her majority opinion for the three-judge panel in the 2014 case:

Quote:It is undisputed that Plaintiffs all sincerely believe that life begins at conception and that contraception is contrary to Catholic tenets. Priests for Life, for example, was founded to spread the Gospel of Life, which “affirms and promotes the culture of life and actively opposes and rejects the culture of death.” Pls.’ Br. 11. Catholic doctrine prohibits “impermissible cooperation with evil,” and thus opposes providing access to “contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing products,” which the Church views as “immoral regardless of their cost.” Id. at 12.

The plaintiffs’ brief in the case (which, again, was quoted in both the majority opinion and Kavanaugh’s dissent from denial of rehearing en banc) makes clear that the plaintiffs objected to the provision of health care coverage for several different categories of care, including prescription drug coverage for both contraceptives and what the plaintiffs described as “abortion-inducing products.”

They didn't want to provide ANY contraceptives.  That Kavanaugh focused on one of the "different categories" or care show where he placed his emphasis and how he considered them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2018, 11:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nah...everybody knows he's a shoe in.  

Unless there is some really big item nobody knows about yet he was guaranteed to be in.

I mean I know y'all just want to ignore everything int he hearing because you already liked him anyway, but it's good to share his responses for those who may be more open minded.

Weird how wrong you are about me so often.

Nighty night!

Actually, he's a mixed bag for me, as I'm not a party affiliated robot.  I love his stance on the 2A, I think it's perfectly in line with the framers intent with that amendment.  I also prefer a originalist perspective, as the Constitution, with the BoR, is a wonderfully crafted set of documents.  I very much dislike his stance on unions and abortion rights, although I think the case of the migrant in detention requesting the government to pay for her abortion is a poor example of this.  Much as Kagan and Sotomayor were a mixed bag for me.  I just find it amusing that you, and others like you, expect a GOP POTUS to nominate a SCOTUS appointee in line with Democratic party principles.  Laughable to say the least.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2018, 11:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do they cause abortions? And did the "Priests for Life" want just those excluded?

IUD’s certainly can and there’s still enough argument over plan B that you can claim it and not be told you are for sure incorrect. They probably were going for both.

But what he said was “abortion inducing drugs”. He didn’t say contraceptives and other abortion inducing drugs.

I answered. Your turn.

[GMDino]

(09-07-2018, 11:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: IUD’s certainly can and there’s still enough argument over plan B that you can claim it and not be told you are for sure incorrect. They probably were going for both.

But what he said was “abortion inducing drugs”. He didn’t say contraceptives and other abortion inducing drugs.

I answered. Your turn.

I answered before you.  

I can;t sit around all night and wait for your republicans to think....

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2018, 11:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: I answered before you.  

I can;t sit around all night and wait for your republicans to think....

Well I’m about done thinking but I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer. Do you truly believe he thinks thinks like the pill and condones are abortion inducing?

[GMDino]

(09-07-2018, 11:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, he's a mixed bag for me, as I'm not a party affiliated robot.  I love his stance on the 2A, I think it's perfectly in line with the framers intent with that amendment.  I also prefer a originalist perspective, as the Constitution, with the BoR, is a wonderfully crafted set of documents.  I very much dislike his stance on unions and abortion rights, although I think the case of the migrant in detention requesting the government to pay for her abortion is a poor example of this.  Much as Kagan and Sotomayor were a mixed bag for me.  I just find it amusing that you, and others like you, expect a GOP POTUS to nominate a SCOTUS appointee in line with Democratic party principles.  Laughable to say the least.

So much wrong.

I may be an idealist but I'm also a realist.

Trump probably barely knew Kavanaugh's name...it was provided to him on a list that would make conservatives happy.  No surprise and I would have expected nothing less from him.

I'd like to have one that is completely open with their records/past and who didn't lie under oath...twice...before.

But that might be the idealist in me.  

[GMDino]

(09-07-2018, 11:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I’m about done thinking but I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer. Do you truly believe he thinks thinks like the pill and condones are abortion inducing?

I think he thinks all contraceptives are wrong and he has no problem lumping them altogether to make a "religious" group happy.

[*michaelsean*]

And btw...Priests for Life’s main mission is pro-life activism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2018, 11:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So much wrong.

I may be an idealist but I'm also a realist.

You'll do please excuse me if I await actual proof of this.

Quote:Trump probably barely knew Kavanaugh's name...it was provided to him on a list that would make conservatives happy.  No surprise and I would have expected nothing less from him.

If this is 100% true it remains 100% irrelevant.

Quote:I'd like to have one that is completely open with their records/past and who didn't lie under oath...twice...before.

In what way?  Even far left leaning media sources have conceded that the Dems landed zero solid blows against Kavanaugh.

Quote:But that might be the idealist in me.  

Or the hyperbolist.  Tomaetoe, tomaahtoe and all.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2018, 11:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think he thinks all contraceptives are wrong and he has no problem lumping them altogether to make a "religious" group happy.

He may or may not, but he’s being accused of something more than that.

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

However, these emails from 2002 and 2003 show that then-Associate White House Counsel Brett Kavanaugh played a substantial role in the decision to nominate Haynes, including examining whether Haynes “would be an across-the-board judicial conservative”. pic.twitter.com/Ri0EuREWYM

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) September 11, 2018

[GMDino]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/13/feinstein-releases-cryptic-statement-about-brett-kavanaugh-nomination-amid-intrigue-over-secret-letter.html

Quote:Feinstein releases cryptic statement about Brett Kavanaugh nomination amid intrigue over secret letter

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday threw a cryptic curveball at Brett Kavanaugh, insinuating the Supreme Court nominee could be guilty of a crime even as Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seek to delay his confirmation.

The vague accusation comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee already grilled Kavanaugh and other witnesses and prepares to vote on sending his nomination to the full Senate. The White House blasted the ambiguous charge as a last minute gambit.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in her surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”


More on this...

• Kavanaugh views Trump as an ‘oligarch,’ Feinstein says
• Graham rips FBI for briefing Feinstein on alleged Chinese spy, but keeping Trump in dark on Russians
• FBI's handling of alleged Feinstein spy spurs claims of double standard with Trump campaign
  

A spokesperson for Feinstein declined Fox News’ request to elaborate on the lawmaker’s statement, but there has been much speculation that she is referring to a secret letter that has been the subject of intrigue on Capitol Hill over the last few days.

The letter was reportedly given to Feinstein by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., but has not been publicly disclosed by senators who have seen the document. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the letter in question has been referred to the FBI for investigation.

According to a report by The Intercept, the letter was relayed to lawmakers by an individual affiliated with Stanford University and concerns an incident involving the 53-year-old Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.

The woman referenced in the letter has yet to be identified, but is being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors, according to The Intercept.

Despite the turmoil over the letter, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no plan to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Grassley set the panel's vote on Kavanaugh for Sept. 20 and Republicans hope to confirm Kavanaugh by the start of the new court session Oct. 1.

“Sen. Grassley is aware of Senator Feinstein’s referral,” Grassley’s communications director Taylor Foy said in a statement. “At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality. There’s no plan to change the committee’s consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

The White House attacked Feinstein's statment as an 11th hour attack on the nominee.

“Throughout his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh has had 65 meetings with senators—including with Senator Feinstein—sat through over 30 hours of testimony, addressed over 2,000 questions in a public setting and additional questions in a confidential session," White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. "Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him."

[ballsofsteel]

What was the founding fathers stand and or view on abortion? What was their intent?

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 04:21 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: What was the founding fathers stand and or view on abortion? What was their intent?

Pretty sure they said life is an unalienable right given by god. So it cannot be taken away

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 04:21 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: What was the founding fathers stand and or view on abortion? What was their intent?

(09-13-2018, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure they said life is an unalienable right given by god. So it cannot be taken away

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561

Quote:Abortion in early America.

Acevedo Z.
Abstract
This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.

PIP:
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

Quote:Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject.  Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”)  Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.”  One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern!  Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.



Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805).  Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?”  A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx.  In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.


Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either.  In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them.  It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.”  Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts.  In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives.  Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers.  The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment.


A different window into colonial attitudes toward abortion can be found in Corenlia Hughes Dayton’s “Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth Century New England Village.”  In her 1991 monograph which appeared in the William and Mary Quarterly, Dayton examined a case from 1742 that occurred in the village of Pomfret, Connecticut, where 19-year-old Sarah Grosvenor died in a bungled abortion urged on her by her 27-year-old lover Amasa Sessions.  Magistrates filed charges against both Sessions and the “doctor of physick” who mangled the operation, but Dayton points out the legal complaints were not for performing the abortion as such (which was legal) but for killing the mother.  The whole episode was surrounded with a hush of secrecy, in an era when “fornication” was not only illegal but culturally taboo.  Abortion, in the colonial context, carried a stigma of shame not because it ended the life of a fetus but because it was associated with illicit intercourse—helping to explain the outrage of Franklin’s two characters Celia Shortface and  Martha Careful when their private remedies for ending a pregnancy receive a public airing.
 
What can we learn from examining attitudes toward abortion in early America?  Perhaps only this, that positions which seem to both the pro-choice and pro-life camps to be eternal and absolute have in fact evolved over time.  An historic perspective should teach us humility if nothing else. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 04:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561



http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

Couple good opinion pieces. I simply posted the words from the Declaration of Independence.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Couple good opinion pieces. I simply posted the words from the Declaration of Independence.

I simply posted the words of the the people who signed and wrote it and some historical perspective on what was legal.

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I simply posted the words of the the people who signed and wrote it and some historical perspective on what was legal.

Do you want to share those exact words or leave it to the reader to dig them out between the inferences made (I think I read one that said because of pulling out a beard)? I'm gonna roll with the DoI for the Founding Father's views.