Does BO's Executive Order mean anything? Forum

[flying_squirrel]

Curious to see the opinions out there on the executive order mandating that the health care funds can't be used for abortion.

While I am Pro-Life and happy to see this, I'm not sure that it actually means anything. I'm curious what Pro-Death people think about the executive order or if it will change anything.

[Teoeo]

lol "pro-death" ...

BTW do you support the death penalty?

[blurbz]

I hesitate to respond to this due to the intentionally inflammatory language in the OP, but I will. The Executive Order does very, very little. Not because it doesn't say what the pro-lifers want it to, but because the bill as written doesn't change the Hyde amendment, which makes the executive order simply a tool being used to placate pro-life dems.

Now I'll respond to "pro-death". You're ridiculous. I'm pro-choice, but certainly not pro-death. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I believe that it is up to women to control their own bodies and I would be adamantly opposed to any law that wrested that control from them.

[Kilpatrick]

"pro-death"? are you kidding me? This kind of stuff doesn't belong on Top Law Schools.

[j.wellington]

No. It restates current law, which was never affected by the bill that passed anyway, and does nothing to address the de facto public funding of abortions provided by tax subsidies for employer-provided health plans, which often cover abortions. It was a gimmick to appease a few attention-starved congressmen and other people who don't bother to pay attention. And why is this being discussed here?

[gdane]

This is in the wrong forum. What does this have to do with Law school acceptances, denials and waitlists? Please move it to the lounge.

[sky7]

"pro-death"? are you kidding me? This kind of stuff doesn't belong on Top Law Schools.

I presume what he meant to say is "pro-giving-mothers-the-choice-to-kill-their-babies-if-they-don't-want-them". Is that really any better?

(FYI: I'm pro-choice, but at least I acknowledge that what I'm really advocating. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.)

[acdisagod]

Ok I'm for allowign abortion but the term pro chocie and this talk about a woman chosing what to do with her body needs to stop. This is not a debate about whether or not women have a right to choose. The debate should be about whether or not abortion is murder. If it is, women don't have the right to choose to murder a fetus.

[Kim617]

I hesitate to respond to this due to the intentionally inflammatory language in the OP, but I will. The Executive Order does very, very little. Not because it doesn't say what the pro-lifers want it to, but because the bill as written doesn't change the Hyde amendment, which makes the executive order simply a tool being used to placate pro-life dems.

Now I'll respond to "pro-death". You're ridiculous. I'm pro-choice, but certainly not pro-death. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I believe that it is up to women to control their own bodies and I would be adamantly opposed to any law that wrested that control from them.

I don't like the pro-death thing either, even though I'm pro-life. I agree with you, it does nothing. The law will always supersede executive order, so it's a pointless measure. And it's a little sad that that's all it took for Stupak to change his mind, unless it wasn't all it took.

[blurbz]

I mean, legally it doesn't do much because of the Hyde amendment, but I understand why it was an effective tool to get people to change their vote: It's a pretty prolific statement for a POTUS to make about abortion, especially a Dem POTUS. It's a step forward for the pro-life movement, even if it is legally worthless.

[Drake014]

Ok I'm for allowign abortion but the term pro chocie and this talk about a woman chosing what to do with her body needs to stop. This is not a debate about whether or not women have a right to choose. The debate should be about whether or not abortion is murder. If it is, women don't have the right to choose to murder a fetus.

That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

In regards to the OP question, the signing statement was useless for 2 reasons.
1. What it claims to do would already be done according to the bill and existing laws.
2. Even if the bill and existing laws wouldn't do what the signing statement claims to do, the signing statement couldn't do it.

[Neelio]

Stupak just wanted his 5 minutes of fame. The Hyde amendment stands, and will continue to stand. The executive order was just a fig leaf.

[Kim617]

Stupak just wanted his 5 minutes of fame. The Hyde amendment stands, and will continue to stand. The executive order was just a fig leaf.

+1 He wanted to pretend that he was accommodating his constituents so he can cover himself come November.

[acdisagod]

my point is that I don't like the phrase: women should be able to choose what to do with their body. They can't choose to murder.

and why did this dumbass post in law school acceptances waitlists and denials?

[DoktorZaius]

That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

I would tend to agree with this. As a baseline, it seems like once a fetus has reached the point of viability it should be considered a living being with rights. Pinning down what the point of viability is can be tricky, but the last trimester seems appropriate. Of course, as you point out, the debate is too muddled in rhetoric for the science to get much play.

[flying_squirrel]

Ok I'm for allowign abortion but the term pro chocie and this talk about a woman chosing what to do with her body needs to stop. This is not a debate about whether or not women have a right to choose. The debate should be about whether or not abortion is murder. If it is, women don't have the right to choose to murder a fetus.

That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

In regards to the OP question, the signing statement was useless for 2 reasons.
1. What it claims to do would already be done according to the bill and existing laws.
2. Even if the bill and existing laws wouldn't do what the signing statement claims to do, the signing statement couldn't do it.

Good points. I think it is a bit comical that science doesn't tell us when life begins, our congressman do; and none of them likely actually believe the law. Right now it is simply a compromise between life begins at birth and life begins @ conception.

Regardless, the point of my post was to better understand the executive order which most people claim does nothing. To that I say, WTF is even the point of an executive order and how did it get a Dem or two to switch their vote?

[jks289]

I know I'll regret commenting on such an intentionally inflamatory post, but oh well. The pro-death comment makes zero sense. No one is IN FAVOR or abortion. No one thinks abortion is an awesome thing that should be promoted. Everyone agrees the ideal number of abortions in this country is zero, because the ideal number of unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies that must be terminated for health reasons in zero. Abortion is a tragic choice for many women, some of us just believe their right to make that choice should outweight the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans. If you look at countries that have criminalized abortion (Brazil, for example) you begin to see the incredibly ugly consequences of the "pro-life" movement. May I ask the OP how many children he or she has adopted or fostered? What his or her efforts have been to promote sex safe and education?

[Kim617]

Ok I'm for allowign abortion but the term pro chocie and this talk about a woman chosing what to do with her body needs to stop. This is not a debate about whether or not women have a right to choose. The debate should be about whether or not abortion is murder. If it is, women don't have the right to choose to murder a fetus.

That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

In regards to the OP question, the signing statement was useless for 2 reasons.
1. What it claims to do would already be done according to the bill and existing laws.
2. Even if the bill and existing laws wouldn't do what the signing statement claims to do, the signing statement couldn't do it.

Good points. I think it is a bit comical that science doesn't tell us when life begins, our congressman do; and none of them likely actually believe the law. Right now it is simply a compromise between life begins at birth and life begins @ conception.

Regardless, the point of my post was to better understand the executive order which most people claim does nothing. To that I say, WTF is even the point of an executive order and how did it get a Dem or two to switch their vote?

Like some of us said earlier, Stupak just wanted to cover his ass with his constituents. He wants to be re-elected in November, so he had to look like he was standing on principle. In reality, he probably got something else in the deal behind closed doors.

[sandiecohen47]

I know I'll regret commenting on such an intentionally inflamatory post, but oh well. The pro-death comment makes zero sense. No one is IN FAVOR or abortion. No one thinks abortion is an awesome thing that should be promoted. Everyone agrees the ideal number of abortions in this country is zero, because the ideal number of unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies that must be terminated for health reasons in zero. Abortion is a tragic choice for many women, some of us just believe their right to make that choice should outweight the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans. If you look at countries that have criminalized abortion (Brazil, for example) you begin to see the incredibly ugly consequences of the "pro-life" movement. May I ask the OP how many children he or she has adopted or fostered? What his or her efforts have been to promote sex safe and education?

TITCR.

[NayBoer]

As I understand, Hyde only covers the HHS appropriations bill, not Obamacare. And since executive order only binds executive employees, this order is not binding on the private sector.

Only legislation would be effective in this situation. This order is a stunt to give Stupak cover. There's no such thing as a federally-elected pro-life Democrat.

[rayiner]

That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

I would tend to agree with this. As a baseline, it seems like once a fetus has reached the point of viability it should be considered a living being with rights. Pinning down what the point of viability is can be tricky, but the last trimester seems appropriate. Of course, as you point out, the debate is too muddled in rhetoric for the science to get much play.

With the advance of medical technology that makes for a slippery and complicated definition. Around five and a half months the fetus is more likely than not to survive. If we develop the technology to allow the fetus to develop outside the womb entirely, which seems probable, then abortion under your definition would effectively be illegal.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I know I'll regret commenting on such an intentionally inflamatory post, but oh well. The pro-death comment makes zero sense. No one is IN FAVOR or abortion. No one thinks abortion is an awesome thing that should be promoted. Everyone agrees the ideal number of abortions in this country is zero, because the ideal number of unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies that must be terminated for health reasons in zero. Abortion is a tragic choice for many women, some of us just believe their right to make that choice should outweight the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans. If you look at countries that have criminalized abortion (Brazil, for example) you begin to see the incredibly ugly consequences of the "pro-life" movement. May I ask the OP how many children he or she has adopted or fostered? What his or her efforts have been to promote sex safe and education?

Don't be too sure about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c634No1 ... re=related

[existenz]

"pro-death"? are you kidding me? This kind of stuff doesn't belong on Top Law Schools.

I presume what he meant to say is "pro-giving-mothers-the-choice-to-kill-their-babies-if-they-don't-want-them". Is that really any better?

(FYI: I'm pro-choice, but at least I acknowledge that what I'm really advocating. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.)

Um, plenty of pro-choice people don't think that a blastocyst or embryo is a "baby". Third trimester, sure. First trimester, no. I also don't think abortion is evil, sorry.

Might as well write that many men are "pro-killing millions of babies" because they choose to masturbate and leave all those spermatazoa to die. You might think that's ludicrous, but there are plenty of right winger nuts who think the morning after pill is murder. Not much difference imo.

I do find it funny that the same people screaming "keep the govt off my back" are the same ones that want to tell women they have no control over their bodies and lives.

[Schrute Farms Beets]

"pro-death"? are you kidding me? This kind of stuff doesn't belong on Top Law Schools.

I presume what he meant to say is "pro-giving-mothers-the-choice-to-kill-their-babies-if-they-don't-want-them". Is that really any better?

(FYI: I'm pro-choice, but at least I acknowledge that what I'm really advocating. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.)

Um, plenty of pro-choice people don't think that a blastocyst or embryo is a "baby". Third trimester, sure. First trimester, no. I also don't think abortion is evil, sorry.

Might as well write that many men are "pro-killing millions of babies" because they choose to masturbate and leave all those spermatazoa to die. You might think that's ludicrous, but there are plenty of right winger nuts who think the morning after pill is murder. Not much difference imo.

I do find it funny that the same people screaming "keep the govt off my back" are the same ones that want to tell women they have no control over their bodies and lives.

I like to avoid these types of internet debates/discussions, but I felt very compelled to give a "+1000000" to existenz's comment.

[TheBigMediocre]

--ImageRemoved--