(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2006 04:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenUpdate on kitty: Oscar is still a tad pathetic, but he seems a bit more aware and walks about now. He's still dropping his head in his food to eat and drink, but one thing at a time. I am praying he's on the rebound.
*
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cagexxx first pointed out the whole "signing statements" fiasco with King George (his words, but eerily accurate), but the last sentence of this news bulletin really drove home for me how abusive the practice had gotten. This just plain isn't fair. I know, I know, what in politics is? But still, this isn't helping his side any even as it hurts every law signed into being. It's kept him from having to veto anything for six years (and then he goes and vetoes one of the few things that both sides of the aisle actually seemed to embrace), so he doesn't look contentious, and it allows the GOP to seem united when they're really not.
Seriously, though, look at this quote!
"An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Mr. Bush had flouted the Constitution by issuing 800 signing statements, more than all previous presidents combined."
Hopefully, if challenged within his own party, Georgie-Porgie will listen. Doubtful, but here's hoping.
*
Anyone want to explain to me why this law is a good idea? There's already the drive to complicate matters for women seeking birth control (let alone abortions) by making them feel like sluts and whores and giving pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions (lest we offend their beliefs with our money-for-contraceptive needs). Let's make it impossible or nearly so for women to have sex without getting pregnant then let's criminalize any good Samaritan who attempts to help them where parents either can or wlll not.
This is why they call these things "slippery slopes." We didn't kick up a fuss about parental notification laws because parents should be informed about when their daughters or their sons' SOs are considering abortions when the girls involved are minors--there are statutory rape laws that make such notification worthwhile, especially if the parents aren't aware of (possible) abuse. Not to mention that it's a good thing to encourage teenagers in difficult situations to turn to their parents for advice and assistance. Promoting that rather than legislating it might have been better.
But in legislating such a thing, how do we combat incest or parental abuse/neglect preventing the girl from getting the treatment she needs? We see all the time that child services folk everywhere are overwhelmed with cases from abusive households, so surely such things as parents not knowing their child is having sex or parents having sex with their children are very possible, and not a few parents who are abusive wouldn't lift a finger to help a girl who got pregnant. So we are to punish those who would then?
This is not the way to stop abortions, anti-abortion people. It really isn't. We don't need the added onus of prosecuting sympathetic family members--note: brothers and sisters are not excluded by this law from prosecution--or, Heaven forfend, sending them to prison for this. We really, really don't.
*
cagexxx first pointed out the whole "signing statements" fiasco with King George (his words, but eerily accurate), but the last sentence of this news bulletin really drove home for me how abusive the practice had gotten. This just plain isn't fair. I know, I know, what in politics is? But still, this isn't helping his side any even as it hurts every law signed into being. It's kept him from having to veto anything for six years (and then he goes and vetoes one of the few things that both sides of the aisle actually seemed to embrace), so he doesn't look contentious, and it allows the GOP to seem united when they're really not. Seriously, though, look at this quote!
"An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Mr. Bush had flouted the Constitution by issuing 800 signing statements, more than all previous presidents combined."
Hopefully, if challenged within his own party, Georgie-Porgie will listen. Doubtful, but here's hoping.
*
Anyone want to explain to me why this law is a good idea? There's already the drive to complicate matters for women seeking birth control (let alone abortions) by making them feel like sluts and whores and giving pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions (lest we offend their beliefs with our money-for-contraceptive needs). Let's make it impossible or nearly so for women to have sex without getting pregnant then let's criminalize any good Samaritan who attempts to help them where parents either can or wlll not.
This is why they call these things "slippery slopes." We didn't kick up a fuss about parental notification laws because parents should be informed about when their daughters or their sons' SOs are considering abortions when the girls involved are minors--there are statutory rape laws that make such notification worthwhile, especially if the parents aren't aware of (possible) abuse. Not to mention that it's a good thing to encourage teenagers in difficult situations to turn to their parents for advice and assistance. Promoting that rather than legislating it might have been better.
But in legislating such a thing, how do we combat incest or parental abuse/neglect preventing the girl from getting the treatment she needs? We see all the time that child services folk everywhere are overwhelmed with cases from abusive households, so surely such things as parents not knowing their child is having sex or parents having sex with their children are very possible, and not a few parents who are abusive wouldn't lift a finger to help a girl who got pregnant. So we are to punish those who would then?
This is not the way to stop abortions, anti-abortion people. It really isn't. We don't need the added onus of prosecuting sympathetic family members--note: brothers and sisters are not excluded by this law from prosecution--or, Heaven forfend, sending them to prison for this. We really, really don't.
