<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blog for Choice Sunday</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/</link>
	<description>Making the World Safe for Liberalism</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Mahablog &#187; Abortion and Slavery</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2271</link>
		<dc:creator>The Mahablog &#187; Abortion and Slavery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2006 01:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2271</guid>
		<description>[...] First, the line of reasoning that blames the abortion wars on Roe v. Wade (see previous post on abortion) and not on a faction of fanatics who will try to stop abortions by any means is just too much like saying the 13th Amendment was responsible for the formation of the Klan. Let&#8217;s pretend that tomorrow Roe is reversed. Does anyone seriously believe that states which allowed abortion to remain legal would not be descended upon by Randall Terry and the screaming culture of death hoardes? Puh-leeze &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] First, the line of reasoning that blames the abortion wars on Roe v. Wade (see previous post on abortion) and not on a faction of fanatics who will try to stop abortions by any means is just too much like saying the 13th Amendment was responsible for the formation of the Klan. Let&#8217;s pretend that tomorrow Roe is reversed. Does anyone seriously believe that states which allowed abortion to remain legal would not be descended upon by Randall Terry and the screaming culture of death hoardes? Puh-leeze &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2270</link>
		<dc:creator>maha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2270</guid>
		<description>It's coming ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s coming &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eRobin</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2269</link>
		<dc:creator>eRobin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2269</guid>
		<description>I can't wait for tomorrow's post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t wait for tomorrow&#8217;s post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Canadian reader</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2268</link>
		<dc:creator>A Canadian reader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2268</guid>
		<description>Tomorrow, Canadians may very well elect a minority Conservative government. Many of us are quaking in our boots. The reasons for this move to the right require too much explanation to get into here, but suffice to say that the Canadian electorate is less keen on right-wing policies than it is on showing the current government  (the Liberals) that they are not happy. Canadians are planning to shoot themselves in the foot to show the Liberals that they want change.

One of the things Conservative leader Stephen Harper plans to do if he gains power is to put the abortion issue to a free vote in the House of Commons. If he has a minority, I don't think the vote will pass, but if he has a majority, it could be a day that will go down in infamy for Canadians women and their right to choose. 

Canada is much more liberal (small "l") than the States, but our right wing loonies are on the move and gaining steam. You might want to watch what's going on north of the border. It's pretty scary up here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tomorrow, Canadians may very well elect a minority Conservative government. Many of us are quaking in our boots. The reasons for this move to the right require too much explanation to get into here, but suffice to say that the Canadian electorate is less keen on right-wing policies than it is on showing the current government  (the Liberals) that they are not happy. Canadians are planning to shoot themselves in the foot to show the Liberals that they want change.</p>
<p>One of the things Conservative leader Stephen Harper plans to do if he gains power is to put the abortion issue to a free vote in the House of Commons. If he has a minority, I don&#8217;t think the vote will pass, but if he has a majority, it could be a day that will go down in infamy for Canadians women and their right to choose. </p>
<p>Canada is much more liberal (small &#8220;l&#8221;) than the States, but our right wing loonies are on the move and gaining steam. You might want to watch what&#8217;s going on north of the border. It&#8217;s pretty scary up here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linkmeister</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2267</link>
		<dc:creator>Linkmeister</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2267</guid>
		<description>From the Guttmacher Institute:  &lt;a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/index.html#bans" rel="nofollow"&gt;"Abortion bans to replace Roe"&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Introduced: 8 states

States with further action

Passed at least one chamber: OK and SC

Enacted: SD

In September, a US District Court judge in MICHIGAN found the state's 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act unconstitutional. The law, which had been enjoined since March, defined a legal birth as when any part of a fetus was outside the womb. District Judge Denise Page Hood found the law, which claimed to target 'partial-birth' abortions, confusing, vague and an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. The decision is yet to be appealed.

In March, the OKLAHOMA House of Representatives approved a measure designed to make abortion illegal in the state if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the legislature has adjourned its regular session, further action is not expected.

In April, the SOUTH CAROLINA House passed a measure that would guarantee that the rights of citizens, as conferred in the state constitution, begin at fertilization. The measure specifies that it would not affect the prescription of emergency contraceptives for victims of sexual assault. Since the legislature has adjourned its regular session, further action is not expected.

(ENACTED) In March, Gov. Mike Rounds (R), of SOUTH DAKOTA, signed legislation that would make abortion illegal in the state, except when necessary to save the life of the woman, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. The measure was approved by the legislature in February.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the Guttmacher Institute:  <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/index.html#bans" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Abortion bans to replace Roe&#8221;</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Introduced: 8 states</p>
<p>States with further action</p>
<p>Passed at least one chamber: OK and SC</p>
<p>Enacted: SD</p>
<p>In September, a US District Court judge in MICHIGAN found the state&#8217;s 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act unconstitutional. The law, which had been enjoined since March, defined a legal birth as when any part of a fetus was outside the womb. District Judge Denise Page Hood found the law, which claimed to target &#8216;partial-birth&#8217; abortions, confusing, vague and an undue burden on a woman&#8217;s right to choose. The decision is yet to be appealed.</p>
<p>In March, the OKLAHOMA House of Representatives approved a measure designed to make abortion illegal in the state if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the legislature has adjourned its regular session, further action is not expected.</p>
<p>In April, the SOUTH CAROLINA House passed a measure that would guarantee that the rights of citizens, as conferred in the state constitution, begin at fertilization. The measure specifies that it would not affect the prescription of emergency contraceptives for victims of sexual assault. Since the legislature has adjourned its regular session, further action is not expected.</p>
<p>(ENACTED) In March, Gov. Mike Rounds (R), of SOUTH DAKOTA, signed legislation that would make abortion illegal in the state, except when necessary to save the life of the woman, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. The measure was approved by the legislature in February.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: emel</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2261</link>
		<dc:creator>emel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:40:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2261</guid>
		<description>I listened to Now a few weeks ago and the prolife Kansas woman being interviewed kept refering to the outlawing of abortion as "opening the debate". It is a rhetorical device they use to assert that Roe V Wade left them out of a chance to debate it legislatively. but they ignore that overturning it does the same thing and leaves the rights of women out of the debate- as if slavery could have been gotten rid of if we had just had the proper debate and if some states did one thing and others another it would somehow be ok. That a debate is a substitute for  individual rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I listened to Now a few weeks ago and the prolife Kansas woman being interviewed kept refering to the outlawing of abortion as &#8220;opening the debate&#8221;. It is a rhetorical device they use to assert that Roe V Wade left them out of a chance to debate it legislatively. but they ignore that overturning it does the same thing and leaves the rights of women out of the debate- as if slavery could have been gotten rid of if we had just had the proper debate and if some states did one thing and others another it would somehow be ok. That a debate is a substitute for  individual rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/blog-for-choice-sunday/comment-page-1/#comment-2260</link>
		<dc:creator>Donna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:43:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=338#comment-2260</guid>
		<description>Hot button pushing [abortion, evolution, etc] is political strategy in American culture, strategic focus especially designed to replace/avoid issues of the common good [education, clean air and water, caring for the vulnerable aged, sick and poor, etc].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hot button pushing [abortion, evolution, etc] is political strategy in American culture, strategic focus especially designed to replace/avoid issues of the common good [education, clean air and water, caring for the vulnerable aged, sick and poor, etc].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
