America may be on our side, but the Democratic Party isn't. Senator Harry Reid, a prolife Mormon, will be the new Senate Minority Leader.

NARAL has already cowed to its masters at the DNC and given it's thumbs up to this new prolife leader. I called my local chapter to see what their response was and they were, "Well, that doesn't really mean anything and we believe he will do what the Party tells him to fo in lieu of his own personal opinion."

I think she was confusing his do-what-you're-told relationship to the DNC with her own. Very disappointing.

I like these quotes:

Keenan:

"I really believe that pro-choice is an American value and that it is shared by women and men across the country."

"We have America on our side."

Vanessa:

"What seems to be lost in most conversations about reproductive rights is that the majority of Americans are pro-choice."

Somehow, I can't help feeling you guys are whistling past the graveyard when you make claims like this. If these quotes are true, then why are pro-choice organizations and people so adamantly opposed to voting as a means of determining abortion policy? Oh, that's right -- they would lose.

When abortion restrictions have been put to a vote in the states, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But that is true of other constitutionally protected rights as well. Local govts have a long history of trying to ban "pornography,' for example--"hate speech" too. Eventually, the Supreme court strikes these bills down. The whole point about constitutionally protected rights is that they are the bedrock, inalienable, not subject to the political fortunes of the day.
If people could vote on the first amendment, I am sure some states would outlaw "pornography' and flag-burning, permit prayer and creation science in the schools, put the ten commandments in the courtroom, subsidize churches and reliigious private schools and faith healers and so on. I'm sure some would permit racial segregation, too.
It is because rights are sometimes offensive to a lot of people that we don't vote the bill of rights up or down every year. That was the whole point of guaranteeing rights in the constitution, according to jefferson. He understood how unpopular freedom can be.
That said, the total ban on abortion favored by the anti-choice movement has very little popular support -- 17 percent in the most recent poll I saw.

Katha, you should read Catherine Mackinnon's excellent book 'Only Words' for a better understanding of how the Constitution does not protect hate speech which incites to harm and how this affects women who had no say in designing the men's laws they must live by.

It didn't take a Constitutional amendment for most white people to recognize that blackface, Steppin Fetchit, and minstrel shows were hate speech disguised as entertainment. It took white people recocognizing that "hate speech" is really hate speech, and fans the flames of bigotry with a positive feedback loop amplifying the original signal. A sign saying "Whites Only" is only words but it is recognized as actionable discrimination. I feel "cum guzzling cock socket Asian teen cunts 4U" and its ilk fall into this 'incitement to harm' clause which the Constitution doesn't protect.

Maybe if our government and courts were 43% female like in Sweden we would. like them, have more interpretations of our laws that put women's equality and basic human rights over men's leisure activities and entertainments.

Katha-

You're right. We don't put the bill of rights to an up or down vote every year. That is really the point though, isn't it? Whether abortion is a constitutional right? It most certainly is not in the bill of rights.

The fact is, there is one gaping difference between the First Amendment right to free speech and the judicially-invented right to abortion. Which is preciely why it should be put to a vote. If a right is explicitly protected in the Constitution it has thereby been given the stamp of approval by "We the People," and the only way to change it is to change the Constitution. But the People did not place abortion in the Constitution; judges did.

And that seems to be the way pro-choicers like it, despite their "America is on our side" rhetoric. The reason free speech isn't put to a vote is because it is clearly in the text of the Constitution, but abortion is not.

If you can show me where in the Constitution abortion is protected, or even mentioned, in the same way as free speech, then I'll buy your argument that we should apply the same standard to the two. Until then, I won't. Nice try.

The word abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. (It isn't mentioned in the bible either, by the way ). But that's what Supreme Court judges do -- they interpret the Constitution, applying its principles to the particulars of cases.
It is true that the Constitution bars govt from restricting speech, but what counts as "speech" is a matter of interpretation. the SC believes, for instance, that dancing and painting are forms of speech. This might surprise the framers! For most of US history sexually explicit materials were not protected at all -- now we tend to define 'speech' in a way that includes almost anything.Eric Foner's "The Story of American Freedom" is a good history of how constitutional rights have been broadened as a result of political struggle.

One more thing -- how would you like it if some judge read the right to beat women into the Constitution? Suppose it fell somewhere between the right to privacy and liberty. Would you object? Or would you shrug your shoulders, smile and say, "Ah, those crazy judges. They're always making stuff up, but I guess that's what they do - apply the Constitution to the particulars of cases. Oh well."