Extra Fizz: NARAL Endorses a Republican

I think it would be unprecedented and disingenuous for NARAL to not endorse a sitting unabashedly pro-Choice Senator.

There&#39;s a bigger picture here: Litzow is another Kemper-phile and strong light rail opponent. As a member of the Mercer Island city council he voted against an agreement between Bellevue, Seattle, King County, MI and the state to add HOV lanes to I-90 and convert the cetner lanes to light rail. The agreement passed the MI Council 5-2 in 2004 and was a precursor to ST2. <br><br><a href="http://www.mercergov.org/Agendas.asp?AMID=956" rel="nofollow">http://www.mercergov.org/Agendas.asp?AMID=956</a>

In South East Seattle the anti-rail people also seem to be strongly pro-gay rights / gay marriage (but anti-environment, anti-bike, etc.)<br><br>What a tough position to be in.<br>Which party do you hang with? The Klan?<br><br>Schizophrenia is the only option. Or join the Dems and fight for the GOP. Same thing.

Still working on a Craig Ritchie / Mr. Baker / KKK / SSCPC link.<br><br>But as of this writing I have absolutely no clue.<br>May just have to dust of my bike & ride this one out.

Sunnyside.

DDS

Quarnstrom

Screenshots, stored off-site.

If Litzow is elected, and if the Republicans are the majority in the Senate they will elect leadership that is strongly anti-choice, fervently opposed to equal rights, and philosophically opposed to providing any government supported health care for low income women. How does that advance NARAL’s political agenda?

How was Litzow a NARAL endorsee when he was a Pastors Pick? See the flyer. Litzow duped somebody! <a href="http://www.pastorspicks.com/PDF/KingCoPrimary08.pdf" rel="nofollow">www.pastorspicks.com/PDF/KingCoPrimary08.pdf</a>

-1'

1

1

1

1

You know what really ticks me off about gelwnagl? Brevity. While I've been laboring over my thoughts, gelwnagl beat me to it. But too late. I've labored, so now you're gonna, too.We've been discussing the relevance of majority religious views on the abortion debate. I see two points in the argument where majority religious views might influence the debate, and I sense that different people may be discussing different points without realizing it.For me, the issue is 1) whether a woman has an autonomy interest in being able to choose not to bear a fetus to term, and 2) whether government has a legitimate interest adequate to justify impinging on the rights of the woman.I suspect even Robert would agree with the general proposition that government should not impinge upon a person's autonomy, absent a legitimate interest, even if the majority wants it to. A majority may be offended by seeing a cross submerged in urine or burning flags. Too damn bad; there's no legit gov. interest in stopping it. Similarly, even if a majority of people don't like abortion, too damn bad. Majority opinion is not relevant. Doesn't seem so hard, right?But is there a legit. gov. interest in stopping abortion? This gets tougher. Sure, pro-lifers object that abortion offends their religious views; too damn bad. But they also argue something else. They say that the fetus has a right in being born, and the state needs to defend those rights. And they say that the state has an interest in the fetus being born. This is different than those arguments raised above; no one argued that the state needed to defend the rights of crosses or flags.So, what standards should apply for deciding whether the state should act to defend the interest of a potential citizen in becoming born, even at the expense of impinging on someone's autonomy? Some possible decision standards:1. The interest of life trumps all others because no other interests matter if you are never born, and birth is a necessary step in life.2. A fetus has no standing, no legally-recognizable interest.3. Government should intervene to protect the weak against the strong, especially where there is a conflict in their interests.4. Where the interests of an entity with standing conflicts with the interests of an entity with doubtful standing, the interests of the entity with standing prevail.5. When in doubt, government should act to avoid the greatest irreversible harm, and the harm of bringing a fetus to term is less than the harm of ending a potential life.6. Where a cognizant person's interests arguably conflict with an incognizant family member, the cognizant person is in the best position to balance the interests. (Consider adults caring for a parent with Alzheimer's.)7. Avoid risk; when in doubt, preserve the natural outcome.8. The cost of prohibiting acts that lack autonomous victims exceeds its benefits.9. Where a conflict arises between a party who bears no responsibility for the situation and a party who bears responsibility for the situation, err on the side of the innocent party.10. .How should government (courts or legislatures) decide among these decision options? It looks like a flat-out policy decision to me. And policy decisions inevitably rest on people's opinions about the good and the right. World views. Religions, if you will.So I object when people argue We need to ban abortions because Jesus sez life trumps all other concerns. 9d But not strenuously, because I think it's legitimate to argue We need to ban abortions because I think life trumps all other concerns. 9d I may disagree or find that view simplistic, but I recognize that my point of view has not much firmer grounding. At the level of policy, we're just arguing our world views.