<p>It was not a joke, it was in a memo, but whatever</p>
<p>The army has civilian support contractors, and has had for decades. They are not hiring mercenaries, in the sense that that word is used by normal people. There are some ex-military who are hired as security by companies attempting to rebuild infrastructure, but to call them “mercenaries” is disinformation.</p>
<p>Hey, take it easy driver, CGM may just be a 16 year old sophomore in High School, trying to get involved in discussion by doing “cut and paste” from different blogs and websites. You may not be dealing with an adult here.</p>
<p>With the “whatever”, “Jeez”. and “sigh” that she/he throws in.</p>
<p>^^ Dont worry, you’re the child in this thread (other than me of course ) :D</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>I read that memo, or at least part of it, more of it than you are quoting. It is very clear that Roberts was making a lawyer joke. Further, his wife is a lawyer. If the position you attribute to him is true I am sure it would not bode well for his relationship with his wife.</p>
<p>I am not sure what “fear” we all should have because Roberts may become a member of the supreme court. As was pointed out earlier in this thread appointing a conservative to replace a conservative does not disrupt the balance of the court.</p>
<p>By referring to being concerned for our daughters I suspect that you are referring to the Roe v Wade decision where the court legislated the tri-mester rules. Here are the key words from Rehnquist’s dissent:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not the end of the world if the states had to define these terms instead of the supreme court. I believe that we would have a lot less contention over the issue if the matter was left to the legislature where all of our opinions could be reflected through our elected officials and it would be easier to change the law if we did not like it.</p>
<p>I am grateful that the womans right to choose out lasted him…I wish it continued luck under the next court</p>
<p>Mr. B and others who believe this misconstrued notion, </p>
<p>Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned a womans right to become pregnant and dispose of the results would by no means be in jeopardythough one is entitled to wonder what sort of choice or right this is to so earnestly wish it into perpetuity. </p>
<p>In any case, the national government, in the form of the legislative prerogatives of the high court, would simply and appropriately step aside, beg pardon and defer in the short term to the statesmost of which would approve of the death of an unwanted child in the form of aborting the fetus before it is allowed to have a say, or at least face-time in the matterand in the long term to the branch of government granted such powers as are appropriate to it, to wit: enacting law.</p>
<p>Whew,this thread went sour in a hurry. I was going to say it went “south” but that’s and alaskan insider line. Not really.</p>
<p>Anyway, Bush is going to appoint as conservative a person as he can. From a red state…that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>What about the remark about Roberts not wanting a co-ed school, because he didn’t want to read Shakespeare with a “blonde blushing and giggling beside me?”</p>
<p>Re: Roe… while I think that abortion is a horrible, inefficient, and barbaric method of birth control that HURTS, not HELPS, women (I say this after having seen its effects - both on women who have had abortions and the men who realize that the “right to choose” makes it easier for them to get some), I would be very leery of overturning Roe. I do think that legislation would improve the issue (for example, absolute right of choice within the first trimester, when the woman’s life is in danger, with very young women, with rape, or with a baby that would not survive birth); however, now is not the time for it. </p>
<p>At this point, women really don’t have much choice in becoming pregnant. IMO, that is the choice we need to work on - providing reliable birth control; not allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover the Pill, even for medical reasons; teaching young men that sex is NOT a right when they are dating. Until the day comes when we don’t have 3 million unwanted pregnancies per year, Roe, bad law that it is, should stand. I just think that women deserve better than abortion. No surprise that the biggest supporters of abortion are young men between 18 and 35 - more sex, less responsibility. Roe, IMO, is only the tip of the iceberg with our problems in that arena.</p>
<p>Just saying… </p>
<p>On topic - I think Roberts is a moron for fleeing from the Federalist Society. Let’s see… after the Kelo decision, who wouldn’t support a justice who vows to return to the original construction of that language - that the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation? Add in deference to the legislature (Title IX, Civil Rights Act, etc), and you would appear to have a candidate who is concerned with our rights and the rule of law. Sigh.</p>
<p>Crossing my fingers for a woman… better yet, a minority woman… although I don’t think Bush would do that, unfortunately. Would be fun though - to have the third woman and for the Senate to have to approve her or face hell in 2006.</p>
<p>Ariesathena, to what extent is society as a whole responsible for unwanted pregancies? Forgive me for going off topic, but I find the notion that “women really don’t have much choice in becoming pregnant,” to be offensive. I think it’s high time that we, as women, started taking responsibility for our sexual health.</p>
<p>The majority of mothers with unwanted pregnancies, surely understand how they became pregnant. I’m sure they also knew how not to get pregnant.</p>
<p>60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
<a href=“http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm[/url]”>http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm</a></p>
<p>Edit: For the record, I support choice. I just feel strongly that many women are making the wrong choices to begin with. Pregnancy is preventable.</p>
<p>Considering that one in four women are raped in their lifetimes, I find your position to be a bit untenable. Many, many more women engage in sex in situations that is not rape but not really consent. I’ve lost coutn of the number of times I’ve been pressured for sex - and many women find that pressure to be normal. Many men don’t understand that sex is not necessary for pregnancy, and engage in behaviour that can (although rarely) cause pregnancy. </p>
<p>Birth control is not very reliable; the Pill is expensive and many health insurance companies refuse to pay for it, even when taken for medical purposes (reducing pain for ovarian cysts or endometriosis). </p>
<p>If birth control fails, did they choose to become pregnant? If she is under the influence of alcohol and her boyfriend forces her, is she able to prevent pregnancy? Two very common scenarios. Does understanding how it happened negate the involuntary nature of it? </p>
<p>3 million unwanted pregancies per year, babe. 150 million woman in the country. You’re telling me that women choose pregnancy? IMO, women do take responsibility for their sexual health - but our society and men work against them at every turn.</p>
<p>According to RAINN, 1 in 6 women will be victims of rape (either attempted or completed). You stated that 25% of women will be raped (I think you mean sexually assaulted), but there is no reference to how many of those rapes result in pregnancy. If you are in any way asserting that a sizable number of abortions are performed on rape victims, then I would like you to source it.</p>
<p>B/C pills can be obtained without insurance for $30 a month, and they are very effective (over 99% effective when used properly). Condoms are readily available and have a 3% failure rate (which, of course, assumes proper use). So, if 47% of women getting abortions have had a previous abortion, what do you think the odds are that she was raped twice, resulting in pregancy. What are they odds that she is one of the 3%…twice?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are women who use abortion as a means of birth control, and there are women who neglect to use prevention. There are, of course, exceptions. Rape does happen, and surely many instances result in pregnancy. But this is not the norm.</p>
<p>Of all pregnancies in the world, 1/3 are unwanted. Rape and contraceptive failure cannot begin to account for that 1/3.</p>
<p>In some states, pharmacists will not dispence birth control pills because it goes against their morals.</p>
<p>Some won’t sell condom because it promotes sex</p>
<p>Even to married women. This is getting more wide spread. So if you live in a small town and you have one pharmacists, who says, well no I am not giving you birth control even thought your doctor says so, well want are you going to do</p>
<p>These cases will end up at the Supreme Court, I am sure, and then what?</p>
<p>And isn’t birth control a GOOD thing when it comes to decreasing abortions, but maybe I am missing something</p>
<p>And a conservative estimate is the 20% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then they will get interpreted based upon the law defined by the legislature not a rule defined by the court. Our influence should be with the legislatures not lobbying and protesting at the court.</p>
<p>At the end of the day most of the american public is not dogmatically pro-life or pro-choice. Most of the country thinks that partial birth abortion should be outlawed. Most of the country also believes that abortion should be legal is some circumstances. Not positions that could be held if the population was purely pro-life or pro-choice.</p>
<p>Bush nominates Roberts…he will be a great Cheif Justice!</p>
<p>CGM, I have never been denied condoms or B/C. Yes, one hears about it today, but have you personally known anyone who could not buy condoms without having to drive 20 minutes?</p>
<p>I think it’s horrible that someone could deny B/C to someone with PCOS or other medical illness which requires B/C as a treatment, or even just as prophylaxis. These problems, however, are new. I had not heard of places refusing B/C until maybe 3 or 4 years ago. What was the excuse before that?</p>
<p>I have never had sex without using a condom, and I fully agree that B/C is a good thing. There have been times when I decided not to have sex, because I didn’t have a condom. That is the responsible thing to do. </p>
<p>I am just tired of excuses. If your primary method of B/C fails, then of course I would never accuse you of being irresponsible. It is not society’s fault, though, when someone chooses not to use any protection.</p>
<p>
Fortunately, condoms are available at most service stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, Wal-Mart, etc. I believe you can also mail order them, along with most prescriptions. Conservative and pro-choice here…figure that one out :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol. Maybe the thought process goes something like this: Those damn baby-killing liberals. We should just give them their abortions. Eventually, the lefties will go extinct.</p>
<p>Hehe. Bless your diversity of thought, though. Liberal here, and not blaming everything on society. Figure that out.</p>