Shelley Mandell, President of the L.A. Chapter of the National Organization for Women, heartily endorsed Sarah Palin at the October 4th rally in Carson, CA. NOW has very clearly distanced itself from Ms. Mandell with a strongly worded statement in favor of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, excerpted below:
A member and officer of the Los Angeles NOW chapter, Shelly Mandell, recently introduced Governor Sarah Palin at an event in Carson, California. Ms. Mandell was speaking as an individual and was not authorized to represent NOW, the NOW PAC or LA NOW in any capacity in connection with a federal candidate endorsement. As NOW President Kim Gandy said upon Palin's selection , "Not every woman supports women's rights."The use of Shelly Mandell's Los Angeles NOW title was apparently intended to mislead the public, and indeed has resulted in local television outlets and internet reports misstating that LA NOW has "endorsed" Sarah Palin or that she has a record of supporting women's rights. This in fact is not the case.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about this.
I think (though only time will tell) that this helps Palin with both Conservatives and with former Hillary supporters. Conservatives will cheer at NOW's consternation, and the former Hillary supporters that Palin needs to attract will now have even more reason to take note of her.
Perhaps they should take note that she tried to get the state supreme court to quash the results of the troopergate investigation. Which fortunately backfired and may make interesting reading tomorrow if the stock market doesn't keep crashing.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about this.
How much talk should there be? One person from an organization that does not usually support Republicans supports the Republican ticket? Shall we talk about the pro-lifers who support Obama? There's more than one!
Your first sentence says that Shelley Mandell is the president of NOW, but the statement from NOW refers to Kim Gandy as the president of NOW. Which is the real president?
Perhaps they should take note that she tried to get the state supreme court to quash the results of the troopergate investigation.
Trying to hi-jack the thread, Boonton? There's a word that describes people who engage in that behavior. I believe it is "troll".
How much talk should there be? One person from an organization that does not usually support Republicans supports the Republican ticket? Shall we talk about the pro-lifers who support Obama? There's more than one!
Funny, I thought NOW was an organization that formed to advance "woman's rights", but if I read your statement correctly, NOW is, instead, an organization that serves primarily to advance "abortion rights". Since many, if not most women, oppose abortion in many, if not most cases, shouldn't NOW change their name, or perhaps just merge with NARAL, or Planned Parenthood, and lay aside the facade that they actually represent "women's concerns"?
Your first sentence says that Shelley Mandell is the president of NOW, but the statement from NOW refers to Kim Gandy as the president of NOW. Which is the real president?
It looks like Mandell is the President of the LA chapter of NOW.
I read your statement correctly
You didn't. Next!
==she [Sarahcuda] tried to get the state supreme court to quash the results of the troopergate investigation. ==
So what?
Might be something Hillary supporters might find more noteworthy.....
You know, kind of focus on the person actually running for office.
Shall we talk about pro-lifers-in-name-only? I don't see any reason to. They are either opportunistic, or they are deluded.
focus on the person actually running for office
There's really no way that could help Sen. Obama.
==...kind of focus on the person actually running for office.==
Then, why does Rezkobama focus on McCain's alleged link to George Bush who isn't on the ballot? If McCain is influenced by Dubya, then Rezkobama is influenced by Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist.
Might be something Hillary supporters might find more noteworthy.....
Then start a blog and start a notin'. Otherwise, stop being a troll.
You didn't. Next!
Well, you made the contrast between "pro-lifers" supporting Obama and NOW supporting Paln as if they were equivalent. Of course, its really hard to point to an issue other than abortion that NOW would really fight for, so I think my characterization is more accurate than yours.
Thanks for correcting the first sentence, Rachel.
I've got a question for the Palin supporters and pro-life crowd. I understand that most pro-life folks believe that abortion at any stage is equivalent to murder. They think that aborting a fetus is exactly the same as killing an infant, right? So why dis Palin make the following statement in her interview with Katie Couric:
"And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support."
Wouldn't Palin support jail for someone who murdered their infant? I sure would. So why not jail for a woman who murders her unborn child? Isn't Palin really admitting that abortion is not the same as murder?
==I understand that most pro-life folks believe that abortion at any stage is equivalent to murder. They think that aborting a fetus is exactly the same as killing an infant, right?==
If the unborn are persons, yes, cuz the Constitution protect persons.
If they are persons, then it is not an undue burden on the woman to be subject to the law that stops her from killing the kid. "Personhood" of the unborn places a due burden on her.
== So why dis Palin make the following statement in her interview with Katie Couric:
"And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support."==
There may be other punishments for killing another person, just as there are a number of punishments, depending on the kind of killing and the circumstances.
==Wouldn't Palin support jail for someone who murdered their infant?==
Probably. However, a fetus person is not necessarily an infant person, and abortion is not necessarily premeditated AND with malice aforethought.
== why not jail for a woman who murders her unborn child?==
Did you want Sarahcuda to make policy on the Couric Show? Is THAT what this is all about?
== Isn't Palin really admitting that abortion is not the same as murder?==
No. She admits that the murderous circumstances are different and that policy on it cannot be made during a teevee news interview, nor by others in blogs, and that these things remain to be worked out, but that the fact remains that, if the unborn are person, abortion for other than life-saving of the mother, is an unfustified killing, if not outright murder, in some degree.
Well, you made the contrast between "pro-lifers" supporting Obama and NOW supporting Paln as if they were equivalent.
What is equilivant is what I said. NOW is an organzation that rarely endorses Republican Presidential candidates. Pro-life organizations rarely endorse Democrats. If a single member of NOW endorses the GOP I don't consider that worthy of much talk...likewise I don't find a handful of pro-life leaders endorsing Obama worthy of much talk. This would only be worthy of talk if you think organizations are 100% monolithic at all times hence a single dissent is worthy of great attention. AND you're still stupid.
Then start a blog and start a notin'. Otherwise, stop being a troll.
What and subject the few comment readers left here to you? I know you don't like people disagreeing with you. Go hide under your bed. You get no immunity hanging out here.
Could you please elaborate on this: "a fetus person is not necessarily an infant person."
==Could you please elaborate on this: "a fetus person is not necessarily an infant person."==
Different stages of life. Different stages of "personhood."
Mr. Incredible says: "abortion is not necessarily premeditated AND with malice aforethought."
I think it's very clear that both Palin and Couric are speaking of a premeditated abortion, not an accidental one. With regard to "malice aforethought," that basically means "with intent to kill or harm." I think that's the whole point of an abortion, isn't it?
From wikipedia's article on "malice aforethought":
"The author further states that 'murder does not require either spite or premeditation. Mercy killing can be murder, so can a killing where the intent is conceived on the instant.' In English law the mens rea requirement is an intention to cause death or to cause serious injury. Intention in this context is found either when the perpetrator acts with the purpose of causing death or serious injury, or, following Reg. v. Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, where death or serious injury is a 'virtually certain' result of the perpetrator's act and the perpetrator realises that death or serious injury is a virtually certain result."
No woman says, "I am pregnant with an infant."
No doctor tells a woman that she carries an "infant."
An infant is a newly-born child, as opposed to a child not born yet.
So what are all the stages of personhood? Is killing a 1 year old a different crime than killing a 3 year old or a 5 year old or a 7 year old? I never knew that the definition of murder had anything to do with the age of the victim.
==Mr. Incredible says: "abortion is not necessarily premeditated AND with malice aforethought."
I think it's very clear that both Palin and Couric are speaking of a premeditated abortion, not an accidental one.==
"First degree murder" is accomplished with premeditation AND with malice aforethought.
"Second degree murder" is accomplished with malice aforethought. No premed required.
There are other degrees, or catagories, of unjustifiable killing that may apply.
==..."malice aforethought" basically means "with intent to kill or harm." I think that's the whole point of an abortion, isn't it?==
Pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers argue that it isn't about killing the child, rather about "killing" the pregnancy.
[That reasoning comes from the argument that the woman has privacy and, thereby, the Right to choose the condition of her body, with no required reguard for whether there is a second person involved. So, if there is a second person involved, the Constitution protects that person.]
So, not only is there no premed, there is no malice aforethought to killing, in THEIR minds, anyway. Therefore, it would be up to those who define such things to decide, then a jury to make the final decision in specific cases.
==From wikipedia's article on "malice aforethought": ...==
First degree murder is premeditated, designed, AND aforethought in malice.
Second degree murder lacks premeditation, a design.
While a killing during an armed robbery was not premeditated, the conditions under which a killing could occur was, and, so, it is assumed there is premed AND malice aforethought, and that's why felony murder is first degree murder.
So if someone kills another person, but in their mind it's not really a true person, then it's not really murder?
==So what are all the stages of personhood?==
A person who is not born yet may be treated differently than a person who is born. That's up to others to decide and, then, a jury.
==Is killing a 1 year old a different crime than killing a 3 year old or a 5 year old or a 7 year old?==
No. They are all born persons. Having been born is to have entered the last stage, regardless of the development within that stage.
== I never knew that the definition of murder had anything to do with the age of the victim.==
What "victim"?
We're talking about refining the law to accommodate the personhood of the unborn, or to think differently about the law as it is now, given that personhood begins at conception. Most of us are for some punishment for a woman who kills the person inside her at any stage of life, inside, or out.
==So if someone kills another person, but in their mind it's not really a true person, then it's not really murder?==
He could have been insane at the time he killed. In such a case, he is not guilty of murder.
==So if someone kills another person, but in their mind it's not really a true person, then it's not really murder?==
I hear a gunshot in the neighborhood. Then, I hear a noise inside my house at 2a. I've accounted for all in my family. Anybody inside the house, then, it there illegally and I fear for my life and the lives of my family. I see a shape and fire my gun, killing whatever was there.
Fact is, I didn't realize it was a "true person." I realized only a threat shaped by circumstances, not a person. It's not murder, rather self-defense.
So, in your view, an unborn person is not the same and does not have the same rights as a born person?
==So, in your view, an unborn person is not the same and does not have the same rights as a born person?==
Same Rights. Treated differently, but not ignored.
The unborn person has the Right to Due Process. The process may be different for the killer of that unborn child than of a born child. Those are the kinds of things that have to be worked out. I'm not making policy here, even though that's what you want me, and Sarahcuda, to do.
The right to due process only applies to actions by the government.
Same rights, treated differently? Same rights, different process? I think you're making this up. I'm not asking you to make policy - just to think through what you're proposing and to be consistent. It's fairly clear that neither you nor Palin is even trying to do that.
==The right to due process only applies to actions by the government.==
And that means that ALL persons are protected. This includes unborn persons.
So, it includes how people are treated as the result of actions by others.
Mr. Incredible wrote:
"A person who is not born yet may be treated differently than a person who is born. That's up to others to decide and, then, a jury."
I think this already did go to a jury of nine individuals known as the Supreme Court. They made a decision. Case settled, right?
So, it includes how people are treated as the result of actions by others.
Can you show me an example of one case where the courts have held the right to equal protection inhibits the actions of non-government individuals?
What and subject the few comment readers left here to you? I know you don't like people disagreeing with you. Go hide under your bed. You get no immunity hanging out here.
Since this is usually about the point where you call me (or jd or smmtheory) stupid, I'll go ahead and beat you to the punch; you're stupid.
The right to due process only applies to actions by the government.
Not really. If I recall, the murderers of three Mississippi civil rights workers in 1964 were ultimately convicted of violating the workers civil rights, not murder.
Because there is legislation making such a crime thereby allowing the Fed. gov't to try people the gov't was Mississippi was not willing to try.
That would not be a case of equal protection applying to individuals, though. To use civil rights as an example, the Fed gov't enacted anti-discrimination legislation but consider that it only applies in certain cases. If you have a very small business, for example, it doesn't apply to you (although your state may have its own laws). You are free to discimination and your victims cannot use equal protection as grounds to sue you. They would have to look to enacted legislation and if they couldn't find any they'd have no recourse.
From wikipedia:
"Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder (a state crime), the US Justice Department charged eighteen individuals under the 1870 US Force Act, with conspiring to deprive the three of their civil rights (by murder)."
The due process clause has much more to do with the rights of the accused than the rights of victims.
1. First of all, I am a born-again Christian (not a Church-goer), there is a difference between being a Church-goer or a conservative and being a heaven-bound born-again Christian (John 3:3).
2. Abortion and homosexuality are NOT the only sin. If you harbor hatred in your heart against ANYBODY, bear false witness, commit fornication/adultery, if you lie, curse etc., you are the same in the sight of God with somebody that aborted a pregnancy. No sin is bigger than the other (READ YOUR BIBLE). "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
3. This is another sign that Obama is going to win decisively. There was a Focus on Family Pastor and some ignorant church-goer that prayed that God should rain on Obama’s speech in Denver. It did not happen!! instead GOP’s convention was interrupted by hurricane. The prayer by our dear Reverend Conrad yesterday in Iowa also will not be answered. God is going to show again that not all that calls Him God, knows and is doing His will. OBAMA WILL WIN.
3. This is another sign that Obama is going to win decisively. There was a Focus on Family Pastor and some ignorant church-goer that prayed that God should rain on Obama’s speech in Denver. It did not happen!! instead GOP’s convention was interrupted by hurricane.
See I'm an Obama supporter but I think this is a silly way to make decisions. I don't think God thinks poorly of McCain voters nor do I think voting for Obama will do anything special for you with God. You should use your best judgement when voting and not look for signs like this...just my opinion.