Deal Breaker

What appears to be only a qualified support by Mr. Adame for a woman's right to choose abortion is an absolute deal-breaker.

As Anglico pointed out in another thread, party does matter. It matters a great deal. And I recognize that, which is why I am still a member of a party. The only reason I am still a member of the Democratic Party, however, is that party's ostensible support for a woman's right to choose. Without that key component of the platform, I do not have sufficient reason to support Democratic candidates over others who might otherwise come closer to my ideas in other areas of social concern.

To me, the issue of abortion is one that defines so clearly where this society stands with respect to half its population -- or rather where half the population stands in this society -- that this issue is crucial.

I'm discouraged by the number of people who brush it aside as a "wedge" issue, as though it did not have significant implications for how women are viewed.

The cliche that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be an iron-clad guarantee fully funded in every nook and cranny of the union is a painful truth. But sheesh, women have only had the vote since 1920 -- and the fact that we've still got people earnestly suggesting that women should be "educated" prior to being permitted an abortion says just how far we have to go.

Anyway, I like Mr. Adame very much and hope that his treatment by the Blackwater thugs gets a full airing, but I can't support the political aspirations of someone who still thinks women cannot be trusted with this decision.


This is worrying. I don't consider it a litmus test.

But, I prefer my candidates be on the right side of this issue.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Find his comments (on another thread)

And take a look. His actual positions seem more like:

1. Abortion is a woman's choice, not the government's.
2. The parents of women under a certain age should have a say in the matter, with exceptions for situations where the parents are part of the problem or are dangerous in some other way.

That's my take.

About that 'exceptions' part

A "certain age?" "Situations where the parents are part of the problem?" These are meaningless, undefined, and probably not definable in any way that is practicable in the real world.

What these "exceptions" tell me is that Mr. Adame is not thinking in realistic terms at all.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke


We define "a certain age" all the time. Crimes, driving, alcohol, cigarettes.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"


I love it when people begin posts with "um."
It demonstrates condescension from a person whose best idea for a response is one that suggests the answer is obvious -- yet doesn't provide this supposedly obvious answer.

I'd love to see who makes the decision, and how, and on what rationale, for what the "certain age" that is contemplated for this particular kind of legislation might be. It would be an especially interesting discussion given the other qualifier, "situations where parents are part of the problem." Big ole box o' worms.

In any event, the point is that when a candidate uses such vague terminology, he removes himself from the tough call that usually winds up bogging the issue down in debate, and relegates it to a subcommittee that is never heard from again. But in a campaign, who cares, right? It's a dodge.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke


Age 18? That's unrealistic, and will lead young women to take dangerous maneuvers to avoid the legal necessities.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

I see it both ways

On one hand I agree with you, and I want as many specifics as humanly possible. Because why should I vote for someone without those specifics?

On the other hand, government is ultimately about compromise. There are never 2 people who can agree on every issue, and if there was then their districts would disagree on some issues. In that vein, the ideology from which all their decisions are based is much more important than anything else.

Big ole box o' worms.

Find me a meaningful bill or issue that isnt.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Box of worms

I think you're right that most bills or issues that really matter are difficult and will open a box of worms. But recall the point that gave rise to my using the expression, which was not that difficult issues shouldn't be tackled, but rather that the answer to the question we're dealing with in this thread is not obvious.

I also agree that government is all about compromise. For me the reasonable compromise is to keep government out of it and instead support educational efforts to combat this social concern.

I realize that in North Carolina, the more likely compromise would be closer to what Marshall has suggested (age 18), but to the extent possible I would fight that proposal and, again, aim much higher for support of women's reproductive rights.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Read his words, not mine

This is my interpretation, he wrote a much longer explanation.

Damn you're hard to get along with sometimes.

Getting along

Anglico, I'm sorry you see disagreement as "not getting along." I never saw this blog as a club for people who agreed on everything.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Yup it's a club.

You need a password and a secret name. Oh wait! You've got those! I guess you're in.

The agreement with everything clause only applies to Sam Spencer.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi


I was on the verge of asking about Max.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke


Max might be our mascot. Or our King. I'm not sure.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi


Of counsel

It's a deal breaker for me, too Brunette

But I don't find Marshall's position to be contrary to my beliefs. He still supports a woman's right to choose. In fact, he stated yesterday

Of course, because we live in a society where bad things can and do happen to children, common sense demands certain exceptions in the law, so the extreme example one may come up with would be a bit dishonest. Parents need to know what a child is doing. If they don't; How can they be parents? More importantly; how can they be responsible? The law does have the variance to deal with difficult instances. I do not believe that the Government is competent enough to even determine the abortion issue and, in any case, it is my belief that allowing, or disallowing abortion should not be the business of government.

That pretty much says "Parents should be notified because they are medically responsible for their children, unless there are extenuating circumstances that make that notification untenable." It also tells me that Marshall believes that the abortion decision should be between a woman and her doctor, and the law should stay out of it. I don't think you can get much more pro-choice than that.

If I'm misinterpreting his beliefs, I'm sure he'll correct me.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Thank you lcloud

I could go along with those views, but I don't read into those a contradiction of Anglico's earlier characterization of Adame's support for a legal bar to girls "of a certain age" (with exceptions). If, as Anglico now suggests, he is not certain that Adame actually said/suggested/meant to suport this angle, I'm glad to hear it.

Granted, this is an extremely difficult issue. I could appreciate any parent's desire and interest in insisting that his or her "underage" (? let's presume the age of consent for sex) daughter not undergo an abortion without that parent's knowledge and consent. The problem here is that I do not trust the government to make the call on determining that age, nor do I trust the government to draw the lines for the "situations" under which a parent could be excluded from the decision.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Me too neither.

I don't trust the government - especially the government that thought Terry Schiavo was their business - to do the right thing by any family in a medical situation. As a parent, I would want to be informed of my (mythical) daughter's decision to have an abortion because I am medically responsible for her. But once she's reached that magical age of consent, I don't get to tell her she can or can't have sex, so I don't think I get to tell her she can or can't have an abortion. My job, as a parent, is to be sure she's had the education beforehand so that an abortion does not become necessary.

My job as the parent of a young man is the same - to make sure he is educated enough that he is not responsible for a young woman having to make that decision.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Confession regarding Age of Consent reference

I have to admit that it was sort of a snarky move by yours truly to reference "age of consent," because in North Carolina, we don't have one -- exactly. That is, we set it case by case, according to the ages of the kids who got busted. I thought someone would leap on it, and I thought it an apt way to reinforce the point about the difficulties involved in making the call on age.

If I were a parent, I have a very strong feeling that I would fight like hell to ensure that my child isn't going to have an operation of ANY kind without my knowing about it. But I am not a parent and have to admit that that rather significant aspect of an individual's evaluation of this issue is not part of my perspective.

I think, however, that notwithstanding the very real interest on the parents' part, the balance of the parent's interest and that of the girl would still fall on the side of her being able to seek the abortion without parental consent. She has multiple barriers to doing so, as a young person. She might not be able to find a practitioner who would agree to do it; she might not have the money; she might not have transportation, etc . . . But to increase the difficulty of her getting a legal, safe abortion by raising the age to 18 is to guarantee that she will seek a "home remedy," an unsafe situation. Her risk shoots way, way up.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

You're right - about all of those things

I usually avoid abortion discussions because people don't seem to be able to discuss the issue civilly. You are a joy to engage with. (Read that as - I find you easy to get along with.)

As a parent, I want to know everything that's going on with my young adult son. I realize that I don't. He's 18 - so there are a lot of things that technically he's able to do on his own now, but I'm still financially responsible for him. I still pay all of his bills, and will pay most of them until he finishes his education. If he had to have some kind of medical procedure - one that was as invasive as abortion can be - I would really want to know about it. I wouldn't necessarily want to give consent; I would just want to know.

However, having had an abortion when I was 20, I understand exactly how difficult it would be having to inform parents or get their permission. It was a difficult enough decision, and I'm not sure I would have done it, even though they would have supported me.

It's a tough, tangled issue. I'd rather have a Marshall Adame who recognizes the complexities of it than a right wing whack job who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Well taken

That's an excellent point about Marshall. I have a feeling I'm not going to find a candidate for state or local office who would be better on this issue.

And thanks for the kind words -- I really do dislike the idea that I've offended -- especially when that was not my intent. It rarely is.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

By hook or by crook,

and that very well could be meant literally, women have the power over their own bodies and no amount of government intervention will ever change that fact.

The sooner we as a society can come to terms with that fact, the better off we all will be.