I was wondering...

[courseofhistory]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Just a thought.

...

...The reality is that there was a far larger expansion of the welfare state under the previous administration (Medicare Part D), many of the people now posing as the great defenders of limited government, including Paul Ryan and three of the remaining presidential candidates, supported that expansion, and there is no reason to trust that a new Republican administration would not make similar mistakes. There is no reason to believe that the Congressional Republicans that passed Medicare Part D for Bush wouldn’t pass some equally atrocious piece of legislation for Romney. Put another way, “the Barack Obama and Paul Ryan approaches to government” are disturbingly similar once we remember how Ryan approached the expansion of government under a Republican President. Republican victories in presidential elections have not led to the “rollback” of government in the past, and there’s no reason to expect that Romney will be the first to change that.

The likely nominee can’t be trusted to follow through on anything he says regarding health care legislation repeal because he is thoroughly untrustworthy, and everything about his record suggests that he is not the type to undertake major political fights. If Romney won, there wouldn’t be any “rollback.” George Will’s call to focus on Congress and to give up on the presidential election stemmed from his belief that Romney cannot win, but there is an even better argument that a Romney victory won’t yield most of the things that partisans desire. Republicans arguing that winning in 2012 with Romney are “wasting” their victory have a point, but their problem is that the other alternatives (except for Paul) are no more credible. If there were a unified Republican government starting in 2013, there is not much reason to think that they wouldn’t make mistakes similar to those of the Bush era. The record of unified governments over the last decade has not been very good, and Republicans have given the public few reasons to believe that they would not become reliable team players once one of their own was in the White House.
...

LINK

 

[uscitizen]

Small govt only applies to businesses not persons, persons will be even more regulated.

 

[Ernie S.]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

You are talking to people who ignore the fact that our system was designed to give power to states.

 

[SuMar]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Just a thought.

...

...The reality is that there was a far larger expansion of the welfare state under the previous administration (Medicare Part D), many of the people now posing as the great defenders of limited government, including Paul Ryan and three of the remaining presidential candidates, supported that expansion, and there is no reason to trust that a new Republican administration would not make similar mistakes. There is no reason to believe that the Congressional Republicans that passed Medicare Part D for Bush wouldn’t pass some equally atrocious piece of legislation for Romney. Put another way, “the Barack Obama and Paul Ryan approaches to government” are disturbingly similar once we remember how Ryan approached the expansion of government under a Republican President. Republican victories in presidential elections have not led to the “rollback” of government in the past, and there’s no reason to expect that Romney will be the first to change that.

The likely nominee can’t be trusted to follow through on anything he says regarding health care legislation repeal because he is thoroughly untrustworthy, and everything about his record suggests that he is not the type to undertake major political fights. If Romney won, there wouldn’t be any “rollback.” George Will’s call to focus on Congress and to give up on the presidential election stemmed from his belief that Romney cannot win, but there is an even better argument that a Romney victory won’t yield most of the things that partisans desire. Republicans arguing that winning in 2012 with Romney are “wasting” their victory have a point, but their problem is that the other alternatives (except for Paul) are no more credible. If there were a unified Republican government starting in 2013, there is not much reason to think that they wouldn’t make mistakes similar to those of the Bush era. The record of unified governments over the last decade has not been very good, and Republicans have given the public few reasons to believe that they would not become reliable team players once one of their own was in the White House.
...

LINK

Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned, just funding to Planned Parenthood would be cut off. Want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

 

[bucs90]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

So, in conservative states, who would enforce abortion law? The already downsized, understaffed police depts???? You guys are slashing funding for them daily.

You far right wingers want smaller govt, less govt........but you aren't willing to accept fewer laws.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

So, in conservative states, who would enforce abortion law? The already downsized, understaffed police depts???? You guys are slashing funding for them daily.

You far right wingers want smaller govt, less govt........but you aren't willing to accept fewer laws.

Sure we are. Which is why we are advocating deregulation. That way the government can focus more on doing it's one real responsibility: Protecting lives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Most conservatives who oppose privacy rights lack the political courage to follow all the way through with what would indeed entail banning abortion: the criminal prosecution of doctors and pregnant women. Nor do they have the courage to admit that banning abortion would only send the practice underground, that criminalization of abortion would be no solution at all.

Otherwise, yes, the desire of most republicans to preempt privacy rights and expand the authority of government is very much in conflict with their professed advocacy of ‘small government.’

 

[bripat9643]

Abortion isn't a privacy issue, nimrod. However, it will remain legal until the SC overturns Row v. Wade, and that isn't likely to happen.

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Most conservatives who oppose privacy rights lack the political courage to follow all the way through with what would indeed entail banning abortion: the criminal prosecution of doctors and pregnant women. Nor do they have the courage to admit that banning abortion would only send the practice underground, that criminalization of abortion would be no solution at all.

Otherwise, yes, the desire of most republicans to preempt privacy rights and expand the authority of government is very much in conflict with their professed advocacy of ‘small government.’

 

[Ernie S.]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

So, in conservative states, who would enforce abortion law? The already downsized, understaffed police depts???? You guys are slashing funding for them daily.

You far right wingers want smaller govt, less govt........but you aren't willing to accept fewer laws.

funding for enforcement would be up to the states.

I'm willing to live with far fewer laws; the thousands of federal and state firearms laws, for example could all be done away with. They are all covered adequately by "Thou shalt not kill."

 

[Ernie S.]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Most conservatives who oppose privacy rights lack the political courage to follow all the way through with what would indeed entail banning abortion: the criminal prosecution of doctors and pregnant women. Nor do they have the courage to admit that banning abortion would only send the practice underground, that criminalization of abortion would be no solution at all.

Otherwise, yes, the desire of most republicans to preempt privacy rights and expand the authority of government is very much in conflict with their professed advocacy of ‘small government.’

bullshit. What of the rights of the child you wish to snuff out?

 

[Avatar4321]

bullshit. What of the rights of the child you wish to snuff out?

They have no rights to him. He thinks the government can define who has rights and who doesn't.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Actually, overturning Roe v Wade would cost the Federal Government nothing. No agency, no enforcement, no "abortion Czar" would be needed, because abortion would become the purview of the states as it should be. You folks in California would be free to get all the abortions you want IF the state so legislates. Those of you in Mississippi, would be able to restrict abortions how ever your legislature mandates.

So, in conservative states, who would enforce abortion law? The already downsized, understaffed police depts???? You guys are slashing funding for them daily.

You far right wingers want smaller govt, less govt........but you aren't willing to accept fewer laws.

Oh the fake conservative again...... yeah we want fewer laws, but we make exceptions for the ide of innocent life.....now we can clear out death row, and cut costs, and use that to pay for the abortion programs, how about that, we save kids and kill killers, makes sense.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Most conservatives who oppose privacy rights lack the political courage to follow all the way through with what would indeed entail banning abortion: the criminal prosecution of doctors and pregnant women. Nor do they have the courage to admit that banning abortion would only send the practice underground, that criminalization of abortion would be no solution at all.

Otherwise, yes, the desire of most republicans to preempt privacy rights and expand the authority of government is very much in conflict with their professed advocacy of ‘small government.’

No we actually like our privacy, we'd like to buy an SUV if we wanted or a gas powered car, we're real big into the it's none of your business, but we also dont want you beating your wife, so we'd step in and killing an unborn babies is one of the times we'd step in.......liberals on the other hand want to regulate everything you do except abortions

 

[SuperDave]

Does small government which repubs profess to want include government laws, regulations and restrictions on a woman's body and abortion?

I mean, after all, it will cost HUGE amounts of $$ and increases in the deficit to regulate, create agencies who enforce the illegalities, incarcerate the offenders and fight court battles forever if it becomes illegal to have abortions.

Most conservatives who oppose privacy rights lack the political courage to follow all the way through with what would indeed entail banning abortion: the criminal prosecution of doctors and pregnant women. Nor do they have the courage to admit that banning abortion would only send the practice underground, that criminalization of abortion would be no solution at all.

Otherwise, yes, the desire of most republicans to preempt privacy rights and expand the authority of government is very much in conflict with their professed advocacy of ‘small government.’

With your brilliant legal mind please explain to me how if abortion is about a woman's right to privacy why does she lose it when the tissue mass reaches a point where it's viable outside the womb.