Science and the fetal pain abortion bill
The justification for the legislation lies in a fact (or, rather, an assertion) that cannot be proven: a fetus can experience pain starting at twenty weeks. My source is an article that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association for August 24/31 2005 under the headline “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence.”
The bill, which has been proposed in California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, as well as the U.S. Congress, requires physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia at 20 or more weeks.
The Journal focused on “human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia.” The articles included in the study focused on “fetuses of less than 30 weeks gestational age” or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. According to the article:
[P]ain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.
Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephaolography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
This is the conclusion reached in the article:
Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
* * * *
Based upon the article that I quoted from, above, there is no scientific support for the proposition that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.
Anonymous says:
The best thing about science is that it continues to function despite the objections and beliefs of the extreme right and homeschoolers in Texas.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Fetus = baby to be aborted.
Baby = baby to be born.
Have you ever heard someone ask a pregnant lady how her fetus is doing or when her fetus will be born? The answer to that question shows where one’s soul is on this issue.
Reply »
Tim Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
All Doctors and Nurses I encountered during my wife’s two pregnancies used the term fetus.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
“Congratulations Mr. Tim. Your wife has just given birth to a beautiful fetus.” Mr. Tim’s wife’s OB/GYN.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
And the law of the land is that abortion is a protected right under the Constitution.
Reply »
Rhymes With Right Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Oddly enough, the same people who take your position that “the law of the land is that abortion is a protected right under the Constitution” have a much less absolutist position on the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and the right to freely exercise one’s religion or speak or publish freely on political matters under the First Amendment — and those rights are actually there in black and white in the Constitution. Would one of those abortion supporters care to explain to me why that is the case?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Every right is conditioned. Some rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution. The constitution gives no right to freedom of expression, or a right to privacy (abortion), etc. But the courts have interpreted it that way. There is definitely disagreement on freedom of religion. One side thinks it means they should be able to implement laws based on religion, another side thinks there should be not an ounce of religion in the public square. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.
I take the view of shared by many of the founders, which was that we don’t need a bill of rights. A right is merely a preclusion to a policy choice.
Jed Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:44 am
“Would one of those abortion supporters care to explain to me why that is the case?”
little thing called the supreme court.
Willie Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Untrue. I support your right to join a militia and own a flintlock. I also support you right to follow whateve r religion you like as long as my tax dollars dont support in in our schools or government.
BCinBCS Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Sure Rhymes, I’ll explain that for you but let me preface my reply with the fact that I personally dislike abortion but I would never consider taking a woman’s right to control her own body away from her.
All rights in the U.S. Constitution have limits; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, the right to possess weapons, the right to vote, etc. are all limited. The right to control one’s body is also limited. In the case of elective abortions, one of those limitations is that it is restricted to the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
People that are pro-choice overwhelmingly are not absolutists about abortion and less so about other rights; they are, instead, adamant in their desire to keep abortions safe and legal (and, I would also hope, infrequent).
Social conservatives are *constantly* attacking a woman’s right to an abortion in an attempt to *eliminate* that right, not just restrict it. The never-ending goal of social conservatives to outlaw abortion is unlike any attempt to modify or limit the rights that you list and that is why you perceive the defense of women’s rights by social liberals to be a much greater “absolutist position” than the defense of those other rights.
I hope that this answers your question.
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
I am against abortion, period.
However, I am not a woman, and I believe that women should make their own decisions about their bodies, and how they choose to use them. Not a bunch of Old Men in Congress and/or State Legislatures.
At the end, both women and men will have to answer for their decisions/actions while on this good earth.
Government and/or some elected high priest should not legislate what is a “religious sin” and what is not!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:53 am
I think the unspoken and unheard voice is that of the fetus or baby. The woman should not participate in sex unless she is anxious to participate in motherhood.
Contraceptive should be consistently used, with the reality that proper use most likely will prevent pregnancy, but is not full proof.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:33 am
1. Contraception sometimes fails, even when used properly.
2. Not all women have a choice about having sex.
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
1. Contraception sometimes fails, so simply end the life of the baby. It’s so much easier than being a mom.
2. Not all women have a choice about having sex, but a vast majority of them do.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Purl: you live in a vacuum.
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Pearl: you live in a Dyson.
Blue Dogs Reply:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
I’m 100 percent PRO-LIFE period, no exceptions whatsoever.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
President Obama, “I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Reply »
Alan Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
We know JBB cares so deeply about a black teenage girl’s hypothetical baby when it’s inside her. Once it comes out, he could care less whether it has decent education or health care.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 6:22 am
Yes only the pedophiles on the left cares about kids.
Reply »
David Duke Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The KKK loves our abortion laws, especially as black women have a far greater rate of abortions than any other demographic group.
WURSPH Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
How about the pedophiles on the right, like a couple of former GOP Congressmen? Don’t they care, too?
Danielle says:
The religious right will not be swayed by evidence or science. They will respond with bible quotes and homilies. Or like the post from JohnBernardBooks, attempts to label other as immoral or uncaring (thus assigning blame). Bottom line is that the right to have an abortion is mine, a vasectomy my husbands. You have every right to have your fetus come to term. It is not governments right to impinge upon my freedom not to breed.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 6:24 am
I didn’t label anyone, I merely quoted his exact words. Some on the left believe babies are mistakes and must be eradicated. Why do you insist on denying the truth?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
What is “truth”?
Reply »
Rhymes With Right Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 8:50 am
Fine, Danielle.
Your body, your choice — on your dime.
No government funding for abortion or birth control — or government mandates for either under ObamaCare.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:39 am
If we are going to do that, we don’t need to provide one government dime health services for people who are obese, smoke, drink, or engage in other unhealthy behavior.
Reply »
Ron Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Or, if a kid breaks his leg playing football, well, he\she was participating in risky behavior, too.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Both abortion and birth control reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and dependents on the “guvmint” tit – but you knew that, right?
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Rhymes, using your logic, almost nothing in the government would be funded.
If conservatives choose to limit government funding of abortion (which is actually already the law) then what will become of the military when liberals choose to limit funding of wars? Citizens do not get to pick and choose the policies that are funded.
Failure to fund birth control will lead to more abortions, not fewer, so I see your advocacy of that as folly.
Reply »
Dan C says:
We are running out of water. Our schools are crumbling and underfunded. One quarter of our citizens don’t have health insurance. We are outgrowing our infrastructure. Higher education costs are going thru the roof. And this is what Perry the Leg want to spend their time on? What a bunch of morons.
Reply »
anon Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Well said — but I’d add that we have outgrown our infrastructure, we have a tax system that is dated and inadequate, and higher education is increasing out of reach to young Texans.
And The Dew and Dan Patrick want to divert public dollars to private religious schools. This is the best we can do?
Reply »
Willie says:
Hoot! It is stir up the wingnut day on Burkablog! Abortion and guns? One day? C’mon let’s throw in the invading hoards from Mexico and Obamas birth certificate!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Don’t forget about CSCOPE, the “Amero,” and the Trilateral Commission.
I noticed Larry Taylor “liked” a wingnut article about CSCOPE on Facebook yesterday posted by the Ginger lady who is leading the gang of nuthouse lunatics against CSCOPE. I thought he was one of the more responsible Republicans in the TX GOP, which isn’t saying much.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:30 am
and you guys fall for it everytime. But hay the hits on the blogs goes up, the bored state worker has something to do for a couple of hours and I get a good chuckle out of it.
It’s a win win for everyone.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Maybe Republicans who are offended by the leadership of Rick Perry, his purse boy David Dewhurst, and the yahoos in the Texas Legislature like David Simpson, Brian Birdwell, and Van Taylor will get out and vote against these people in the primary or general election in 2014.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
I’ll drink to that!
Reply »
Robert says:
“The justification for the legislation lies in a fact (or, rather, an assertion) that cannot be proven…”
It’s equally only an assertion that a “fetus” is not a human being, a life, that gov’t must protect as that is the first role of legitimate government: to protect the lives of the innocent.
Reply »
José Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
It’s equally an assertion that an unfertilized human ovum is a human being. However, not all assertions are equally justifiable.
If you want to be honest then you are prepared to justify your assertions with some kind of explanation. On the other hand, if you are an anti-abortion activist then most likely you are unwilling to make rational arguments based on objective facts.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Lotta little kids suffering from lack of health care in Texas. They be human too.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Where does it say that in the Constitution? I see the slavery part.
Reply »
Jacob Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
@ anon at 3:38.
“Where does it say that in the Constitution? I see the slavery part.”
So you mention that the poster above says something that is not in the constitution by referencing…. something not in the constitution until the 13th amendment? Nice try troll.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Jacob, have you read the constitution? Fugitive slave clause? 3/5th compromise? Taxes on importations of slaves? That is before the 13th amendment, if my understanding of chronological order is correct. My point is that the founders didn’t put a lot of value on lives other than those of property owning white men, and even then, they were more concerned with the protection of property and commerce than anything.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
This is so typical of liberals, they claim to be tolerant but they cannot tolerate opposing views.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
We tolerate views that are fact-based, not emotion-based. I wouldn’t expect a pinhead like you, JBB, to understand that. Cult-boy.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 6:26 am
exactly, the left has the market cornered on facts….
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:40 am
Glad to see you admit that facts have a liberal bias, cult-boy.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
You betcha!
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Now I understand what my dad meant when he spoke about liberals, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make ‘em drink.” Then he’d chuckle and say, “but you can hold their head under water.”
Mayo Say Tongue says:
If I could turn Burka back into an unborn baby (not a fetus), I would, so he could tell us personally if the unborn feel pain at 20 weeks. But we’d need an awfully big womb.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:35 am
Thanks for being snotty, Mayo. Always count on you to lower the quality of the discussion.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
@JBB at 9:33
Now we understand why JBB thinks the way that he does…apparently, one day, he refused to drink for 4 to 6 minutes!!
Reply »
Indiana Pearl says:
Gov. Perry and members of the Leg should take an embryology course so that they would at least be informed about the legislation they propose. Given Gov. Perry’s science grades at A&M, I doubt he’d learn much, but it would be a nice gesture.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
The corn in Kokomo is especially good this time of year when heated over an outdoor Hoosier fire pit. I took a class in popcornology at Indiana State. I had a C+ after my kernels popped before they were ready and I had to redo my final test.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
You should have studied at Indiana U. Or Purdue. You might have learned that Komomo is lily white and tortured poor Ryan White to death.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Where is Komomo (sic)? Is that near Muncie?
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
It’s just north of Indy.
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:31 am
I think you’re thinking of Kokomo. Komomo is only a figment of your addled imagination.
Old Charlie says:
I see all of these comments about abortion, fetuses, right to life, right to choose. The issue for me has always been at what point the govt. has sufficient interest to regulate the termination of a pregnancy. That point always seemed to me to be when the fetus is viable. That fits my understanding of when the govt. has an interest to protect a “person.” After viability we should be able to discuss when and for what reasons the govt.may regulate the termination of the pregnancy. And the burden should always be on the govt. to establish the necessity for its regulation. I have always considered that to be a conservative rationale. I recently heard someone say that there is no person meaner than a mean defender of their religion. I think he was right.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:02 am
I once heard someone say there’s no one meaner than a liberal who thinks they know what’s best for everyone.
A recent example was the union violence in Michigan.
A comical example was the poster who threatened me yesterday for having opposing views on gun control.
God help us when people think the government has to right to choose who gets to live and who doesn’t.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
JBB, I’d rather keep that choice than give it to you and your ole buddy Rick Perry. Mind your own business, stay in your basement, and keep your pasty old white guys away from me and mine.
Reply »
Josh Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 8:13 am
Old JBB continues to be the poster boy for the basement wingnuts. The scary part is that A&M graduated a ton of these guys back int he 60′s and 70′s. Good new is that most are like JBB: unable to convince or bring anyone else to his blighted point of view.
Ron Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Having for-profit insurance companies decide my fate is so much better. That almost happened to me when my insurance company initially refused my request to be treated at MD Anderson. They eventually relented, and it was a clinical trial drug that I couldn’t have gotten in Austin that saved me.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 29th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
I think this is exactly right–post-viability a woman can end a pregnancy without destruction of the fetus and it is perfectly reasonable for the state to insist that she do so.
Reply »
Pat says:
So long as its a bunch of us old white guys on here talking about abortion, this is a perspective we should probably learn to appreciate a little more: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/03/pregnant-with-an-iud
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:35 am
I am not a white guy, but I am old.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I’m as old and white as bingo night in downtown Marion.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
North of Kokomo by quite a bit.
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:33 am
What are you talking about?
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Perry and science should not be mentioned in the same sentence unless it is something like the following. “Can you believe that anyone with Rick Perry’s grades at Texas A&M in a science based field is even talking about science?”
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I wish there was a “like” button on this blog.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 8:54 am
You have to be friends with Burka on Facebook in order to do that. Aren’t you friends with him yet? You can go on his page and post how much you love Eugene Debs, the great Indiana socialist.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Purl, Eugene Debs has made the world a better place. And he was a Hoosier socialist, not an “Indiana socialist.”
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Jim Jontz was an Indiana socialist and Debs lover, too. I bet you miss him in congress don’t you?
Almost every plank Debs supported as a Socialist candidate for president has since been supported and passed by the Democratic party. Why do folks get so upset when Obama and other Democrats are labeled as socialists? They are. You can’t pretend that Grover Cleveland-style Democrats have much in common with the current Democratic party.
paulburka Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I don’t have a facebook page.
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:12 am
purl, theyre as socialist as bush or reagan.
Reply »
Weeping says:
Scientific evidence proved the Jews didn’t feel any pain either because they weren’t actual people.
The brain can rationalize just about anything. It still doesn’t make it right.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! says:
When has Governor Pointy Boots or his cronies ever let Science get in the way of their good times political hayride?
Reply »
WURSPH says:
I just have to wonder how far these fanatics can go with all their “restrictions” before they cross the magic line between “regulating” abortion/birth control to effectively outlawing it by making it impossible for all but a tiny few to exercise what the Supreme Court has held to be a constitutional right.
That is—just how far can these anti-choice fanatics go before their limits make it virtually impossible for all but a handful of women to obtain an abortion…and, when they reach that point, is their any remedy other than taking them back to court for the 2 millionth, 898 thousandth , 612th time?
There has to be a limit to regulating somewhere this side of “denying” and these anti-choice fanatics seem destined to keep pushing until they cross the line. When they do, they may be sorry that their repeated “intents” will add up to enough of a clear pattern that even the 5th Circuit will be willing to pull their whole structure of restrictions down on their heads. One can hope, at least.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
You can be sure that rich white women will always be able to access safe abortion.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Yeah, all those effete women in Carmel are always aborting their babies at the cyclic rate, while the poor African-American women of the Indianapolis ghetto are forced into having litters of unwanted children. It makes David Duke cringe to think about it.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:45 am
The rich white folk from the suburbs whose daughters get in a “family way” can get all the abortions they want. They’ll send them to “visit Aunt Sally in Colorado” or some other state that is not as insane about allowing access to constitutionally-protected rights. Meanwhile, working class and poor women in Texas will have to drive long distances, wait to see a doctor, listen to complete b.s. about medical “risks,” have a probe stuck up their lady parts, and wait for 24 hours before they can exercise their constitutionally-protected right.
Ain’t it a dream?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
It’s state-sanctioned rape.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 6:46 am
Minnie let me hep ya out a lil bit, being as you’re new to Texas and don’t yet understand the vernacular.
When you bust a woman’s lip and force yourself on her, in Indiana if maybe foreplay but in Texas it’s forceable rape, ie democrat Bill Clinton and Anita Broderick.
When a US Congressman sleeps with a 16 year old intern in Illinios it’s called getting your freak on, in Texas it’s called statutory rape, ie democrat US Congressman Mel Reynolds.
In Texas we have these guys called medical doctors and they do a procedure called a medical exam, not state sanctioned rape. Sometimes they order tests and you can even see the baby on tv.
I’m sure most of this stuff is new to you as you’ve just arrived here. But before you know it and with my hep you’ll soon be exposed to the 21st century.
Indiana Purl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:37 am
How do you think an abortion is carried out? By waving some magic wand and just making the fetus vanish?
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:59 am
see you’re catching on already and some here were saying you rode the short bus to school.
WURSPH says:
An example of going to far, may be another bill they are talking about which would ban the “morning after pill” unless:
*the woman has an appointment with a physican before taking the pill….She can only get a prescription if she had such an appointment; and
*She had a followup approintment with another doctor 24 hours after she takes the pill. (which may be a little hard to enforce.)
Talk about a “reasonable regulation”…If these fools keep piling it on like this, they surely must cross the line into “denying” rather than “regulating”…
Reply »
WURSPH says:
Talking about the U.S. Constitution…anyone have any comments on the death of Judge Bork, the father of the modern “original intent” school of interpretation?
You young folks may not remember when he was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. It set off a firestorm that led to his rejection by the U.S. Senate. Prior to Bork, most nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court were given “consent” by the Senate without much trouble—of course that did not include the Black or Jewish nominees who had more trouble being confirmed than the other nominees.
Bork was so forthcoming in his views (some quite radical—no abortion, no birth control, no right to privacy, women should stay home and not go to work, no civil rights laws, etc) and that caused so much trouble for his nomination that nominees after him have been very careful to say little about anything at their hearings.
Although I certainly would not have wanted a man with his views on the Supreme Court I do enjoy the fact that two of his stated opinions even shook-up the right-wingers who were pushing him for the Court.
First, he said the Second Amendment applied only to an organized militia (“Original Intent” again) and did not give any Tom, Dick or Harry the right to carry or own guns…and
Second, he called the 9th Amendment (“Construction of Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) which is second in holiness only to the 10th Amendment to some rightists, “meaningless dicta”.
It Seems “Original Intent” can cut both ways sometimes.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
I’ll comment. Listening to the Bork hearings at the time, I thought that he lacked a judicial temperament. He had the intelligence to be a Supreme Court judge but not the sense of what was required of a Supreme Court jurist.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Plus, he had a scraggly beard. If he had a fine mustache, like the former President of Mexico named Vicente Fox
or certain Texas political journalists,
Bork may have had a different fate.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 6:49 am
Liberals have a hard time deciding between which they enjoyed more the “Borking of Bork” or the “lynching of Clarence Thomas”.
Reply »
José Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Let’s not forget Bork’s role in carrying out Nixon’s dirty work in the Saturday Night Massacre.
There is ample reason to criticise Bork, but we should be equally critical of the fool Reagan for nominating him to the SC.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 10:16 am
I think we have to give him a pass on that one…The Attorney General and Asst. Attorney General had resigned and someone had to keep the Dept. of Justice operating…Bork was the number 3 as Solicitor General. As I remember it, Eliot Richardson, the Atty. Gen.who was resigning, approved of what Bork did that weekened. They talked it over at the time and Richardson agreed that Bork should take over and do what Nixon demanded even thou he would not do it himself.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Hoosier Wm. Ruckelshaus resigned rather than play Nixon’s game.
rw says:
“Social conservatives are *constantly* attacking a woman’s right to an abortion in an attempt to *eliminate* that right, not just restrict it.”
Gun-control advocates are *constantly* attacking an individual’s right to own a gun in an attempt to *eliminate* that right, not just restrict it.
Reply »
José Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Bull. You’ll find a lot of folks who would be satisfied with moderate gun control laws that would allow law abiding citizens to continue their hunting activities.
Anti-abortion rights activists will never be satisfied with anything less than a total ban.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 1:14 am
RW, if that were the case, why hasn’t the fearsome Gun Control Lobby been filing gun control bills in the Lege since, oh, two decades ago?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I looking forward to conservatives changing policies in this legislative session. Hopefully the 83rd lege starting Jan 8th will see fit to allow guns in schools once again to protect our kids. Gun free zones have turned our schools into killing fields.
Reply »
Dan C Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 9:37 am
This may be the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. I have three kids. I have never met a single elementary school teacher that wants to pack heat in the classroom. The gun nuts will force the Legislature to waste time on this kind of debate and then, even if it passes, no kindergarten teachers will bring guns to class. What a waste of time.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
I think making schools gun free zones so any nut could walk in and shoot them is a worse idea. But then I’m not a liberal.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I worry every day that a disgruntled student or parent will shoot my son in the head.
Reply »
Ron Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Not sure if arming untrained teachers is a smart option. We could assign armed guards. That would work. Oh, wait. That would cost money and tea party zealots don’t like to spend money. More wasteful spending. Oh, well. Arm the teachers then. Seriously, I will put this in all caps for emphasis…ARMING TEACHERS IS THE STUPIDEST THING you’ve ever written. And you’ve written some duuuzies.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku says:
There is zero percent chance that parents with any economic means will stay in a public school system that has armed teachers.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 9:01 am
parents with economic means have already fled the failing public schools, maybe this will bring them back.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I learned a few things about guns when I took a CHL class. The main thing is: “Your gun can’t help you if it’s in your car.”
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
All the liberals on here lambasting the idea to arm teachers is pretty hysterical, especially considering it’s already been done in places like Harold, TX and it’s been a huge success.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/texas-school-district-allows-teachers-to-carry-concealed-weapons/
Try again anti-gun zealots
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 12:49 pm
So, I went on your link, and watched the video. No where, Pavlov, does it say it has been a “huge Success.” No where. Now, if you are measuring a lack of mass murders as a huge success, there are plenty of no gun districts that also have had huge successes. Please don’t insert made up embellishments to a neutral story to try and make some point. Freakin pathetic.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 2:28 pm
How do you define “success”?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Gosh. Science (I know, I just lost half the crowd, or 90% of the tea party, I mean hillbillies), suggests that you have a control, such as a non gun toting school district, of
Like size and resources and demographics, and measure it against the Howard ISD over a several year period. Just sayin. Then if Howard were statistically less violent for guns, then we’d have something real, and not just Pavlov making himself feel good about himself.
Reply »
donuthin says:
Try again, gun idiot
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
I present evidence supporting my position and you slam me with a personal insult. You liberals are all the same
Reply »
donuthin says:
I am no liberal, but your evidence is nothing more than anecdotal gibberish.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl says:
Here’s the deal – and most women will tell you that what I say is true: women have gotten abortions ever since the dawn of time. They always have and they always will. They’ll either have safe abortions or they will get them illegally on someone’s kitchen table. I remember the days before Roe v. Wade. It wasn’t pretty.
Now some religious folks think that’s her punishment for causing some poor man, like Adam, to be overcome with lust, but thinking people see it differently. Unless folks on the right develop a common-sense approach to sex education that includes info about contraception and access, there will continue to be abortions. And Gov. Perry and the Leg are shutting down Planned Parenthood. More abortions . . .round and round and round.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
December 24th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
So let’s apply your logic to gun control. If we ban guns, will not those willing to break the law obtain them anyway? And if so, doesn’t that tilt the advantage to criminals?
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
“I am no liberal, but your evidence is nothing more than anecdotal gibberish.”
Fooled me. And one man’s anecdote is another man’s real life example of armed teachers protecting students without incident. Too bad you can’t provide me with a real life counter-example of where the armed teachers idea went awry, but then again you’re a liberal, so what use do have you for such things as “proof” before you go spouting your misguided ideas.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Looks like JBB has a new name
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 5:00 am
Are we to believe that the voice of reason is always viewed as a troll here?
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 2:25 am
O.K. Pavlov let’s discuss arming teachers, but first, let’s consider police officers.
In order to be a police officer, one must undergo a rigorous selection process and considerable training, especially in firearms use. Once commissioned as a peace officer, that firearms training continues. Knowing this, let’s explore some facts about police shootings:
90% of all studied police shootings occur within 6 feet and are over in 3 seconds;
It is *estimated* that about 50% of rounds fired by the police hit their target;
It was actually *measured* by the New York Police Dept. that only 34% of rounds fired by their officers hit their target;
It was actually *measured* that when an officer was in a *gun fight* only 13% to 17% of shots fired hit their target.
So now we give guns to teachers and principals who have a concealed handgun license (with all of the training that entails!) to protect our children at school.
If in a gun battle a rigorously trained police officer can only hit the target fewer than 2 times out of every 10 rounds fired, then how accurate would a school teacher be? And even if they were as good of a shot as the trained police officer, where do you think that those other 8 missed rounds are going?
If you want a solution to mass murders, please read my reply in the comments section of “The Gun Debate” posted by Paul Burka on Monday (the post before this one). My comment can be found near the end submitted on December 19th, 2012 at 4:13 am.
My solution can work, arming teachers will not.
Reply »
Rosarian says:
You should do a little more research. Yours is outdated.
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 7:26 am
Rosarian,
The data is like me – old but still good.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I wish all my warm close personal fiends here a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Reply »
Karen says:
Ironically, the NRA President stated that you cannot legislate morality–when it comes to guns YET the GOP/religious right wants to legislate morality when it comes to gambling,gays, contraceptives, sex, religion, abortion, movies/videos/porn, and any other subject that the extreme religious right decide they don’t like based upon THEIR version of the Bible.
Reply »
Reagan Republican says:
Pain or no pain, abortion at any gestational age is still murder.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
“Reagan Republican” is free to voice his opinion that abortion is murder, but it carries no weight. No state has a law that stipulates that abortion is murder. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges a woman’s right to have an abortion. (Texas does have a law that killing a fetus while committing a crime is murder.)
Reply »