I suspect that the amendment will be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds and deemed unconstitutional.

I'd love to see it challenged under Griswold v. Connecticut. There's no way for them to insert a severability clause in something like this, and banning contraception is just as illegal under Griswold as the abortion aspect is under Roe v. Wade.

Not, mind, that you couldn't find four Justices to reverse Griswold. However, I think Kennedy would be more likely to balk at that than at reversing Roe v. Wade and all but Thomas are so results-oriented that they're likely to side with the majority anyway to avoid the political fallout. Which means that if the amendment is ruled unConstitutional under Griswold, the appeal would not be granted certiorari -- thus avoiding the undesirable outcome of actually having the USSC itself rule against such laws.

The forced-birthers might just as well call themselves pro-control because clearly they are not pro-life.

The hypocrisy of an exemption for rape/incest is stunning. Either you are for a woman having control of her body and reproductive health, or you are against women. Rape and incest are not the only two reasons a woman may not wish, or be able, to carry a pregnancy to term. Her health, her partner, her living situation, her other children, her job -- there are all sorts of reasons a woman may need not to be pregnant, and those reasons are between the woman, her partner and their doctor. Those reasons are no one else's business. Certainly not a politician's! Most certainly not a faith-based zealot's!

Care about living or not, what Dupree is quoted as saying is true. He's the representative of a population that by and large wants this bill to pass. As a representative he has an obligation to his constituents, just as a bill like this wouldn't pass in California because a majority of those represented wouldn't want it to pass. It's the system we live in, and the same process is what got a lot of more liberal decisions made in the courts, so it's no surprise the social conservatives are using the same tactic.

Batabback, what you and the forced-birthers aren't getting in all of this, is that a woman's reproductive rights should not be subject to legislation. They are rights, not privileges that can be revoked.

Sort of like voting is a right, not a privilege that can be revoked, much to republican dismay.

Sort of like gay rights/gay marriage: Civil rights that should not be subject to legislation that can be revoked, much to "christian" dismay.

There are populations in this country being controlled by faith-based people who have no business sticking their nose into the private and personal business of these populations.

A morula should not have rights. A blastula is not a person.

Women, and Gays, however: people with rights! And it's well and truly time to stop the faith-based minority from trampling those rights.

It seems to be : Liberty and justice for all . . . who look, think and act like right-wing, religious fanatic, racist, radical Republicon/Tea Potty/Draconians . . .

and everyone else be damned.

Peanut, I respect your idealism but it's just not true. I agree with the sentiment on rights, but rights don't exist. If we have a right, it's because of legislation. The legislation protecting a woman's body as private property is the decision of a court case called Roe v Wade. That decision set a precedence, without signing on voted legislation, that determined that abortion be legal. The tactic of the right to get rid of this is to overturn the decision by granting a "right to privacy" to the fetus as well, the same right that many states assume is implied by the constitution.

Voting isn't a right, because we didn't have it until legislation made it possible.

Gar rights/gay marriage, as well as Civil Rights, weren't a part of the American psyche until they were signed into law, the Civil Rights so far as amending the Constitution the try to stop the Confederacy from continuing their policies.

Taxes are a function of sticking one's nose in someone's personal and private business. Gun control is a function of sticking one's nose in someone's personal and private business. A lot of things considered liberal attempt to do the same thing you propose is simply out of the question.

Not that I support the argument the Right has in this case (I'm pro-choice), but they aren't doing things that aren't allowed within the system.

MST- You seem to want to change that to "Liberty and Justice for all... who don't look, think, and act like right-wing, religious fanatic, racist, radical Republican/Tea Party/Draconians... everyone else be damned."

They're exercising their privilege to vote in the way that they feel suits them. There's not much we can do about that other than vote the other way. Anything else is doing the same thing you vilify them for.

What about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

Americans (at least the ones who wrote the Declaration) believe that these rights are human rights--they *do* simply EXIST. Everyone in every nation, not just Americans, has these rights. The problem is that in many cases, foreign governments have TAKEN AWAY these inalienable rights from their people--through legislation.

Our country was founded on the idea that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not granted by the government, but do, in fact, exist. Although it's often cited as a right to "privacy," one could argue that a woman's right to choose is also liberty--over her own body.

Well you have spun what i have to say into an interesting argument Bababock . . . but I am pretty sure that pointing out people who crush the freedoms of others is NOT the same as crushing the freedoms of others . . .

One is an action

( stomping on the freedoms of others )

The other is an opinion

( objecting to people who say they are for freedom . . . but only for people like them who then stomp on the freedom of people who are different )

But . . . nice try on your part to make it seem like I am intolerant . . . clever but not correct.

Taxes are a function of living together as a society and agreeing, as that society, that certain things benefit all members of said society, so all members are required to give a portion of their yearly income toward those societal benefits.

Taxes are NOT a function of being nosy. Gossip is a function of being nosy. Do you appreciate the difference?

There is no gun control in this country. To suggest there is gun control in this country is laughable. To say that gun control is nosy is criminally irresponsible.

You say government is nosy, well what do you call this nonsense about turning fertilized eggs into people? You can't have small government while you've got a government concerned about whether or not there might be a fertilized egg on every tampon or panty stain.

A fed in every bedroom/bathroom/doctor's office is not small government. It's nosy.

CB, that statement comes from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Also, the original wording was "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY," not happiness.

Also, the Constitution itself was only drafted a good decade AFTER the end of the Revolution. It's not what this country was founded on, and the beliefs within it only apply to citizens of this country. They didn't apply to the slaves (indentured servants and important Africans), and they don't apply to everyone equally. They are the basis for a precedent to be held in courts, and the wording of the document is so loosely crafted so as to allow loose interpretations when rules needed to be bent or broken. A State Militia is a requirement of the Constitution, and the Federal Government is only allowed to maintain a national Navy with impunity, a Federal Army can only be raised on account of war, and only for 2 years. Those, though, we ignore, because they aren't convenient.

MsT- it's not that you're intolerant, it's that you're saying this group of people should think like you do, because obviously they're wrong. They think the same thing about you, because obviously you're wrong. Everything is an opinion. The action is voting. We all vote in ways that differ from other peoples' opinions, and we all vote things into law that impact someone else's lives. In this case it's extreme, in other cases slight. They see this as a piece of their interests. You don't. That's it.

Peanut - A supporter of taxes sees them as an agreement within society. An agreement, though, is not a contract, and taxes are a contract. One you can't breech without being penalized. Not paying your taxes accrues fines, confiscation and possibly jail time. This is a contract we do not sign or agree to, it's one we are beholden to the moment we earn money, and the force that keeps up compliant is either using that money to benefit us or using the threat of governmental force to keep us from thinking about breeching that contract.

Taxes can certainly be a function of being nosy. Taxing someone more for involving themselves in certain activities is a popular form of punishing demographics, and taxing them less is used as a form of encouragement.

There is gun control in this country, just as there is drug control. Both have large illegal markets but they are still controlled by force of law.

Peanut - Any outside force making you act a certain way is, as I'm trying to use our mutual understanding of this word, nosy. Liberals telling conservatives they can't choose to define a term differently is nosy. Telling them that despite popular election they shouldn't have a law put in place is nosy. I agree with this nosiness, because I don't agree with labeling a fetus a person, but it doesn't change the fact that it is invasive to think we should force our priorities and customs onto people who disagree and popular vote their disagreement.

I agree about small government not including any of these measures, but only the ignorant believe that any politician wants a small government. The game is money and influence, and you can't gain influence by downsizing.

I agree about small government not including any of these measures, but only the ignorant believe that any politician wants a small government. The game is money and influence, and you can't gain influence by downsizing.

Bata gets a cookie for the smartest post on this thread.

Sorry, Bata, I can't see a luxury tax as punishment.

Cigarette and alcohol taxes make sense to me. I wish we were taxing cannabis, too!

Taxing cigarettes is about the only thing that comes up in a google search for how "arbitrary" taxes will affect the poor. It actually isn't arbitrary to tax cigarettes so severely. Cigarettes kill people, and if poor people are smoking and don't have health insurance, we as a society, are paying those medical costs in the form of trips to the emergency room. So yeah, tax cigarettes. Tax them so high that only the top 1% can afford them. The top 1% are also the only people who can afford the medical costs associated with that nasty addiction. Better yet, make them illegal. The royal college of medicine determined recently that alcohol and tobacco should be classified with Heroin and Meth, and that cannabis should be decriminalized.

Taxing boats, furs, jewelry, etc., well are you buying those things?? So tax 'em! Tax 'em high! Make Newt pay through the nose for the ice he drips on that wax mannequin he's married to. A tab?? He runs a TAB at Tiffany's! Yeah, he can afford a healthy tax on diamonds and gold.

And you're telling me you agree with tax incentives to ship our jobs offshore? Is that a "form of encouragement" you support??

Gun shows are not an illegal market. You can buy just about anything you want at a gun show, and background checks, waiting periods, etc. go out the window. That effectively negates any 'gun laws' we pretend to have in this country.

Where are liberals telling conservatives they can't choose to define a term differently? To what are you even referring? And if you're talking about words that already exist, well, they already have definitions... Hell, we even let them rename themselves Tea Party after we laughed at them for calling themselves Tea Baggers! Liberals are depressingly politically correct!!

Bata, I may be an idealist, but at least I'm informed. Please educate yourself before you come here mouthing right-wing talking points.

Battaback: the Constitution was not written in a vacuum. One of its foundational document was the Declaration. The Bill of Rights did not GRANT rights to the people, it secured or ensured them. When the Constitution was being drafted, many feared that the central government would become too strong (vs the original US govt formed under the Articles of Confederation) and would trample individual rights. So they wanted clarification of WHICH rights would be SECURED.

Once again, Americans believe that certain rights are endowed (by God, as the Founders said, or, if you do not believe in God, by the very fact of existing) in all humans (although you're right that in the case of enslaved Africans, America did not live up to its values). So for example, we believe an Afghani woman has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--but her government does not secure those rights and that is a violation of her endowed human rights. In contrast, the American government SECURES those rights, it does not GRANT them.

Peanut, you obviously have a very passionate stance on this, but you are severely mistaken on quite a few things.

Just because certain taxes make sense to you doesn't mean they are an agreement (as you had posited before) or that they aren't an example of government sticking its nose into peoples' lives. The fact that you followed that by specifically showing exactly what I had been talking about astounds me. You preach that cigarettes and alcohol and diamonds and gold should be taxed so high that only the extremely rich could afford them. That's a form of social control, telling people who would otherwise want something that they can't have it because they can't afford it.

And if you want everyone to get their hands on something? You don't tax it! I don't agree with letting people ship jobs overseas, but not taxing such activity and even providing incentives to do so is what makes the activity possible and profitable. It's these incentives that make couples decide to marry, make them incorporate a private business, and many other daily aspects of American life.

I'm not saying any of this because I buy tobacco, or alcohol, or jewelery or furs, I'm stating this as a fact of how government works. This is simply how it is, and your denial of this, and then emphatic support of this, is truly astounding.

The majority of guns that are involved in violent crimes are gotten at your average gun store by someone who isn't the criminal. Although, yes, gun shows are a hole in the protection, and cases do come up where a gun purchased there is used in a violent crime, they are not the main source of all of our gun violence woes. Over 1/10th are simply stolen, and the second largest source are gun owners simply selling them out of their homes.

What do you mean, "Where are liberals telling conservatives that can't choose to define a term differently?" This entire thread is about a law in Mississippi that would change the definition of the term "fetus" to include "personhood!" Any opposition to this is "telling conservatives they can't choose to define a term differently." Also, acting like words have meanings outside of cultural and social use is woefully ignorant. Try asking for a rubber in England and see what you get. Ask a man in Saudi Arabia what a "driver" is and see if it matches up to what you think it means.

Don't tell me you're informed, and don't tell me to educate myself. These ad hominem insults and your pitiless self-aggrandizement have only inspired my own frustrated and intellectually exhausted responses in what this follows.

CD - It wasn't written in a vacuum, but it wasn't written at all until the lack of Federal Power almost stillborned the American Experiment. The Bill of Rights DID grant rights to the people because it didn't exist when the Constitution was written and signed into law. The Bill of Rights didn't come into exhistence until almost 5 years after the Constitution was signed, and it was only beginning to be drafted 3 years after the fact!

I understand what you are saying about the idea of "natural rights," but these do not exist in the real world. They exist in the world of philosophy, but here in reality there are no people to protect these "natural rights" is those in power don't think you should have them. There is no point in saying that we have inalienable rights if they get taken away at every opportunity by anyone who wants to do anything! The "please stay quite" sign at the library infringes on our freedom of speech; the "no cameras allowed" regulations at museums infringe on our freedom of the press; our gun laws infringe on the right to bare arms as part of a healthy functioning militia. The list goes on an on for how these "inalienable," "natural rights" are infringed on a daily basis by publicly owned properties.

We can shout about God given rights all we want, but if you can't force people to respect them you don't have them.

Liberals telling conservatives they can't LEGISLATE based on the arbitrary redefinition of a term the majority doesn't agree to isn't telling conservatives they can't redefine a term. Conservatives can decide we're all Tribbles, born pregnant just by virtue of possessing gonads, but that doesn't change the fact that a woman is the only person who should have a say in what happens to her own body, and it doesn't give conservatives the right to legislate their will on the rest of us.

"The rest of us" being the constituency in Mississippi who are VOTING on this. If the majority vote for it, then what you're proposing is the MINORITY imposing their will onto the MAJORITY. I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying (I do believe that, though a woman gestates the child, it is just as much the father's), but my beliefs, and your beliefs, don't apply to Mississippi's voters.

"The rest of us" refers to everyone in the country who is currently gaping in disbelief, actually, but you're welcome to misinterpret if you like.

I think your comment that it's just as much the father's is part of the problem here. The baby is half daddy's, but daddy doesn't do any of the gestating. There seems to be a component of "I put it there, you're going to keep it" in all of this that's a little disturbing.

What is the issue if mom tells dad she's pregnant and has no intention of keeping it, but dad really wants a baby? Can dad sue to make certain she not only stays pregnant, but treats the pregnancy well and gives up the baby to him at the end?

My objection to all of this is that the issue elevates pregnancy so far above the pregnant woman as to render her no better than a test tube.

If you leave a fertilized cell on the counter, it will die. It is not a person, and cannot be treated as one. You can't put a fertilized cell down for a nap, or strap it into a car seat. You can't give it a bottle or burp it. There are not diapers to change. A fertilized cell does not in any way resemble a human, nor does it behave like one. A fertilized cell has no heart beat, no brainwaves, no thumb to suck, nor gender to identify (or identify with!)

Mississippi does not have the ability to decide any of my previous paragraph's statements are false, because they're not. A fertilized cell isn't a person. It's only the promise of one. Doctors estimate fully half of all pregnancies flush before a woman even knows she's pregnant because there are so many ways in which a fertilized egg isn't viable. Of the pregnancies carried to term, it's astonishing there are so many babies born whole and healthy because not all genetic mishaps are lethal, and there are so many things that can go wrong during gestation.

Not every pregnancy can or should be carried to term. To try to legislate otherwise reeks of barbarism and ignorance.

Or are you saying I should just consider the source?

Pregnancy and ownership of the fetus (which is the legal issue) is a very touchy subject, and I'll only talk about my opinion on this for the sake of informing because I don't think I can change your mind and your are not going to change mine.

I say the baby is just as much the fathers because he's half the process. He is still necessary for begin that gestation period. While he is not involved in the gestation period, ideally he is also half of that child's education upon birth, and half of that child's financial wellbeing, as well that child is considered for all the legal benefits of having parents, half of which are the father. To say that, because the mother carries the child for 8-10 months, the father legally has NO part in the decision to keep a child (not the entire decision) is ignoring the fact that his life is impacted by the child just as much, if not more, than the mother's after it is born.

The reason I say "if not more" is because, once born, fathers have been legally more responsible for the welfare of children than mothers in this country. Not that women do not take care of children, but, looking at divorce rates and the data for custody and child support cases, men are most likely expected to give up the children to the mothers, and overwhelmingly expected to pay for children that they are either unable to see when they want to or can't see at all.

This is coupled with statistics that show the majority of custody cases end with the mother's victory (over 70%), and the overwhelming majority of child support cases end in the mother being cut the check (nearly 80%). All this despite the fact that the majority of abused children are hurt by their biological mothers (over 60%), refusing custody is seen by nearly half of women as a punishment to their ex-spouse rather than considering the child's welfare or education.

And while the woman's body is her own property, the fetus inside her is half his as much as any other legal property that they may have paid for during their relationship.

What I'm trying to point at is that though the fetus is not alive, it will be a life, and the long-term facts of that should be considered as much as the short term fact that it's in the mother. That doesn't mean, though, that the man is not impacted by the fetus, or that he can't claim part ownership of it.

Back to the main topic at hand: I agree. A fertilized cell is not a person. That doesn't mean that laws can be made to define it as such, as long as a majority votes that it should be. That's the power of democracy, it's mob rule. And I would like to remind you that they aren't doing this because they expressly believe that a fetus is a person, they're doing this because this is one of the only avenues they have to repeal the decision of Roe v Wade.

Bata! We've about achieved parity!

I agree with almost everything you said above!

Let's start with the phrase "a fetus is not alive". That's been a huge part of this argument. A fetus is alive. But it can't necessarily be supported outside the uterus, and I think this is where the grey area we're all arguing about is miring us. It's alive, but until 20+ weeks, medical science hasn't yet reached the point where we can intervene and help the fetus survive ex-utero. So it isn't a viable human at that point even though it has a beating heart.

Fathers definitely have rights, and there are men who take care of their children, but the term dead-beat dad exists for a reason. Not all fathers take care of their children despite legal efforts to make them do so.

Just because there are people who want to inflict their faith-based values on a population doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so. Even if a majority in a given geographic region agree with a proposed policy, if it harms the subjects of the policy, and there are subjects who object to such treatment, it should not be allowed whether or not a local majority wants it. Women are harmed by this proposed legislation, and it should not be allowed.

Period.

The most frustrating part for me to understand pro-lifers is that a great majority of them are also pro-death-penalty. If life is so precious inside the womb, then it is equally precious outside the womb How can someone say that abortion is an abomination but that putting a living, breathing human being to death is ok?

I know . . . and then the other really frustrating thing is that i have had conversations with pro-lifers and they have the most irrational excuses for the fact that they care about life in the womb and don't give a damn about life outside the womb. . . you know ?

Ever since the introduction of Mass Politics to this country, policy makers have more and more been constrained in what their political options are. Mind you we've only had Universal Suffrage since the 1890s (and truly Universal Suffrage since the 1920s). It took a few generations for the voters to realize what power they had, but in these times a politician can't make a decision on an important piece of legislation that goes against his constituents or he'll be facing a loss come reelection.

This is why the Democrats are an afterthought in Southern states. They should act as a counterweight to the increasingly extremist Republicans. Instead, they just go along meekly as "Repub-lite" because they don't have the decency or courage to stand up for policies that benefit those who aren't rich and powerful.

Ditto to mpguy. Politicians should stand up for what is right and not what is politically expedient or beneficial to a campaign. History will be written and has the final judgment on the politician's actions. What a politician does now will be indelible.

Political expediency is part of the deal.

Mp- I'm sure that Republicans think that their consituents should be acting as a counterweight to the increasingly extremist Democrats. The left does have a stranglehold on the coasts and the major industrial centers of the country. The South and Middle America? That's Republican territory.

I agree with the sentiment, though. The judge of what is liberal is being shifted to the center, while the judge of what is conservative is being hefted right of Republican. It's frustrating to see the two-party system devolve into "Far Right and Right," though before Reagan it was simply "Centrist and Centrist."

Extremist Democrats? Republicans have moved even further to the far right, but that does not make Dems on the other side extremists. The Dems have not changed their political positions to move further left. In fact, the Dems have become more conservative. The far right extremism is not going to end well for the Republicans when you consider the opinion polls on the Tea Party. But that is what happens when you try to co-opt an extremist group. Historical patterns demonstrate that big gains by one party are usually followed by big losses in the next election, particularly in the House. The TP thinks they are going to get even more seats in the House. They are deluding themselves when they think they represent the majority of people in the country.

I agree. The Dems are certainly not an extreme left organization. I was just showing what the Republicans could be thinking.

Definitely agree on the Tea Party. The only successful way for an extreme party to break in and take over is if they force the majority parties to require their support (as they did), and then have the organization to get their way and increase their hold on the government and its powers. They have neither the leadership or the organization to accomplish that second part, and this will become yet another angry push that dissolves along the next election cycle.

"This just goes to show that some politicians are whores"....lately,pretty much all politicians are whores..imho

That's the system. They're whores for votes and supporter's money. Obama received (and is receiving) huge amounts of donations because he's telling his clients (the liberal constituency) "it's okay, baby, I'll do better this time. I just need a little up front to get in the mood." That's what all politicians do. You want an idealist who sticks to his guns and doesn't fear the people? You're looking at a far less representative system.

Politicians = whores as

Lobyists = pimps and

Public = johns who are getting screwed

Just like with prostitution, a good number of those johns would rather have not spent the money, but most of them shrug it off and take the work they payed for.

@MsT

Wall Street is the johns who are getting laid

The Public is the spouse sitting at home wondering where the money went and why dinner is getting cold.

LMAO !! Exactly . . . perfect analogy rubysecret !

Exactly . . . and when you tell them . . . if you don't believe in abortion then just don't have one . . . they don't seem to get it . . .

Because there is a difference between messaging and what a person's actual political stance is. There are two types of policies that can be made (broadly speaking, anyways) domestically: economic policy and social policy. Now certainly there will be criss-crosses between the two (such as if you allow gays to wed that will effect the economy), but they are divided based on the overall intention (as opposed to the side effect(s)) of a policy. Conservatives are individuals who believe that the government should be limited when it applies to economic policies. Conservatives do not believe in limited government when it comes to social policies. Liberals are the opposite- limited government when it comes to social policies, more expanded government when it comes to economic policies. A conservative would argue that if you control people's behavior(s) they will in turn act in ways that are beneficial to society and that will take care of things like pollution, corporate greed, homelessness, income inequality, etc. It's sort've the "if everyone were a Christian then the world would be better" argument. Liberals on the other hand argue that personal behavior should only be regulated when one individual's actions will directly impact another individual's actions (such as w/ the case of murder), but that if one person's actions will not directly affect another person then there should be no regulation. The main focus of government- a liberal would argue- is to focus on economics. If you control for things like income distribution personal behavior will improve. When conservatives say they are for small government they only mean government that doesn't interfere w/ (or at least is limited in it's interference w/) the economy. It's completely logical- given the conservative position- for those on the right to support government intervention in pregnancies. Practical? No. Moral? Hardly. But logical? Yes, unfortunately.

Mouzer, that's a truly great comment. I'm not sure how many people will wade through it, though, given the lack of paragraphs.

Not silly at all.

I agree. Not silly at all. The state would not only be imprisoning an innocent person (which probably happens all the time in Mississippi). They would be imprisoning a person whom they had never even tried!

It's about time to speak out against the radicals who are ruining the name of Christianity. Jesus weeps!

Finally, one small voice of respectful sanity comes out of Mississippi. Thank you.

Thank you, Reverend Gray!

Absolutely hilarious . . . and probably 100% effective Katt !!

Women ceasing sexual acts in order to change politics prevented genocide in Africa. All it takes is organization and it is entirely possible.

I totally think they should! I'm not in Mississippi, but I'd be willing to help organize something. Women are not powerless in this country!

Exactly Katt . . . Power Is Where Power Is Perceived !

Personally, I think every woman should stop having sex with their husbands/boyfriends in Mississippi for fear of unwanted pregnancy.

Have you looked at the legal status of partner rape in MS?

Regardless of what's on the books, it's legal if it's not prosecuted.

Not this again.

what not again?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8427518-and-sometimes-the-gentleman-drops-off-his-hat?commentId=59195079#c59193963

Well this is what I don't understand. If you overrule Roe vs. Wade you overrule the current ban on government making medical health decisions for you and your family. Weren't these exact same people freaking the hell out about the idea of "death panels" just a little while ago?! Do they not realize that Roe vs. Wade is what makes "death panels" an impossibility?! Not to mention that most of these people are also the same ones who go on and on about government conspiracies and UN helicopters coming to take them away. Do they not realize that Roe vs. Wade was argued based on another SCOTUS decision that established the right to privacy?

...continuing my thought, it saved before I was done. If you remove Roe vs. Wade the only way to do it is to go back and change Griswold v Connecticut which would fundamentally change our rights of privacy and medical privacy in this country. So I don't get it. We're for government taking away the right to privacy and the right to medical privacy, but we're against death panels?

I wonder why we don't hear more coverage about the conflict between HIPAA and all this talk of pregnancy monitoring. I don't think legislators should be able to mandate violation of HIPAA rules protecting patient privacy.

What's next? Publishing pregnancies in the newspaper? Marking pregnant women with a big red "P"?