simply dead wrong. first of all the senate is and always has been a part of the legislative branch. and you say i need a history lesson? i wouldn't induldge in your personal innuendo but i will say that article three giving judicial power to the courts was in the unamended constitution as agreed to by the founders.

all three branches are never involved in passing laws. that's the sole domain of the legislative branch. yes the president has the veto but that can be overruled again by congress. and of course the courts have the power to rule on the constitutional merits of such laws when challenged.

marbury v madison being the first subject in every ameirican law school i'm well aware of it's implications, none of which gave the court any more power than it already had. if anybody was the power monger it was then president thomas jefferson. at any rate, had marbury not happened as it did, there would be no judicial oversight today.



i never suggested that roe was good law. i simply pointed out that not everybody agrees on what is good application of law and what is legislating from the bench. you just illustrated my point.

Here in CA, I hope someone knows the number, you get so many kids with aid and then that's it. You don't get to be the mother to ten million kids and get money for all of them. I think the cut off is like 4 or 5 and then the money stops and you only get Medi-cal. As for housing, it's not so great. They do have rent controlled apartments but they are very small and often in the heat here, A/C is not included. I think they make you keep 3 kids per bedroom. There is often only one bath. And they are very slow to do repairs. EBT (food stamps by debit card) is NOT a lot of money. These people are often at the dollar stores because they do not get enough money to fed their families otherwise. These children often live on cookies and crackers because it's the biggest bang for the buck. And you have to be EXTREMELY poor to qualify. The income level has not changed since the 70s I believe it is. These people are not having wonderful lives. Food banks here are ridiculously short on food. Stores often opt to throw it away. Trader Joes and Vons do donate at some. I am not on these programs. I just live in reality and know people who are. SSI is very hard to get. Medicare very hard to get. Often Medi-cal doesn't even want to pay for tubals for women who want them. We have planned parenthood down the street from me. Every Wed. is abortion day. We have volunteers who help people cross picket lines. Many of these women are just picking up B/C and are still screamed at and harassed. My vet shares a driveway. My cat was named Mr. Baby. They screamed at me not abort my baby, I held up the cat's carrier and said "He is Baby". Many of the people who help cross are actually retired military in my area. We used to have a big billboard across the street for a Catholic home for unwed mothers who you could call an 800 number and they would do anything you needed to carry a child to term including place it but people got offended and it was taken down though it said nothing rude. It just said, "Pregnant? Scared? We can help". which is much better than the horrible photos the protesters hold up which is across the street from a school bus stop. Also many of these women are alone. Their husbands come around long enough to get them pregnant and bail. They are not out having sex with everyone. Many avoid men like the plague after a couple kids and living like this. The fortunate have families that may help. It is even hard to get a child into a Head Start pre-school. I do not bring any of this up for political reasons but I just want people to know what the reality is here. People hear that we spend X number of dollars on this and that and don't realize how these people live. We do not even have very good buses in my area. Some people get their children taken away because they have no way to get them to school.

Would you be able to live on one minimum wage job alone? Pay all your bills/rent/utilities/car/whatever? Would you be able to live on a job paying $3.63/hour?

Are you actually going to defend nearly 50% black unemployment so that white and Asian teenagers can make more money?

Well, yes and no to both of you. Forced sterilization would be taking things a little toooo far, but I don't think making it mandatory to be put on "The Pill" (one for guys is supposed to be in the near future) or injections is out of the question and easy enough to make sure they're being taken during random drug checks. Then just in case somebody dodged the bullet with a check and DID get/or got somebody pregnant their assistance would be stopped. Sure, the pill isn't 100% fail safe, but that's just a little kink to work out. Hey, it's not like our legal system is completely perfect either. Before somebody brings up whether or not the government should have enough control over somebody's body like that, think about this. Are our soldiers not government property and to be done with as they see fit? Why should it be any different for people who are being supported by the government?

That doesn't answer the question I asked. I asked you if you would be able to live on minimum wage or below.

I thought Republicans were all about less government? This seems like you want government to step in even more.

I said I was REGISTERED Republican (that's a whole different story). It doesn't mean that I support all their thoughts. Personally, I think the system might be better if everybody was independent.

Yes, absolutely. Very well in fact. I wouldn't be able to eat lobster and steak every day, but it wouldn't cramp my style too much.

You can report people all day long. It doesn't mean that anything would be done. There just isn't enough manpower(funding) to properly investigate everybody. Considering that a LARGE percentage of the people really shouldn't be getting assistance, maybe eventually they'll figure out that if they cut those people off, MUCH more money would be saved and would easily make up for the cost of investigating them. Sorta like the people who have a leaking gas tank in their car, but would rather keep putting gas in than to fix the problem. Leaking gas every day =$10. New gas tank =$300. In one month they pizz away enough money to fix the problem for good. After 2 months- coulda had it fixed and saved $300. After 3 months.... 4 months.... and so on. Get the idea?

Granted, I own my house, bike, cars, etc. free and clear, but I could survive on minimum wage. Two people making minimum wage and do have to pay rent, etc I think could also survive together. Sure, they won't be living like a king, but they could support themselves.

On second thought, you guys aren't good with sarcasm.

singmesweet, I could not and I doubt many people could. But you are missing the important issue here. 95k people live on the minimum wage full time, so it would be reasonable to assume that the minimum wage helps them. How many people are negatively effected by the minimum wage? We have no way of knowing, but nearly 50% teenage black unemployment and nearly as high unemployment for Hispanics indicates that the minimum wage hurts more people than it helps. Add in the fact that if a teenager who cannot make money at a job is more likely to do drugs, have sex, join gangs or break the law, there is a societal good to be found in people working. And those hypothetical black teenagers I mentioned earlier wouldn't be getting 3.63 / hour, they would be getting 3.63 / hour + job skills to get better paying jobs. If they applied themselves, within six months, they would be able to move on to a better job for more pay. It's beneficial to both the teenagers and to society as a whole for those kids to be able to work for 3.63 / hour.

Minimum wage isn't a way to guarantee a "living wage". A reverse income tax would. A reverse income tax would ensure that every family made a minimum level of income and their current income would be supplemented by monthly checks if they did not. I don't want anyone to starve or to be unable to afford to care for their families, I just see more harm than good in the minimum wage laws.

@Spidercmb (I know it's a bit late to reply)

What I meant earlier was that if a woman has a genetic disease and winds up pregnant through whatever means, it increases the risk that their children will inherit the faulty gene and be either carriers or those affected by it. In the long run, if those women were banned from aborting, we would be increasing the likelihood of children born with genetic diseases and therefore reliant on government aid.

The kinds of diseases (genetic) I am talking about are those like

Muscular Dystrophies of the various types,
Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1
Spinal Bulbar Muscular Atrophy
Paramyotonia Congenita
Central Core Disease
Nemaline Myopathy
Etc..

@Msharmony, I know we already went over this, I'm just clarifying.

How many of these diseases would make the parents and children unable to work? How common are the diseases? Regardless, I'm not for mandatory birth control, I oppose abortion and I think that our society should provide a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

@Spidercmb

Commonness of genetic diseases can vary with each grouping, for example...In the muscular dystrophy grouping Myotonic affects about 30,000 people and Duchenne's Muscular affects about 8,000 while there are types of dystrophy that are so rare they only affect less than 800 people.

The severity of these diseases can range to such acute symptoms that they can't leave the hospital to mild retardation, muscle weakness, or atypical motor skills.

Still, genetic diseases affect millions worldwide, altogether, if you put them altogether it's not uncommon.

i have tons of problems with this line of thinking. first off, it sounds like something right out of hitler's "mein kampf". laws to keep the races pure? then there's the question of who decides which "diseased women" can have babies and who cannot. but the most glaring aspect of this post comes in the idea that a woman would choose to abort a pregnacy that happened "through whatever means". other than artificial insemination i know of only one other means to get pregnent and it has nothing to do with dirty public toilet seats. i here often heard conservative religious types saying that abortion should be illegal 'except in cases of rape and incest.' to those i ask' is a human fetus caused by rape or incest any less a human fetus than that conceived by an unwed teen or an extramarital affair?

i think the court got roe v wade right. a woman does have an equal right to due process as a man in this country. but at the same time i adhore the thought of a woman choosing abortion for ANY reason other than her own health. just because the government says you can have a choice doesn't mean there's not a wrong choice and in my mind depriving a fetus of life for any reason than risk to the woman is a wrong choice. still, a choice that the government should stay out of.

@Jrbogie

Once again, I'll throw it out there that I'm just trying to understand the aspects of this issue. No one on here actually knows my own stance on the subject as I have not posted it.
If you wish to call me a Nazi, at least take a minute to gain an idea of my actual opinion instead of what you assume from what is a learning experience for me.

Reproduction is a personal freedom...It should not be decided by government or clergy...If a woman wants to reproduce, she will and, I guarantee you, if she doesn't she will find a way to end the pregnancy....Laws won't change this fact...
If society forces a woman to reproduce, then society is obligated to support the child...Opponents of abortion must be willing to put their money where their mouth is...
Whose choice, the mother's or governments? The mother's or religious leaders? ...
Want to reduce abortions?...A good place to start would be to reform adoption laws....Many who want to adopt can't because of too many government regs...Should race be a barrier to adoption?...Should same sex couples have to jump through more hoops? Why can't kids be raised successfully in single parent homes?...Non traditional couples make great parents too...Pro choice all the way....

abortion and adoption arent quite the same issue though

reducing abortions starts with changing the way we teach and view the seriousness of the choice to have sex with other people,,,,

but, that is probably not gonna happen because actually MAKING the baby is not anything anyone wants to be restricted from, its just the potential consequences they want taken care of by others,,,