My main argument about abortion is that I have a hard time understanding how the right to have an abortion was found in the constitution. If Roe vs Wade is overturned and individual states decide to allow abortion I will not argue with their call. Although I personally would never vote to legalize abortion I will abide by the laws of the state ( and country ) that I live in.If in fact congress had passed the law then I wouldn't have any argument with it-hell, there are a lot of laws passed by congress that I don't like nor agree with. But Roe vs Wade was not a law passed by elected representives-it is a law imposed by an activist court who sided with pro abortion forces who could not get the laws in their states changed any other way.

I also disagree with the "finding" of the right in the Constitution. I also think it is a State's issue and should be decided there. However, I'm also resigned to accepting the decisions of our government as valid and the law until such decisions are overturned or superceded with new law.

We live in a grand experiment on the government of mankind and I think our experiment is the most successful yet. Are we perfect? Certainly not, but we're getting there if you compare to previous experiments.

For the record, I'm pro-choice in the first trimester, after that it begins to get fuzzy. However, I find abortion abhorrent although a somewhat necessary evil. I strongly support birth control and really wish there was a sort of a mandatory "reverseable vaccine" for either males or females in terms of birth control, but I guess we'll have to wait on science for that.

If the new court throws abortion back to the States, I think that would be a positive move. If the Congress wants to take it up (as they should) and legislate it there, then I would be even happier, but "finding rights" is something I'm quite uncomfortable with.

These are fine lines I know, but it's a VERY complicated issue and really when you come right down to it, we're altering the balance of nature with birth control, abortion etc. Rightly so, it should be complicated and well thought out, these reckless tirades through the courts to legislate from the bench on such a complex matter is definately the wrong wrong wrong course.

Clean the slate, have the debate, investigate the options, then move forward with new legislation that settles the issue with the consent and participation of the citizenry. That seems to be the most logical and fair approach. Unfortunately most politicials don't have the guts to do this right and duck and weave until the issue makes it into the courts where there is little political price to be paid.

IF THIS WERE TRUELY as important an issue to the proponents that they suggest, they should be able to bring the logic of their argument to the people and reach an acceptable law on the subject. More it's become just a political sledgehammer that's wielded by the fringes and serves only to eliminate common sense candidates from the middle who get crushed whenever they try to find the middle ground the people want and that the nations leaders need to discover.

--Jason

***Well, all those pre-pregnancy services you mention weren't the issue were they.***

Funny, 'cause I could've sworn that you wrote this:

***On a totally side note, why is it that "Planned Parenthood's" only "plan" is abortion? Why does "Planned Parenthood" violently dismiss any discussion of adoption in their "clinics". ***

in your previous post. Which was the specific point to which I was responding. You stated that Planned Parenthood's only "plan" was abortion. This is an incorrect statement and tells me you don't know much about the organization in question. I was correcting your misunderstanding.

***The commenter claims that Planned Parenthood presents abortion as an "option", well, I'm sorry commenter, but in order to present an "option" you have to have more than one. Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths and spent millions to fight any attempt to bring the "option" of adoption into their clinics. Planned Parenthood does not present the "option" of adoption to those that visit their clinics, do they?***

Actually, they do. Again, I understand that as someone who has never had need of their services, you wouldn't know this. Again, I see the need to clear your confusion. PP counselors offer a number of options. They have fought, and will continue to fight, the misinformation that state legislatures keep demanding they hand out to women (e.g. abortions lead to higher rates of cancer, fetal pain, etc). They also fight laws that state they must present any particular option (such as adoption) preferentially, because it opens them to lawsuits when the same people who push through the law then sue for PP's not following it to their satisfaction.

***Well, commenter, the "spousal notification" requirement in question, specifically allows exemption for a woman who fears abuse arising from said "notification". ***

And this is lovely. Except that it opens another problem for the woman: how does she have to go about filing the legal document (because when we have laws, we need paperwork somewhere to circumvent them) to say she's afraid? How many more people does she have to involve in what is her personal decision? A county clerk? A judge? Or as some people have said, should she just lie and say she told him, since there is no documentation needed to prove she did under the terms of this law? How is it the business of the clerk or the judge (does she have to pay legal fees?) to know about her medical procedure? What right does the state have to force her to lie? And on a related note, why is the state being forced to play marriage counselor? Again, any couple in a good relationship (and many in bad ones) will already have discussed the matter.

***Guess what, I was right, the pro-abortion talking heads that are making the rounds in the newsmedia are doing just that, conveniently leaving out that in cases of spousal abuse or fear of such abuse the requirment no longer exists. They, and you, are mischaracterizing the law in question and leaving out those exemptions that are there. They, and you, do this to pretend that there's a risk that is not specifically accounted for. It's dishonest, and only serves to cloud the issue for some groups you mention later.***

Again, I ask you: how many extra hoops does the woman have to jump through because of this? And does the state have an equivalent law stating men must receive spousal approval before vasectomies?

***My contention delt with the "responsibility" of the man to pay child support, but the man has no place in the decision.***

Hm. He had sex. Since the "women who rape men" statistic is so low as to be off the charts, I'm going to have to say he made a decision.

***You're fine with the "repsonsibility" of paying child support for a child who isn't his, you're fine with requiring child support for a sperm donor to a lesbian couple,***

Actually, I'm not. Interesting words you're putting into my mouth, though. In neither of those cases did the man have the sex that resulted in the child. (And in sperm donor cases, there are releases all parties sign to prevent that, so please, drop the fake outrage. It makes you look silly.)

***but when it comes to merely NOTIFYING a man that his child is to be aborted you rankle? ***

He's not pregnant. He's not going to be pregnant. He can't get pregnant. He doesn't get a say. It's the one time biology favors us. Suck it up and deal. Again, if he's a good man and not an abusive bastard (or just absent from the scene entirely) she's already told him. You're supporting a law whose basic assumption is that this is not the case. It legalizes the stereotype that women lie and men never do. ("Of course I don't beat her, Officer.") The implications are disgusting, and I'm sorry you refuse to see them.

I'm also very disturbed by your continued use of child support as the counterexample. Child support isn't paid to women. No, I'm serious. Child support is paid by the non-custodial parent for the express purpose of supporting the child. When my father had custody of me, my mother paid child support. When my grandparents had custody, both parents paid child support.

Child support is *gasp* supporting children. It's not some "get out of jail free" card that women automatically receive in divorces (or situations where there was no marriage but children were produced). And what you seem to not understand at all is that the custodial parent is also paying. The custodial parent, father or mother, is working, paying for rent or mortgage, buying food, paying bills, buying clothing and shoes, and so on. The custodial parents always end up footing more of the bill for child care, regardless of how much the non-custodial parent sends in a check (if the non-custodial parent bothers). Child care is hard and it's expensive, and both parties need to contribute or the children will be the ones who suffer.

Frankly, having sex, knocking up a woman, and ditching her scott-free without paying to support the offspring? That's your having-the-cake-and-eating it metaphor. I realize you probably don't see it that way, but all this tells me is that you've never been prinmary caregiver for your children.

***The goal is equality in relations between man and woman. . . correct? Cake? Eat? You gotta make a choice. ***

Keep in mind we're coming from unequal positions. I make less, I have much smaller representation at every level of government, and the people who make the laws tell me I'm not responsible enough to make my own decisions. I've got a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted and my biggest risk of death during a pregnancy is from homicide (in most cases from the father of my child). We're not equals. Laws like spousal notification make us even less equal. Surely you're bright enough to see that.

***There are significant costs to bringing in replacement workers over and above the salary, there are exponential training and productivity costs as well. ***

Which is why many places don't being in replacements and make do with what they've got. Plus, since the leave is unpaid, they've got money to spend.

The government is responsible for maintaining the well-being of the populace, not the well-being of corporations. (Not that you could tell it from the current Administration.) Medical leave can affect every single worker in the country, but with maternity leave being a large part of the scope, it preferentially affects female workers. It used to be routine for employers to fire pregnant employees, which meant that women were preferentially penalized for becoming parents (rare is the case where a man has been fired for getting someone pregnant, unless it was the boss's daughter). Hey look, there's that cake you're eating again. Built-in inequality in the system. FMLA was written to address that and level the playing field. Additionally, workers are no longer penalized for catastrophic injuries.

You can talk about free-market economy tactics until you turn blue. The government isn't here to babysit your company. Free-market economics dictate that companies that can't compete in the post-FMLA world don't deserve to be in business. And I'm speaking as someone who owns a small business. (No, I'm not giving you own website, 'cause frankly you're a jerk and we don't want your money.)

***Alito thinks the State has the right to create laws through their legislative process.***

Alito believes laws that turn women into chattel are constitutionally sound. If he doesn't think it's his job to protect the citizens of his state against laws like that, he's not a good person to have deciding the law of the land.

***Alito recognizes that not all companies are (in fact most aren't) mutli billion dollar employers and recognizes that employee benefit packages are something to be determined by the free market. ***

FMLA isn't part of a benefits package. It's a basic worker's right. Neither he nor you can tell the difference. That also makes the both of you bad choices for the SCOTUS.

***You are "hearing" what you want to be predisposed to hear obviously. You're not being honest with yourself and you're propagating such dishonesty by saying it out loud. Please commenter, examine the issues in their totality, unless you yourself want to be among your so-called "stupid people."***

I have examined the issues, apparently with much more detail than you have. Please stop giving lip service to anything that continues your own happy little bubble of protected status and start using your brain. 'Cause really, you're screwing the rest of us over when you don't.

----------------------------------
Well, since you used little stars I'll just use brackets, [[[Like this and some lines around it. MT 3.2 disables HTML in comments.]]]
----------------------------------

***Well, all those pre-pregnancy services you mention weren't the issue were they.***

Funny, 'cause I could've sworn that you wrote this:

***On a totally side note, why is it that "Planned Parenthood's" only "plan" is abortion? Why does "Planned Parenthood" violently dismiss any discussion of adoption in their "clinics". ***

in your previous post. Which was the specific point to which I was responding. You stated that Planned Parenthood's only "plan" was abortion. This is an incorrect statement and tells me you don't know much about the organization in question. I was correcting your misunderstanding.

-----------------------------
[[[[Well, could you please tell us all what other "OPTIONS" are being presented along with abortion for pregnancies??? You see, there's all that pre-pregnancy stuff, but where's the "OPTION" to counter abortion offered by planned parenthood once a pregnancy has begun. If you want to compare apples, compare apples, don't compare apples to oranges.]]]]
-----------------------------

***The commenter claims that Planned Parenthood presents abortion as an "option", well, I'm sorry commenter, but in order to present an "option" you have to have more than one. Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths and spent millions to fight any attempt to bring the "option" of adoption into their clinics. Planned Parenthood does not present the "option" of adoption to those that visit their clinics, do they?***

Actually, they do. Again, I understand that as someone who has never had need of their services, you wouldn't know this. Again, I see the need to clear your confusion. PP counselors offer a number of options. They have fought, and will continue to fight, the misinformation that state legislatures keep demanding they hand out to women (e.g. abortions lead to higher rates of cancer, fetal pain, etc). They also fight laws that state they must present any particular option (such as adoption) preferentially, because it opens them to lawsuits when the same people who push through the law then sue for PP's not following it to their satisfaction.

--------------------------------
[[[[Again, please tell us of the other "OPTION" to abortion that Planned Parenthood offers. Please, tell us, don't talk about pre-pregnancy counseling, don't talk about cancer, talk about what other "OPTION" Planned Parenthood offers? There is one, it's called ADOPTION, and Planned Parenthood doesn't mention it, do they, in fact, they fight to keep the adoption "OPTION" completely out of their clinics, don't they.]]]]
-------------------------------

***Well, commenter, the "spousal notification" requirement in question, specifically allows exemption for a woman who fears abuse arising from said "notification". ***

And this is lovely. Except that it opens another problem for the woman: how does she have to go about filing the legal document (because when we have laws, we need paperwork somewhere to circumvent them) to say she's afraid? How many more people does she have to involve in what is her personal decision? A county clerk? A judge? Or as some people have said, should she just lie and say she told him, since there is no documentation needed to prove she did under the terms of this law? How is it the business of the clerk or the judge (does she have to pay legal fees?) to know about her medical procedure? What right does the state have to force her to lie? And on a related note, why is the state being forced to play marriage counselor? Again, any couple in a good relationship (and many in bad ones) will already have discussed the matter.

-------------------------------
[[[[ I believe this paperwork is kept at the clinic itself, where it's signed with a witness. That's my understanding of it, but I could be wrong. As for the state playing marriage counselor, um, excuse me, the state has been playing marriage counselor ever since they started issuing marriage liscenses, allowing joint tax returns, allowing co-mingling of funds, joint mortgages and all the other spousal benefits. But you still miss the point, commenter, it's the LEGISLATURE doing this, not the courts, the LEGISLATURE makes the laws, and the courts determine their constitutionality, the STATE can certainly require the signature of both parties in many, many, many medical decisions. You seem to want the Judiciary to make law, that's not their job. If you're so confident in the validity of your view of the law, use your legislative process to get your point of view across. Don't play the Judiciary against the people, that's not how it's supposed to work according to the Constitution of the United States. ]]]]
---------------------------------

***Guess what, I was right, the pro-abortion talking heads that are making the rounds in the newsmedia are doing just that, conveniently leaving out that in cases of spousal abuse or fear of such abuse the requirment no longer exists. They, and you, are mischaracterizing the law in question and leaving out those exemptions that are there. They, and you, do this to pretend that there's a risk that is not specifically accounted for. It's dishonest, and only serves to cloud the issue for some groups you mention later.***

Again, I ask you: how many extra hoops does the woman have to jump through because of this? And does the state have an equivalent law stating men must receive spousal approval before vasectomies?

-------------------------------
[[[[ Well, if the Legislature required such notification, I'd certainly support it, but again you're comparing apples to oranges here aren't you, pre-pregnancy issues (birth control) versus post pregnancy "options".

I don't know how many "hoops" someone needs to go through. "Hoops" are a fact of life, and that matter should be up to the people through their Legislature. ]]]]
-------------------------------

***My contention delt with the "responsibility" of the man to pay child support, but the man has no place in the decision.***

Hm. He had sex. Since the "women who rape men" statistic is so low as to be off the charts, I'm going to have to say he made a decision.

-------------------------
[[[[ Right, he did make a descision, and he should continue to make decisions with regard to each change in his "responsibility". Sex does not always lead to pregnancy and pregnancy does not always lead to abortion. If the responsibility changes, then the "decisions" should also carry forward. Remember, we're talking only about a spousal relationship here, there's a committment to a couple making decisions, so lets carry those decisions through all the way. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, right??? ]]]]
-------------------------

***You're fine with the "repsonsibility" of paying child support for a child who isn't his, you're fine with requiring child support for a sperm donor to a lesbian couple,***

Actually, I'm not. Interesting words you're putting into my mouth, though. In neither of those cases did the man have the sex that resulted in the child. (And in sperm donor cases, there are releases all parties sign to prevent that, so please, drop the fake outrage. It makes you look silly.)

-------------------------
[[[[ Actually, you are saying just that. When you say he made a decision regarding having sex, and then you say he has no decisions to make further that affect his responsibility, you're saying just that. Your saying that the man only gets one decision, yet the woman gets many. My contention is that if there are decisions to be made that affect the responsibilities of both parties involved, then both parties should make the decision. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. ]]]]
-------------------------

***but when it comes to merely NOTIFYING a man that his child is to be aborted you rankle? ***

He's not pregnant. He's not going to be pregnant. He can't get pregnant. He doesn't get a say. It's the one time biology favors us. Suck it up and deal. Again, if he's a good man and not an abusive bastard (or just absent from the scene entirely) she's already told him. You're supporting a law whose basic assumption is that this is not the case. It legalizes the stereotype that women lie and men never do. ("Of course I don't beat her, Officer.") The implications are disgusting, and I'm sorry you refuse to see them.

I'm also very disturbed by your continued use of child support as the counterexample. Child support isn't paid to women. No, I'm serious. Child support is paid by the non-custodial parent for the express purpose of supporting the child. When my father had custody of me, my mother paid child support. When my grandparents had custody, both parents paid child support.

Child support is *gasp* supporting children. It's not some "get out of jail free" card that women automatically receive in divorces (or situations where there was no marriage but children were produced). And what you seem to not understand at all is that the custodial parent is also paying. The custodial parent, father or mother, is working, paying for rent or mortgage, buying food, paying bills, buying clothing and shoes, and so on. The custodial parents always end up footing more of the bill for child care, regardless of how much the non-custodial parent sends in a check (if the non-custodial parent bothers). Child care is hard and it's expensive, and both parties need to contribute or the children will be the ones who suffer.

Frankly, having sex, knocking up a woman, and ditching her scott-free without paying to support the offspring? That's your having-the-cake-and-eating it metaphor. I realize you probably don't see it that way, but all this tells me is that you've never been prinmary caregiver for your children.

---------------------------
[[[[ Well, in the "ditching her scot-free" scenario, there's a provision for that. If the husband splits, there's no need to notify. I use the child support example because it speaks directly to "decisions" and "responsibilities". You seem to keep drifting away from the fact that this law was a requirement only in "spousal" scenarios. You also seem to keep dropping the exceptions to the law when they don't suit what you want to argue.

So my contention is that in a spousal relationship where "responsibilities" are shared so should be the decisions to accept or reject such responsibilites by BOTH parties to the decision and subsequent responsibility.

Remember, this was a Legislated Law, therefore it came from the duly recognized representatives of the people, you seem to think it's a minority viewpoint when it obviously wasn't, yet you favor the minority in this scenario and promote judicial activism to make new law. ]]]]
-----------------------------

***The goal is equality in relations between man and woman. . . correct? Cake? Eat? You gotta make a choice. ***

Keep in mind we're coming from unequal positions. I make less, I have much smaller representation at every level of government, and the people who make the laws tell me I'm not responsible enough to make my own decisions. I've got a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted and my biggest risk of death during a pregnancy is from homicide (in most cases from the father of my child). We're not equals. Laws like spousal notification make us even less equal. Surely you're bright enough to see that.

----------------------------
[[[[ Oh so you see this as some sort of affirmative action??? That's just bunk, because simply put, the married couple, husband and wife IS the MAJORITY represented by government, the husband and wife family unit generally makes more than a single male or single female. If this particular Law addressed a single woman's necessity to inform the FATHER, then I'd be on your side. BUT IT ISN'T and you keep forgetting that, don't you. We're dealing with a husband and wife UNIT, a spousal relationship, where responsibilities are legally shared by both parties and both parties receive specific privileges for entering into a husband and wife spousal relationship. So your "affirmative action" approach doesn't fly, because we're not talking about a "single woman", underrepresented and underpaid when compared to a "single man" we're talking about a spousal relationship.

I know your argument tends to break down unless you leave out the particulars of the law, but the particulars are there, and they cannot be ignored.

WE ARE NOT talking about an "inseminate and leave" scenario.

NOR ARE WE talking about a "single woman" scenario.

Keep on target here and address the law, not some fantasy interpretation of what you think the law is. ]]]]
------------------------------

***There are significant costs to bringing in replacement workers over and above the salary, there are exponential training and productivity costs as well. ***

Which is why many places don't being in replacements and make do with what they've got. Plus, since the leave is unpaid, they've got money to spend.

--------------------------
[[[[ When productivity goes down, money is lost. Sometimes the money lost is less than what would be spent on replacement workers. Your point doesn't address the issue, it tries to sidestep it. ]]]]
--------------------------

The government is responsible for maintaining the well-being of the populace, not the well-being of corporations. (Not that you could tell it from the current Administration.) Medical leave can affect every single worker in the country, but with maternity leave being a large part of the scope, it preferentially affects female workers. It used to be routine for employers to fire pregnant employees, which meant that women were preferentially penalized for becoming parents (rare is the case where a man has been fired for getting someone pregnant, unless it was the boss's daughter). Hey look, there's that cake you're eating again. Built-in inequality in the system. FMLA was written to address that and level the playing field. Additionally, workers are no longer penalized for catastrophic injuries.

You can talk about free-market economy tactics until you turn blue. The government isn't here to babysit your company. Free-market economics dictate that companies that can't compete in the post-FMLA world don't deserve to be in business. And I'm speaking as someone who owns a small business. (No, I'm not giving you own website, 'cause frankly you're a jerk and we don't want your money.)(I've got my own, thanks tho')

---------------------------------
[[[[ Yes I can talk about the free market, because that's the market we're supposed to be living in. There's a difference between "babysitting" and "telling you how to raise your baby". FMLA is trying to tell private employers how to run their business.

Oh but wait, so now when a woman chooses to get pregnant and remain pregnant, it's the right of the State to tell the employer that they have to lose money or suffer in terms of productivity because she made a choice?? Is this more of your affirmative action?

So it's all about when a woman wants what she wants (or doesn't want) everyone else has to accept her decision regardless of the impact on those affected. Employers MUST accomodate a woman who chooses to get pregnant? Where's the "choice" for employers? Oh that's right, "CHOICES" only get to be made by women, I see.

I guess "pro-choice" should be changed to "no choices to anyone except women" right??? ]]]]
---------------------------

***Alito thinks the State has the right to create laws through their legislative process.***

Alito believes laws that turn women into chattel are constitutionally sound. If he doesn't think it's his job to protect the citizens of his state against laws like that, he's not a good person to have deciding the law of the land.

----------------------------
[[[[ Obviously you've never read the Constitution, have you. The Legislature makes law, and Judges affirm their constitutionality or declare it unconstitutional. Alito didn't make the law, he upheld the right of the people to make the law. As for the chattel comment, it comes down to "spousal relationships" and "spousal responsibilities" within said relationship. The woman gets many choices, but the man gets one in your argument, in my argument, and Alito's the man and woman are co-equal in terms of the decisions affecting responsibilities in the spousal relationship. If you don't like spousal responsibilities, then don't get married, that would seem to make sense now wouldn't it. But if the state is going to grant benefits to marriage, then the state can make decisions and responsibilities affecting the relationship applicable to BOTH parties.

Your chattle argument holds up better when used against you than it does trying to hold it against Alito. The State, and Alito, decided that the responsibilities and decisions rested with BOTH parties, you suggest it rests merely with the woman, while I assert that the decision and responsibility is for BOTH SPOUSES, you seem to only give the woman the power to make decisions and accept or reject responsibility. You're putting the man in the position of chattel, by denying him decisions and forcing responsibility or rejection of responsibility. Your position puts the man in a subservient position to the woman, the Law and Alito, put both spouses on the hook for decisions. Far from declaring one chattel (as you actually are wanting to do) the State and Alito affirm that BOTH are party to the decision and the responsibilities. The State is taking the greater equality position, you're taking the superior/inferior position. Very Ironic, but I guess that's more of your affirmative action, right? ]]]]
-------------------------------

***Alito recognizes that not all companies are (in fact most aren't) mutli billion dollar employers and recognizes that employee benefit packages are something to be determined by the free market. ***

FMLA isn't part of a benefits package. It's a basic worker's right. Neither he nor you can tell the difference. That also makes the both of you bad choices for the SCOTUS.

------------------------------
[[[[ Basic Workers Right??? Where the hell is that "right" in the Constitution? Oh, I see, you're espousing the leftist position that "everything I want is a RIGHT". No commenter, there are benefits, and there are RIGHTS. RIGHTS aren't something to be handed out so freely and easily as you like, RIGHTS are BIG THINGS, just because you say something is a RIGHT doesn't make it so, RIGHTS in this nation come from our Constitution, and I see no explanation or deliniation of "Worker's Rights" in the US Constitution. FMLA is a "benefit", if it were a "RIGHT" it would apply to small businesses, all government, part-time work, and generally all work of any type. I know you love the way "Basic Worker's Right" sounds, but it's quite simply not, it's a "benefit" (of working for an employer that government feels it can take advantage of) not a "RIGHT". You don't get RIGHTS because you invent them on the fly, RIGHTS are BIG BIG things that arise from the U.S. Constitution, not subjective legislation applying to subsets of the population. RIGHTS apply to ALL, the FMLA has NOTHING to do with RIGHTS, merely benefits. ]]]]
---------------------------------

***You are "hearing" what you want to be predisposed to hear obviously. You're not being honest with yourself and you're propagating such dishonesty by saying it out loud. Please commenter, examine the issues in their totality, unless you yourself want to be among your so-called "stupid people."***

I have examined the issues, apparently with much more detail than you have. Please stop giving lip service to anything that continues your own happy little bubble of protected status and start using your brain. 'Cause really, you're screwing the rest of us over when you don't.

----------------------------
[[[[ You've examined them?? Gee, I'd have thought that your dismissal of the "spouse" part of the abortion debate was because you didn't know about it, but since you've examined it, when you denied the "spouse" part of it you were intentionally leaving it out. I guess you also "examined" the "fear" exception and CHOSE to leave that out. I'd guess that your examination also took note of the "non-location" exception, but you chose to leave that part out too. Yes you may have "examined" but you obviously didn't understand otherwise you wouldn't have forgotten or chosen to leave out the exceptions, or mischaracterized Alito's role and interaction with the Law in question.

I guess your "examination" also applied to the FMLA, but you failed to remember or chose to ignore much of that issue too. You also must have "examined" a different Constitution than the rest of us get to live under if you found those "Basic Worker's Rights" somewhere in it.

I guess the "detail" that you mention must have only existed in your copies of the laws you want to debate, because the laws the rest of us are reading are far different from the laws you seem to be reading. In our version of the "spousal notification law" it only applies to spouses, and it has exceptions, in your's it apparently does not.

Our copy of the Constitution also seems to be missing the manifesto on "Basic Worker's Rights" that your copy has. My Constitution is in the National Archives? Where's yours at so I can get a copy?

Face it commenter, you're trying to say that only women should get certain benefits when they say so, and that men don't get to have any part of decisions that they're legally bound to, because they're men. I'm saying that if you enter into a spousal relationship, that's a bit more serious than just kicking boots with someone for a while, and those responsibilites within that SPOUSAL relationship are something that apply to BOTH parties (barring certain exceptions which are incorporated into the law).

You're trying to say that the Government has the right to come into a private business and dictate their benefits based on the choices that employees make regardless of how said benefits and choices affect the business. That's just simply out of line. Employees don't dictate how a business runs any more than I dictate what color my neighbor paints his bedroom.

I understand you're a woman, and you want to advocate for women, but there's a difference between advocating for equality and advocating for advantage. All you've done here is advocate giving advantage to women over men, and partially to women over their employers, that's not the goal, the goal is equality for everyone, whether we're talking about employees, employers, spouses, or single folks, equality in interactions is the goal.

You're affirmative action proposals are just as ludicrous as all attempts at affirmative action have been over the years, they simply don't work if you're trying to create an equal system. They only work to promote one class, sex, race or status over another. That's not equality, it's not moving toward equality, it's institutionalizing discrimination, and it's not what this nation is supposed to be about.

My positions in this debate have been consistently based on equality, yours have been consistently been based on elevating one side of the relationship above another. Or they've been simply making up RIGHTS out of whole cloth because it suits you. I'm sorry, but you're just plainly WRONG (or you're intentionally lying) in most of your assertions. While you're entitled to your opinions, I'd never deny you that. However, you're not entitled to making falsehoods into truths, and your case for discrimination by RIGHT simply falls short. ]]]]

[[[[ --Jason ]]]]
------------------------------