" Two observations here: First to "797797": Is that all you can ever say to people is to "watch your pocketbook"? If thats the case, then please note that its been the greedy corporations (health care, oil companies, everything corporate) that takes more out of the average persons income than the federal or state government ever do.
The only people who have to worry about high taxes are the truly wealthy. Pure and simple. Quit trying to pretend that the wealthy are the same as the middle class. They arent and the wealthy can most certainly afford to be taxed just a LITTLE bit more so that us middle class folks can have a little more public services and a little more affordable healthcare.
Second to "selenicmagick", the constitution was meant to be a living document. The framers never intended that there would only be one interpretation of their words, for all time. Thats why it was deliberately worded in generalities. Most of the framers had a legal background. Lawyers do this in abundance. They draft documents and legislation with enough ambiguity in it so that realism and flexibility can co exist within the framework of general principle.
The Fourth Amendment right to privacy IF given a "strict construction" would ONLY apply to papers. It wouldnt apply to computers, or to any other type of technical or commercial or social relationship which DIDNT exist at the time of the constitutions framing.
I am very glad that Roe vs. Wade exists. Those opposing it are in my humble opinion, fascists who wish to impose their conservative social order upon others.
There most certainly IS a right to privacy and thank God we had a Supreme Court back in 1973 which explicitly recognized this fact.
The Fourth Amendment would mean nothing if it werent extended to areas not originally contemplated by our founding fathers. "

" LEFT up north, watch your pocketbook. "

" Funny someone had to mention the (manufactured) "right" to an abortion. The Supreme court was legislating from the bench with regards to that particular (manufactured) "right" and even the woman who brought the lawsuit about admits that IF she had known then what she knows now she would NEVER have dtaken it all the way to the supreme court. "

" Mr Minthorn is either a liar or a victim of one.

Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:

Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.

Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it's born alive.

Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.

To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That's been the law in Illinois since 1975.

Seantor Obama says he would have supported "born alive" legislation in Illinois if framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision. Abortion-rights groups opposed two earlier bills, saying they could be used to challenge a woman's right to an abortion.

Go figure, anti-choice people trying to shoehorn their fringe agenda into an otherwise legitimate bill causing it to fail. Happens all the time.

Why?

So they can make accusations like Mr Minthorn did and divide us with an aim to conquer. "