Why women should vote

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Why women should vote
128
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 9:24am
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE.

This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.

[]
Remember, it was not until 1920

that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
[]
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed
nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking
for the vote.
[]

(Lucy Burns)
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive.

Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing
went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of
'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above

her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping
for air.
[]
(Dora Lewis)
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her
head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate,
Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.
Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging,
beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the
'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917,
when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his
guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right
to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their
food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
[]
(Alice Paul)
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/prisoners.pdf

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:35am

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:36am

There are nine Supreme Court Justice seats - the odd number will always at best create a "relatively balanced" court because in reality it would hard to image that the odd man out will ever vote straight down the middle.

A 5-4 leaning (in either direction) is more balanced that a 6-3 leaning (in either direction), would you not agree? 4-1-4 is complete balance - I think you would be hard pressed to find that "1" who will be 100% straight down the middle. Thus my contention of "relative balance."

As for your direct question, I don't know why Roe vs, Wade has not been overturned before now. I'm at work and don't have the time to completely research it at the moment. Nor do I have a list of "religious fanatics" in government.

it is a fact that in 2007 in his concurring opinion of the 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Thomas (joined by Scalia), "contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may exceed the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

So you have two judges at least that feel Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

McCain's own website claims that "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat."
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

The ideology of reversing Roe v. Wade can be debated if it a good move or not - but the fact is between an election of McCain, certain already seated Justices, and the chance of more Justices with the same belief - the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned is probably at it's highest it's been in 30 years.

So it doesn't matter if there is flock of "religious fanatics" in government or not - it comes down to McCain and his choices for new justices. "Religious fanatics" is just a red herring.


Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:37am

This is another funny statement.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2007
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:40am
"Sad part is, women being allowed to vote has caused us to have to deal with this far far far left liberal, Obama.

I don't particularly like what women have become.

Jess


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-11-2007
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:42am
Unless the baby is adopted privatly at the time of it's birth.....your tax money still goes to support it..as it goes to the state and will wait to be adopted. Foster families are paid to care for babies and children given up for adoption....with government money in the form of food stamps or a dividend to care for the child's expenses. . Either way...the baby will most likely be supported on tax dollars unless the mother has family that is able and willing to care for her and the baby.
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:49am


And since your mother had an unintended pregnancy while young, do you consider her stupid? (I'm not being snarky here. I'm sincerely asking.)>


MONTANA MOM !

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 11:55am

MONTANA MOM !

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 12:01pm


MONTANA MOM !

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 12:20pm

I have been critisized for this statement many times.

MONTANA MOM !

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 12:26pm


MONTANA MOM !

Pages