>>>>>>Of course, there's an amendment in the works which would prohibit any mention of any other choices, but birth enforcement and third trimester abortion, so that anyone can understand what "pro-choicers" mean to offer choose between.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought the amendment had to do with what is taught in schools? (as if that were not bad enough). I don't see it happening (thank goodness) because that is something that has traditionally been decided by each state (as it is now). That amendment, regardless, will never pass.
>>>>
>>>>Amendment for "birth enforcement and third trimester abortion"? What is this?
>>>
>>>I was referring to no other option other than abstinence to be provided as information on protecting against pregnancy and only birth and adoption as options to pregnancies. I'm not sure what Dragan was referring to exactly since he was being sarcastic :o)
>>
>>Does it mean school programs or general information? I truly hope that nobody alludes it to general media, it would be just too wild assumption, though sarcasm could be very flexible.
>
>Exactly. :o)
>
>For what it's worth, ontheissues.org describes the abortion issue:
>
>Describing abortion as a health issue or as a women's rights issue is a pro-choice stance.
>Describing abortion as a moral issue or as an issue of balancing the mother's rights with the fetus' rights, is a pro-life stance.
>Any reference to "the rights of the unborn’ is a strong pro-life stance, as is defining life ‘from the moment of conception.’
>Any reference to ‘the rights of the mother’ is a strong pro-choice stance, as is defining a ‘right to privacy" (between a woman and her doctor).
>As mentioned above, the most obscure buzzword is that supporting ‘judicial activism’ implies a pro-choice stance, while supporting ‘strict constructionism’ implies a pro-life stance. In nominations for Supreme Court justices, asking this question is the archetypical ‘Litmus Test’ -- liberal Senators spent many hours questioning Clarence Thomas on whether he held a Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution (he did not admit so).
>For serious policy wonks, the most important abortion buzzword is ‘Stare Decisis’ -- that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight
>
>and this:
>
>Abortion Legislation
>The details of abortion legislation focus on what the states can regulate and what they can ban in later trimesters:
>‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ refers to a late-term abortion method which induces a breech delivery and collapses the fetal skull before completing delivery. This procedure is banned in 24 states, but pro-choice advocates, including President Clinton, have sought to overturn state laws with a federal ruling.
>- In April 2000, the Supreme Court rejected a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions.
>- In June 2000, the Court said that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because it had no exceptions and barred second trimester abortions.
>Each state decides if ‘Parental Consent’ is required for teenagers seeking abortions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that spousal consent cannot be required by the states.
>Each state also determines rules about ‘informed consent’, about 24-hour waiting periods, and about when viability occurs after the 1st trimester.
>In Nov. 2005, the Supreme Court heard the case ‘Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood,’ on the issue of parental consent (its first abortion case since 2000). They ruled in 2006 that states may require parental involvement, but not when it risks the health of the minor. No precedents were overturned nor set.
>

Amazingly enough, I remember the meaning of stare decisis from a high school civics class -- "Let the decision stand." IOW, judges should rule to the extent possible based on precedents.