Friday, March 03, 2006

conservative states going haywire

The state of Mississippi, a conservative bastion and a strict opponent of abortion, is following the lead of South Dakota and attempting to ban all abortions in the state. The Republican Governor Haley Barbour has said that he hopes that the bill comes to his desk with exceptions made for rape and incest, but that he would probably sign it even without those provisions.

Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."

This really goes to show that Barbour is another conservative puppet. He obviously cares more about pleasing his Republican legislature and the radical conservative voters in his state than protecting women if he'll veto his own opinion before he'd veto the monumental legislation.

Now, the legislature in Jefferson City is proposing that Christianity be made the official state religion of Missouri. This is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution... but the Republicans in Missouri can't let a silly little thing like the Constitution impede them.

Seriously... what is this country coming to these days?

Edit: Upon further research of Missouri law, it's interesting to note how misleading the original article from KTOV out of St. Louis is.

The bill was filed as House Concurrent Resolution 13, meaning that even if passed it will have virtually no effect and will not be considered an actual law (according to the Missouri House glossary).
An act of the House or Senate or of both together that ordinarily has no effect of law. It either commends some achievement, expresses an opinion, urges another entity such as Congress to take some action, or takes some internal action such as establishing a committee. See also Concurrent Resolution and Joint Resolution.
Regardless, this is a waste of time and money, and the Missouri House is "recommending" something that is blatantly unconstitutional.


texas toad said...

Bush should have just stuck with Harriet Miers. The Alito nomination has brought the far right religious conservatives to a fever pitch. These folks don't even represent a majority of evangelicals (well, maybe in South Dakota.) In the end, all those Rovian calculations will be their undoing. The Republican party is going to have to either put up or shut up. The base is calling in their IOUs. No more incrementalism. And when Roberts and Alito can't deliver what they want, it's going to be civil war within the party.

Bradley Bowen said...

The thing is... Roberts and Alito simply won't be able to deliver the conservative agenda the way these foaming-at-the-mouthers want it delivered. It's impossible. They won't be able to completely ignore the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, First Amendment. They can find little ways around it... like, yes such and such public place can have a cross at Christmas because they also have a menorah, what have you. But they are not going to be able to legally allow an established religion.

Also, we've been through this before when the South Dakota thing came to light, but I really don't think the Supreme Court has the votes right now to overturn Roe v. Wade. Let's hope that no more Justices decide to retire (or come to an unfortunate demise) during Bush's last couple of years... especially one of the more left-leaning Justices.

Jo Smith said...

One thing to keep in mind- Bush does not totally agree with the South Dakota vote, since it leaves out Rape and Incest, which are at least two situations where Bush agrees with the Right to Choose.