1. If you call it "Blogger Day on the Hill" but only invite conservative bloggers, you look like an asshole. There’s no two ways about it. If you hurry, you can still change the name of it to "Conservative Blogger Day on the Hill" but the bad taste will linger.
2. Terry Frank, analogies work like algebra. a+b=c+d If a is "liberal bloggers" and b is "dog Campfield (R)" and d is "dog Hackworth (D)," then what is c?
I’ll give you a hint, it’s not "liberal bloggers." See, because b doesn’t equal d, there’s no way a and c can be the same and still have both sides of the equation actually, you know, equal.
I know you’re trying to shift the terms of the debate, to say that liberal bloggers are just upset about Campfield’s legislation because it’s "stupid" and a "waste of time" and therefore, if we aren’t upset about all stupid, waste of time legislation, we’re hypocrites.
But we both know, because people said repeatedly, that our problems with Campfield’s legislation have to do with the violation of women’s autonomy, the threat to patient/doctor privilege, his handling of opposition, and the fact that it was stupid and a waste of time.
I realize that you’re trying to create a smoke-screen big enough to cover the egregiousness of Campfield’s position, but please.
3. Wes Comer, you say, "Because it’s now on this side of 2-3" of skin and womb we suddenly deem it worthy of receiving a birth certificate." You do realize that’s because that’s what being born means, don’t you? You are on one side of a uterus, you are not yet born. You are on the other side of a uterus, you are born.
Then you go on:
Let the self-celebrating, snarky-comment-making abortion defenders get as sanctimonious as they want about it. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin — I can already hear the dissenting, idiotic utterances before they’ve escaped the mouths of the mentally numb among us. But let me say this before the venomous grievances are vomited my way — this debate has little to do with Mr. Campfield. The fact is, and I would dare anyone to prove otherwise, that the voices being raised against Campfield have little or nothing to do with his specific legislation and everything to do with the spirit and message of the bill.
Damn straight. It does have everything to do with the sprit and message of the bill, which is "Stacey Campfield doesn’t think women have the same rights he does." Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators trying to violate his doctor/patient privilege. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators trying to compel him to do something that is all the time painful, often dangerous, and sometimes deadly against his will. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators making his medical records public so that any nut with a grudge can collect his name and post it on the internet or track him down or turn him over to the Army of God. Stacey Campfield doesn’t have any state legislators arguing that another person has a right to his body and that the state ought to be able to compel him to give his sovereignty to that other person against his will.
I think the spirit and the message come through loud and clear.
Listen, there’s not a person in this debate that doesn’t think that babies ought to be celebrated and the women who choose to have them commended.
But let’s be honest about what this is about: you’re angry that you can’t figure out a way to compel women to have babies. You think that, if you can argue that an unborn life is a legal person from the moment of conception–and a cute and helpless legal person to boot–you can obscure the fact that what you’re talking about is compromising the rights of women and making an end run around the fourteenth amendment which prevents you from depriving me of my liberty without the due process of law.