Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Colorado: one step closer to outlawing abortion (and contraception?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:07 AM
Original message
Colorado: one step closer to outlawing abortion (and contraception?)
Yikes. Anyone from CO want to weigh in on this? If they get enough petition sigs, does it go on the primary ballot or the general election ballot? This will bring fundies to the polls in droves - regardless who's on the pres ticket.

http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_7452276?_requestid...

"Personhood" initiative wins Colo. court nod

The Colorado Supreme Court today released a decision giving proponents the go-ahead for a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg.

.....

The measure, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protection from the moment of conception with regard to rights of life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

.....

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is one of the reproductive-rights groups opposing the measure, which it said in a statement would have sweeping consequences for women using contraception to prevent pregnancy as well as for couples using in-vitro fertilization to start families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. THE EFFECT WOULD BE OUTLAW IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pwb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. I tried to get a social security number for my grand fetus
Wanted to start an education account for him. i was told by our government that he was not a person.? A birth certificate is a must to be recognized as a person. Maybe a conception certificate should be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Take an exemption for him as well. Maybe you can set up a
dependent care account during pregnancy or frozen storage of a fertilized ovum to exempt more money from taxes.

Let's hope we never go this far backwards as to have our conceptions and miscarriages counted and our private medical conditions recorded as a public record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katmondoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Men vote too and not all men want kids
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. From the moment of conception
I think PP is inserting a straw man into this debate in order to get the moderates on board, the law is pretty clear and only real rabid crazies are against contraception.


They should try and stick to the issue of abortion rights and not try and get crazy with this thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Is the "morning after pill" considered contraception?
It is an issue with more than just the extreme crazies...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I would say that the MAP is a form of abortion
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:59 AM by SharkSquid
As opposed to contraception in most instances unless is it preventing sperm, which can live for a while, from getting to the egg.

Like I said, force the issue of Abortion Choice, not contraception and IV fertilization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Framing it as "abortion choice"
without letting people know that their method of contraception (that may be redefined as "abortion" later, after the initiative is passed), will become illegal:

1) will lose the argument in Colorado

2) is keeping information from people that they need to make an informed choice about their vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. What the MAP does
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:54 PM by gollygee
It keeps a woman from ovulating and it makes the womb unsuitable for fertilization. Most of the time when women ovulate, the sperm are there waiting for the egg. Sperm cells last for a few days (roughly three), but eggs only last for a few hours.

It doesn't prevent implantation. Implantation happens a week after fertilization (generally five to ten days). If it prevented implantation it wouldn't work so well the morning after, only pretty well the next day, and be basically worthless after that. The idea is that the sperm cells only live a few days so if you can delay ovulation until after the sperm cells would die off anyway, you're safe.

A pill that prevented implantation would be useful because it would be equally effective the morning after and five days after. Then, if one pharmacist didn't want to fill the prescription, there would be plenty of time to get it filled elsewhere.

Actually, I take that back. If you wanted a pill that prevented implantation, you'd have to take it after fertilization, and have the drug in your system continually until you menstruated. If it didn't implant on the fifth day after ovulation because you took the pill on day that, the drug would be out of your system on the sixth day after ovulation and it could just implant then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. As I said, If a fertilized egg does not implant
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:56 PM by SharkSquid
That is an abortion...ehem, sorry "voluntary abortion"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Read my post again
the morning after pill doesn't prevent implantation. Why did you respond without reading my post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. I was referring to this part.
As well as to the IUD argument..


"A pill that prevented implantation would be useful because it would be equally effective the morning after and five days after. Then, if one pharmacist didn't want to fill the prescription, there would be plenty of time to get it filled elsewhere."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Yes, but no such pill exists
the pill that is available is taken too early to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. ok...understand that
<standing corrected :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. And IUDs
Intra Uterine Devices, which make the uterus an uninhabitable place for a fertilized egg to settle in. IUDs are an excellent form of birth control for women in monogamous relationships.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Ok that is abortion then
It destroys something after conception.

Lets be clear here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. The IUD doesn't destroy anything, it just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching in the uterus.
So, is it abortion? I'm not sure. Spontaneous abortion occurs naturally, very frequently, for all early pregnancies, wanted or not. Is that "abortion"?

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051001/1243.html
"Spontaneous abortion, which is the loss of a pregnancy without outside intervention before 20 weeks' gestation, affects up to 20 percent of recognized pregnancies."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. No that would be a miscarriage
Similar to when it happens later in development. Abortion is a willful act, miscarriage is natures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. Miscarriages are also called spontaneous abortions.
But yes, "miscarriage" is more commonly used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. I understand that bet we all know what we are talking about
And the connotation of "abortion" and "miscarriage", I assumed that those words would be less laborious than "spontaneous abortion" and "voluntary abortion". But to my original point which was lost in a ridiculous side debate. Definitions must be upheld in any argument, and are particlarly important in this one. When does something cross the line from contraception to abortion, when are you terminating a prgnancy or preventing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. These definitions are only important for people who think a fertilized egg is sacred.
At least, that's how it appears to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Also important to how you frame the argument against this bill
Thats how it appears to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Good point.
This bill could mean a lot of extra paperwork for women who miscarry. Will this mean they will have to register their miscarriages with social security, or something? How is anyone going to know about the fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort? That would be like a death that goes unreported.

Women with IUDs would not be allowed to have sexual intercourse in the state of Colorado, if it is decided that IUDs are responsible for the death of fertilized eggs.

The implications are staggering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. IUDs primarily prevent fertilization.
They can prevent implantation, but they don't 'destroy' anything.

Yes, let's be clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Fertilized egg is different then an unfertilized one
IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. And IUDs prevent fertilization. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. But also could prevent implantation
as you said yourself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Yup. It prevents pregnancy.
It doesn't destroy anything, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. In your opinion no
In others, yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. You are confusing facts with opinions.
If you want to argue that IUDs 'destroy' a potential pregnancy in a metaphoric sense, then be honest about that.

Facts: IUDs prevent fertilization and can prevent implantation, thus preventing pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. The IUD doesn't "destroy" anything.
Even if the egg is fertilized, the IUD doesn't destroy it, the IUD simply makes the uterus an inhospitable place. The egg, fertilized or not, leaves the woman's uterus and therefore won't survive. The zygote doesn't develop into anything because it doesn't attach to the uterus.

Basically the IUD gives the uterus a no-tenant policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Sounds like a bunch of rationalizing BS to me
If you make a fertilized egg and then do not allow it to implant and grow, it is destroyed, no?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. No.
It's not destroyed. Being repetitive isn't the same as being right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. If you see it that way, then I'm sure there are others who agree.
They would be the same people who feel stem cell research is wrong.

For the record, I'm not opposed to abortion, so it makes no difference to me how you define it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Huh?
Some methods of contraception currently in use act by preventing the just-fertilized egg (a zygote) from continuing to grow into an embryo and then a fetus. Thus this law could potentially outlaw those forms of contraception, or any form that MIGHT prevent the zygote from developing - whether that was the normal mechanism or not.

The following excerpt makes it clear what the goal is with these laws.

http://www.all.org/associates/dec.htm

Abortion will never end as long as society approves the use of contraception. The practice of contraception means children are unwanted and provides the rationalization for abortion. It is a violation of human dignity to promote or accept the use of contraception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Is that excerpt from the law?
Or are you just drawing the conclusion by making a connection that only exists in your mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. The definition of "zygote" is from my high school biology class.
As is the description of some forms of contraception. I double checked on google just cuz that's been a few years back.

The quoted excerpt is an example of the thinking of one of the groups who pushes these kinds of laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Ok so the latter
got it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. So, to be clear, do you support the ballot initiative described in the OP?
It sounds like you do.

Btw, I think the initiative would also put the kibosh on fertility clinics, because they would never be allowed to dispose of unused embryos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. To be clear I do NOT support this initiative
I was criticizing PP's method of fighting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Ah, okay.
I see now. But I think that the problem is that some forms of contraception currently in use will be determined to really be "abortion" because they interfere (or potentially interfere) with a zygote becoming a baby. I think PP is just trying to draw attention to that. Maybe it isn't clear in soundbite form though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. I really disagree.
I don't see a straw man here--and the moderates should be on board.

On the face of it, this initiative would outlaw abortion; that's a given. Granting a fertilized egg 'personhood' would clearly jeopardize some forms of contraception and IVF. Where's the straw man?

And it's true that the real rabid crazies are against contraception...unfortunately, there's no shortage of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Is there a line for you at all?
Just wondering, because I do not see any real definitions or patterns here or in Law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Can you rephrase? I simply don't know what you're saying.
What definitions or patterns here or in law?

Abortion is currently legal in this country. Contraception and IVF are currently legal in this country. What's not clear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Exactly
When does a fetus become "alive" to you.

Late term abortions are restricted in many states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. What bearing does that have on attempts to make abortion illegal?
We're not talking about late-term abortions, we're talking about all abortions and contraception.

I don't get to tell anyone else what to believe, and neither do you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Whats the difference between a late term abortion
and any abortion, ban all or ban none.

I am in the ban none category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. I wonder if these same conservatives consider illegal immigrants people too?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. What the hell are you talking about
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:42 AM by SharkSquid
What is your rational for that statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. I think the poster is drawing attention to perceived hypocrisy, or
at least misplaced priorities. There seems to be a significant overlap among people who want to outlaw non-procreative sex, and people who want to "crackdown" on non-white people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

I do agree with that poster, although I sense that you do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Misplaced priorities are the hallmark of republicans.
However, I'm with Squishy Squid on this one. Why drag illegal immigrants into this? How about Buddhist Monks, while we're at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Well, I agree it's a bit of a tangent
But it is always good to keep in mind that "pro-life" doesn't really encompass being "pro-human".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. The silly word games people play
Changing what words you use to describe something doesn't change its nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
23. And I was just
reading that Colorado was becoming less right wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
30. does that include the right to sue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
38. How are they going to give a fetus the right to liberty?
My goodness. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. ?
I would assume the rational would be that by giving it the right to live you are giving it the opportunity to enjoy liberty when born.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. We don't need a law giving that right as it already exists
But I agree that fetuses should have the opportunity to enjoy those things if they become people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. And there is the question
when do they become people, who defines it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #50
59. Since it's impossible to define it
we should leave it up to the woman who owns the uterus it's inhabiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Nothing should be impossible
to rational thought :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. When "personhood" exists
is a religious issue. Not necessarily dependent upon a belief in god, but still it's an issue of spirituality. There will never be any kind of consensus upon this. There is something 100% sure though. My uterus belongs to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. You uterus aside...we agree on that
There are those who talk about late term abortions, etc on here, that was the main focus of my posts because you can not play little games saying abortion is ok here and not ok here. All or nothing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
65. Not even a fetus---a fertilized egg!
I suppose that means women can count their fertilized egg as a dependent for tax purposes.
Women who have just conceived could drive in the carpool lane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. If you agree that life begins at conception
the concept of FE, Zygote and Fetus does not exist.

To them, there is only gamete to human life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
63. to answer your question, which no one else seems very
interested in doing, being too busy arguing -

This is a constitutional amendment to the Colorado state constitution. If there are enough signatures, it will be on the 2008 election ballot.

I doubt that this will pass - while there are enough RW whackos to get it on the ballot, the state has been moving steadily toward a more moderate position politically.

It may bring the fundies to the polls, which is the primary reason the Republicans are pushing this - but it will also bring opposition to it to the polls.

--------------


It may also help in a move toward restricting constitutional changes through a ballot initiative process, since it's become pretty clear that the process is being abused by narrow interest groups. Some suggestions I've seen are requiring a 2/3rds vote to change the constitution through this method.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC