Our Wedge Issue: Personal Privacy

If need be, we should introduce, nationwide, innocuous and common sense state level constitutional amendments to prohibit legislatures from getting involved in private family/medical/terminal illness decisions.

They would be enormously popular, they would drive a huge wedge through the Republican party, and they would boost support for Democratic candidates across the board.

This is, if we can organize it, our "gay marriage" issue.

Actually, California isn't bad on this issue, but we could do better. Employers are free to say what they want about their ex-employees in response to inquiries by prospective employers. That doesn't make any sense. It gives a power to a person just because they are an employer and gives the employee no opportunity to know what the employer is saying about them. The employee, of course, can't respond or correct inaccuracies. That's just wrong. There are a number of other areas in which we need more privacy. We should not be required to waive our rights to medical privacy laws quite so often, for example.

you a freeper? If not - don't knee-jerk until we get more information on what this is about. I would not want to see more opportunities for the religious right to embarrass Bush or force him into things Karl didn't plan for.

Fact is these cases are often activist cases. Liberal work gets done this way too.

Can anyone else thing of laws that were changed because of legislatures getting involved in the personal lives of other?

I would not want to take power away from the little guy. Liberal organizations seem to be very organized in how they use this activist stuff. The right wingers are using it willly nilly and it will mess up Bush's plans (and for him to come up with a law that allows certain abortions and show his hand in the end).

and the right to make your own decisions about your own body. It may be a pro 'choice' issue, but it's also a pro-privacy issue.

We don't want to loose that. It is how important and activist laws have been made. Surely it would be like cutting of your nose despite your face. The freepers may try and use these to their advantage..so what do you want to do? Erase the strength of the judicial system so that they cannot put an end to idiocy?

Repair the Patriot Act of cancel it once terrorism is controlled. Make some changes in the law about that but please you are half-way between a 'keep government out of our privacy' and "get government out of our lives" stand which is a conservative one. That is the Bush Agenda. And they will back you into a corner emotionally & be into following their agenda if they can.

Do not take the emotional bait.

Like vultures everywhere they will come at your belief system from the left and the right (why wouldn't they separate you from your core beliefs) and move you, just like SS.. to a place where Democrats will never get elected. They get you angry on this.. and you have to understand .. the Bushies are just fanning the flames of this privacy issue to get you thinking 'government in my life bad'. A big weekend bonus for them.

Because the stated intent of neocons is to ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATION off of corporations. That means no safety laws.. no Medicare, no SS and a government much tinnier than the corporations.

I'm just saying.. While we react to Bush has his seeming hysteric behavior.. realize it is nothing.. Terry is just an easy case to exploit.. because the easy answers are not there - she is not a real case. And don't react to your TV being taken over by this "show" by separating from your basic Liberal, Democratic, Progressive values.

Remember that it is the freepers who brought up this mess and decided on Terry rather than someone who didn't have enough money in Texas. The Bush people just used it. The justice system (and that right of final say) is what will shut it down.

Right now Bush and his group put on a big gorilla suit and run around like a bunch of crazies making you afraid of your government. That is part of the plan. So that you will destroy your very own government in an attempt to stop them.

because courts often have to get involved, in deciding which family members have precedence, etc. Legislatures have no business in family cases.

Congress go after them after the fact. It takes the heat off and keeps them from exploiting the most vulnerable in society for political gain.

Courts may not be perfect, but I trust most judges a damn sight farther than I do politicians of ANY stripe.

the legislature. I say no knee-jerk laws until we have looked at how it changes the underlying structure. I think Liberals have benefited and (will benefit in the future) from just this.

Why didn't a judge in the USA overturn the ban on gay marriage because it didn't offer gay couples the same protection under the law in domestic disputes?

I say it is a trick.

We do not change the structure of government while this gang of monsters is in the WH. All they want is us to change things.. so that there will not be checks and balances.

I said the amendments, which should be on a STATE level, not a federal one, should be written to keep the state LEGISLATURES out of terminal illness, private family medical decisions. No where did I mention the judiciary.

And what does the right to control one's own medical affairs concerning end of life decisions without governmental interference have to do with Roe V Wade, which is a settled JUDICIAL decision about the right to abortion?

The Democrats SHOULD be the party of less government when it comes to the deficit, when it comes to privacy rights in total, when it comes to intrusive nanny government.

The Democrats SHOULD be the party of a lean, mean, fighting government that champions the middle class and is there for the most helpless, those living in the shadows of the American dream.

We should not be the party that lets corporations destroy the environment and undercuts American workers. That IS the role of government, and that's what we should stand for. We have to start defining who we are and what kind of government we would wish to have.

Calling for less government in certain areas does not make one a rightwinger, it's just common sense.

The courts are there to protect us from stupidity. If we do not allow for stupidity in the legislatures.. the courts cannot highlight it.

Lean government is fine. Do not change the structure of it. We cannot knee-jerk to every activist thing that Bush's tribes throw. The Democratic legislators just up and packed their briefcases and walked away from this dog and pony show. Did you see them numbers? Bush & bro are not popular at all for this.

We need more of this. Not less. This is how the hypocrisy of the Repukes will show itself. They cannot control the activism of their followers...so they have to react to it.. which means this whole Roe vs. Wade thing is not on their agenda. And anything which knocks them off their plans to
1) destroy Democratic base
2)protect themselves from being found out or facing war crimes trials by belligerence while imposing everything their elites want and no matter what cost to the middle class and the poor

Anything that Bush WH is forced to do that does not fall into 1 or 2 is a great thing. Fortunately Terri doesn't know better in this case. And if the activists go after a vial of stem cells next time..great! More bullshit. (Keep in mind that the last thing Bush wants is to have to act on anti-abortionists needs. He needs the issue for the next elections and when he tries to make it illegal he will enrage women. He may not even make it a full ban...which will enrage his base). Whatever right to lifers want to bring to the stage is fine because Americans and many religious are not as far to the right as their leaders. It matures the issue and puts it into perspective where it is not nearly as useful to Bush.

Personal privacy would apply to so many issues belonging to the repubs. Religion, abortion, self-determination and others which aren't occuring to me right now.

Nominated because this is perfect for the dems.

:kick:

I love it. This is honestly one of the most politcally savvy ideas I have heard thought up in a long time.
I think you've got a future as a campaign consultant (if you want it).

Seriously, send this into the DNC as well as some smaller Democratic organizations; it might get a positive response.

are based on some case involving some person somewhere and an opposition party.

So are you saying you want to do away with judiciary? Cause I am sure that is just where Bush wants you?

Terry Schiavo is just a court case like any other (x vs. y). That is how the court system works. How can you force privacy? Are you saying that the courts should not have a public record?

I hope the folks in PA use the privacy issue as a club for Santorum. After all, little Ricky is repeatedly on record as stating that a right to privacy does not exist.

What business has the government got in your or my medical condition?
Oh I remember the BFEE makes a lot of money shipping Coke from Columbia and Heroin from Afghanistan.