Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized
Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you
want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade
to a GoComics Pro account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
Panel 4 is already correct, there are republicans looking to control women’s reproductive systems. I don’t agree with that. If anything, the laws shuold be supporting rights and there to ensure privacy and safety.
Bill Frist, Republican, and allegedly a doctor, (yes, he had a license, but why?) stated Schiavo was just fine, and could recover, even though scans PROVED most of her brain, was gone, and it was confirmed at autopsy. A few Republican “doctors” are in legislatures, but their views on OBGYN would lose them their licenses for incompetence and ignorance of basic biology if they were ever sued for malpractice.
Supreme Court Justice Breyer said (during the hearing) not only did the Federal government have the constitutional right to mandate everyone buy health insurance but he personally believed the government could also mandate everyone buy burial insurance.
On day 1 of the AIA debate the conservatives asked was there ANY limiting principle as to what the government could force its citizens to do. To the consternation of the liberal 4 the appointed pro-government attorney could not find a single exception.
I ask here if this mandate stands is there any exception and on what grounds would it be different?
I find this “slippery slope” argument to be bordering on stupidity, even if it was suggested by a supreme court justice. Why would any government in it’s right mind even think of mandating the eating of broccoli, even if, in theory, it could do so? Governments still have a fiduciary duty to govern with prudence, good judgement, and for the welfare of the people. Governments would not do something just because they could. And if there was such a stupid government, there are remedies from recalls to elections. . I note there has not been the fear expressed about activist judges legislating from the Bench. And yet that’s what Republicans are asking these justices to do.
Certainly can’t speak for the Republican party but I read some of what they say is that if you want to use the birth control pill fine but why should they pay for it. Same answer re Viagra.
Question for you. Why does the party that says they want what is best for all Americans ignore that when you totally control your uterus you still want government’s help to treat your neonate damaging genital herpes, your premalignant genital warts and your AIDS. Either you want government in or you want them out. Can’t have it both ways.
Okay, I’ll try again – same argument, same point. The “slippery slope” argument just doesn’t work with reasonable people and reasonable governments. Using your example: Government should not pass a law outlawing murder. If you give government the authority to pass that law, next government will want to pass a law outlawing Friday Happy Hour. I say again, civilized countries give government the right to pass laws that might limit certain freedoms, but we expect governments to pass good laws for the good of society. Because they might pass a bad law is no reason to pass no laws.
“Pregnent” [sic]? No. Someone whose spouse had the legal authority to terminate her care? Yes. Her parents objected, and then the GOP stepped in to insert themselves into this families’ lives. And guess what finally happened?
Joel Pett is a three-time finalist for Pulitzer Prize for cartooning. He won the award in 2000. He joined Lexington Herald-Leader in 1984 and USAToday as contributing cartoonist in 2002.
Henry Payne by Henry Payne
Ted Rall by Ted Rall
Comments (39) (Please sign in to comment)
cjr53 said, about 1 year ago
Panel 4 is already correct, there are republicans looking to control women’s reproductive systems. I don’t agree with that. If anything, the laws shuold be supporting rights and there to ensure privacy and safety.
Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago
For anyone who thinks the Republican Party wants to keep the Federal Government out of ordinary peoples’ lives, I offer three words:
1. Terry
2. Schiavo’s
3. Law
mdavis4183
said, about 1 year ago
Pett boought a lie. Now he retellds it.
Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago
@
HO! Look who’s talking! If hijacking threads was a crime, you’d be doing life without parole, troll-boy.
Radish
said, about 1 year ago
He accidently told the truth in panel four.
dtroutma
said, about 1 year ago
Bill Frist, Republican, and allegedly a doctor, (yes, he had a license, but why?) stated Schiavo was just fine, and could recover, even though scans PROVED most of her brain, was gone, and it was confirmed at autopsy. A few Republican “doctors” are in legislatures, but their views on OBGYN would lose them their licenses for incompetence and ignorance of basic biology if they were ever sued for malpractice.
Libertarian1 said, about 1 year ago
Supreme Court Justice Breyer said (during the hearing) not only did the Federal government have the constitutional right to mandate everyone buy health insurance but he personally believed the government could also mandate everyone buy burial insurance.
On day 1 of the AIA debate the conservatives asked was there ANY limiting principle as to what the government could force its citizens to do. To the consternation of the liberal 4 the appointed pro-government attorney could not find a single exception.
I ask here if this mandate stands is there any exception and on what grounds would it be different?
Gypsy8 said, about 1 year ago
I find this “slippery slope” argument to be bordering on stupidity, even if it was suggested by a supreme court justice. Why would any government in it’s right mind even think of mandating the eating of broccoli, even if, in theory, it could do so? Governments still have a fiduciary duty to govern with prudence, good judgement, and for the welfare of the people. Governments would not do something just because they could. And if there was such a stupid government, there are remedies from recalls to elections.
.
I note there has not been the fear expressed about activist judges legislating from the Bench. And yet that’s what Republicans are asking these justices to do.
Libertarian1 said, about 1 year ago
@Gypsy8
So your limiting principle is yes, they could but why would they?
Why pass a law outlawing murder? After all, who, in their right mind, would kill someone else?
I suggest you try again.
SusanCraig said, about 1 year ago
I don’t understand how /why the party claiming to want less government in Americans’ lives wants more government in my uterus….
MurphyHerself said, about 1 year ago
Because that’s where they can go with the least fuss, or so they think.
Libertarian1 said, about 1 year ago
@SusanCraig
Certainly can’t speak for the Republican party but I read some of what they say is that if you want to use the birth control pill fine but why should they pay for it. Same answer re Viagra.
Question for you. Why does the party that says they want what is best for all Americans ignore that when you totally control your uterus you still want government’s help to treat your neonate damaging genital herpes, your premalignant genital warts and your AIDS. Either you want government in or you want them out. Can’t have it both ways.
Gypsy8 said, about 1 year ago
@Libertarian1
Okay, I’ll try again – same argument, same point. The “slippery slope” argument just doesn’t work with reasonable people and reasonable governments. Using your example: Government should not pass a law outlawing murder. If you give government the authority to pass that law, next government will want to pass a law outlawing Friday Happy Hour. I say again, civilized countries give government the right to pass laws that might limit certain freedoms, but we expect governments to pass good laws for the good of society. Because they might pass a bad law is no reason to pass no laws.
Eryx
said, about 1 year ago
@
“Pregnent” [sic]? No. Someone whose spouse had the legal authority to terminate her care? Yes. Her parents objected, and then the GOP stepped in to insert themselves into this families’ lives. And guess what finally happened?
Eryx
said, about 1 year ago
@IrishEddieOHara
So you are OK with contraception?