Tin Foil hat theory: Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade/OB-GYN "gaffes"

[treading_water]

So what if the weird OB/GYN references were more a more subtle way (than the dred scott reference) of reaching out to the pro-life base?

Google "dred scott" ob/gyn and see what you think.

It's just that these ob/gyn instances stand out as something so strange in an otherwise pedestrian speeches, and now knowing (or thinking that we know) * speaks in code to his base, it's hard not to suspect that other weird things are possible codes too.

[Newsjock]

1. Alert the media

Democrats caution TV networks about airing Bush tapes

WASHINGTON — Suspicious that Osama bin LadenPresident Bush is using American TV to send coded messages, the White HouseDemocratic Party campaign asked the networks yesterday to think twice before airing his terrorist organization's videotaped messages.

"At best, this is a forum for prerecorded, pretaped propaganda inciting people to kill Americans," White House press secretary Ari FleischerDemocratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said.

At worst, the broadcasts could contain signals to "sleeper" agents, he added. "The concern here is not allowing terroriststerrorists to receive what might be a message from Osama bin LadenPresident Bush calling on them to take any actions."

Following a conference call with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice,Kerry campaign adviser Paul Begala, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox agreed they would not broadcast transmissions from bin Laden's al-Qaida groupthe Bush campaign without first screening and possibly editing them.

In a statement that echoed those of its counterparts, Fox News said: "We believe a free press must and can bear responsibility not to be used by those who want to destroy America and endanger the lives of its citizens."

With apologies to http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15124

[bloom]

2. Absolutely...

Taking your advice - I found:

http://serv1-r.fwi.com/acrtl/facts.htm#politics

Roe v. Wade Can Fall
by Father Frank Pavone


Study Constitutional history, and you can conclude that the days of Roe vs. Wade are numbered. The reason is that the foundation of the Constitution itself, and the direction of its history, is the recognition of the equal dignity of those who, at various times, were deprived of their rights and suffered violence which was given legal cover under a different name. This legal cover was often mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court for a while, but then such decisions were overturned.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) is the most commonly cited instance. The slaveholder's right to property eclipsed and subsumed the slave's right to freedom. But the Constitution was eventually amended to correct the error. Decisions like Lochner v. New York (1905) show us another error: employers' right to contract eclipsed and subsumed the workers' rights to humane conditions and hours. These abuses were corrected by subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Muller v. Oregon and Bunting v. Oregon. The "Separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) sanctioning segregation was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education some 58 years later. Erroneous decisions like Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) institutionalized child labor. But this was overturned 23 years later by United States v. Darby. A new development -- a "pedagogical moment" -- occurred here in Constitutional law. The question was whether constitutional rights applied to children too. The answer was yes.

Now it is time for the "embryonic moment," the recognition that the rights of the Constitution apply also to the unborn child. Until Roe, only state law addressed the unborn. Now their status has become a Constitutional issue, and must be developed by using Constitutional principles. Once again, an act of violence is given legal cover by some other right, in this case the "right to privacy."

Constitutionally, there is no precedent on abortion. A concept could be used, however, from the "Law of Bailments," which is defined as the "divided dominion" of personal property which contemplates custody in one part and ownership in another. When you deposit your money in the bank, you have absolute dominion over it, while the bank has a "trust-dominion.".....


-----------
And I think most of us - had NO IDEA. He IS able to talk in code - knowing what the right-wing fanatics will pick up on bacause it is how they plan to build their case.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I knew when he mentioned Dred Scott the connection he wanted to make

but think he made a hash of his attempt.

As for OB-GYNs, I think his repeated referrals to them are because of the facts: they have very high malpractice insurance premiums and a significant number of OB-GYNS have allegedly quit practicing obstetrics to reduce their costs and exposure to malpractice suits, AND because of emotional reactions: people tend to have warm and fuzzy feelings about the OB-GYNs who delivered their children.

If he talked about proctologists being driven out of medicine, who would care? I'm sure he'd like it even better if he could talk about pediatricians leaving medicine. He's going for instant reactions, not deep analysis, from those who hear him.