This is actually the silliest dog-bites-man story I've seen in many a long year. So what if the Pope DID perform an exorcism? That's what Priests do. The Pope is a Priest.

Lawyers write contracts, doctors write prescriptions, veterinarians neuter cats, Priests perform exorcisms. Dogs bite men. These things are not news.

So if he did perform an exorcism, so what? If he did not perform it, then so what? Either way, so what?

I believe that His Excellency the Governor has already overruled this decision and ordered the Bibles put back.

@Anonymous Dude: I stand by my commentary, that if Mr. Gosnell had killed these same babies, at exactly the same stage of development, INSIDE the womb rather than OUTSIDE the womb, he would still be free and practicing medicine.

This is the face of abortion; and it is the face of EVERY SINGLE "pro-choice" politician; every single person who is "personally pro life, BUT..." and every single person who insists that abortion is not the killing of a living human being.

This doctor birthed live babies in failed abortions, and then killed them by snipping their necks - as they moved around, and cried. One even was delivered into a toilet and swam around before he was "snipped." THIS is the face of abortion.

How can it be lawful for a physician to kill a baby inside the womb, when it is first degree murder to kill that baby OUTSIDE the womb?

I'm not sure that a ruling overturning Roe would need to be so sweeping as to even address "privacy" as a Constitutional right. If I were writing the opinion, for example, I would simply declare that the unborn baby is a human person, and therefore no State may authorize his or her murder legally. The entire abortion issue has little to do with privacy.

Justice Ginsburg is certainly correct that the Court overstepped in Roe v. Wade, but for the wrong reasons. She is saying in this commentary that she would have preferred that the Court simply stay out of it and let the democratic process - which was trending FOR abortion at that time - take its course that way. What she may be failing to consider, however, is that the Supreme Court has an air of legitimacy about it - that these are nine very very learned and very very wise people, who are above the wheeling and dealing of politics and whose decision is above reproach. It may not be deserved, but it is certainly there, such that when the Supreme Court makes a decision there is a sense of finality - that's the way it is and that's that.

That has been a great strength for the pro-abortion argument - one of their arguments essentially is: 'Why should people even be fighting about this anymore, it's not up for debate or vote; the Supreme Court has spoken.' People often don't feel that they can go against a Court - particularly the Supreme Court. This idea is of course rubbish, but fortunately for the Planned Parenthood-Gosnell crowd, and unfortunately for the unborn and their mothers and fathers, many well-meaning people have bought into that argument, accepting the word of the Supreme Court as final and unassailable. Whereas, if abortion had been decriminalized through the ordinary legislative process, then there would not be the same air of legitimacy and unassailability - if the legislature passed a law allowing abortion, then the legislature could certainly pass one banning it.

I'm not sure that Justice Ginsburg would want to give up that air of legitimacy and unassailability that attached to this matter.

It's Minnesota for heaven's sake. People from Minnesota are considered well-read if they can find Waldo.

Kind of gives new meaning to those Minnesota jokes from The Golden Girls.

I'll be darned. Who would have ever thought that would happen?

Alligator bites man - that is not news.
Man bites alligator.. THAT is news.

In other news, Joe-Joe does not want people of faith arguing that banning abortion is the moral thing to do, because we have to keep religion to ourselves and not impose our beliefs on anyone else.

[quote][b]FanaticalModerate[/b] - Arma was always a huge McKillip supporter for some reason.[/quote]

Well I don't know about "always"

@FanaticalModerate: Your thought is correct. Regina Quick is a Democrat elected by Democrats. She shamefully put a "R" label beside her name because it is not politically expedient to be an admitted Democrat in the Georgia Legislature. I say, be what you are and be proud of it.

@mpd0.59: Back before she found that the only way she could get elected in Athens was by becoming a Democrat, she did stand strong against the ruling Democratic Party here. She deserves praise for that.

[quote]was sponsored by Reps. Chuck Williams of Watkinsville and Regina Quick of Athens, both Republicans[/quote]

You're half right.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is news.

This is a wonderful decision and I support it completely. I note with pride that Georgia's own Dan Becker was one of those who led the fight in North Dakota for the right to life of the unborn.

I write to express disappointment with the terribly biased way in which this column (for it cannot actually be called a legitimate "article") is written. For example, the columnist writes: "Lawmakers on Friday took a step toward outlawing abortion altogether in the state by passing a so-called personhood resolution that says a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person."

That's like saying that my neighbour who lives down the street "has the same right to life as a person," or that the columnist himself "has the same right to life as a person." While those are I suppose true, they are phrased very very awkwardly - because my neighbour, and the columnist, ARE persons. They are not unicorns or fungi who for some mysterious reason "have the same rights as a person," they ARE persons.

Just as the unborn baby is a person.

I completely agree with my learned sister at the Bar, and I thank her for writing this! Dean Kurtz was my professor for first year Criminal Law and then for second year Family Law. He also led my orientation, introducing my classmates and me to the rigors of law study. I still remember his "I was in Toledo" theory of defense and his commentary on ecology boxes. Thank you Dean for everything you taught us, and every good wish for a fun filled retirement!

I do not usually approve of the word "feminism" as, at least in America, it has come to mean "female privilege [at the expense of everyone else]." I see that concept as an enemy of equality.

Nevertheless there is something to be said for this article, in terms of highlighting the ridiculousness of American feminism. To me, it is very self-centered, self-pitying, and foolish for American feminists to sit around in their offices or professorships or their million dollar think tanks or on the floors of legislative assemblies and lament, "Oh woe is us, how oppressed we are," while in these other countries there are women who REALLY ARE suffering terrible treatment.

So next time we hear an American feminist stand on the Senate floor - as a Senator - and shriek, "WAR ON WOMEN!!!" because she is not allowed to kill her own baby, for instance, we would do well to remember the women around the world who really are suffering these things described in this column, and ask is the privileged Senator really so oppressed and downtrodden after all?

On one hand, I do think that the parent was negligent in not keeping her child under control; nobody wants to deal with a screeching infant on their flight. But, obviously, smacking the child will simply make it scream louder, and become more irritating to the people on the flight.

"That varmint." Lol. Who is this guy, Yosemite Sam?

Nevertheless I am disappointed in Senator H. Davis' comment. It makes light of domestic violence, which is not an issue to make light of.

Lord. I hope she doesn't draw Judge Sweat, he'll probably give her 15 minutes in prison and send her on her way.

A parent who fails to discipline his or her child is actually doing the child a great disservice. Getting its butt beat as an eight year old is much better than getting a sentence of ten years as an eighteen year old. Children need to learn to respect authority and to behave themselves. If you don't beat their butts when they're kids, someone else will be doing something else to their butts when they're in prison.

Therefore I feel that this woman should also be allowed to whip the behinds of the parents in this case, in the public courtroom.

I support this woman completely. It is a shame when Daddy Neverspank won't discipline his own children, and then years later wonders why his child has become a criminal. It is very unfair to the child.

The parent should have ALSO had his behind whipped with a belt, for not disciplining his kid.

I am a Santorum Republican of course, but I think this is a good move on behalf of the Democratic Caucus. I believe there are only 4 white males in the entire House Democratic caucus, which represents less than 10% of the caucus. White males are a demographic that the Democrats have long marginalized and have been steadily losing, at least in Georgia. It is good for the Democrats that they begin to embrace diversity.

@ponsoldt:

Professor, you seem to have overlooked the point.

Why do you say that Dr. Broun lives in a "parallel universe?" I am almost certain that you do not mean this in a physical sense; while theoretical physicists do admit of the possibility of parallel universes (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-paralle...), it remains well within the realm of theory at this time, and even so there is no evidence that they can interact with one another or that things can pass from one into the other.

So I am only left to assume that you mean that he lives in a "parallel universe" in a metaphorical sense. Now, I draw, from the other commentary here, that this is because he bases his decisions on the Bible.

My point therefore re-occurs. The majority of Georgians do not equate making decisions based on the Bible to living in a "parallel universe." They do not regard it as being "humiliat[ing]" as you put it, or "by [and] large worn out" as Dan put it. While I'm sure that some regions do feel that way, Georgia itself is not one of them. Have you data to the contrary?

@ponsoldt: Professor, as they have proven time and time again, the majority of Georgia voters do not regard Christianity as "by [and] large worn out" (as Dan put it) or "humiliat[ing]" as you put it, or inconsistent with "common sense."

I am not sure why Democrats feel that the old canard, which essentially amounts to "Christians are stupid," is an effective strategy in Georgia. Surely that would be effective in certain regions (San Francisco, etc.), but I cannot see it meeting with much success in Georgia. Have you data to the contrary?

Do keep in mind also that when you (and by you I do not just mean you but all others of the "Christians are stupid" ilk) push at certain things, people push back. One of the reasons that I am so much in favour of Dr. Broun, as opposed to any other Republican candidate, is simply because of the irritation that he causes Christophobes like, respectfully, yourself. And I like to see Christophobes irritated.