Missed This Place...

Adam Weinberg

Goldwater Republican
Hey everybody.

My postings have been very few and far between in recent months, and that's because I took a political/government job and really had no stomach for any of it off the clock.

I'm coming to the end of the job in these next two weeks. I ran a State Representative's office in the North Carolina House for the summer legislative session. My boss leads the Republican Caucus for the House and the Senate.

Our session came to a close this past Friday and so I'm just readying the office for whomever may come in the office after me, and then it'll be onto one more political type job.

But while we were here (in Raleigh at the moment) we passed a couple of good pieces of legislation. Here are the two most notable bills:

1. A bill to reformat drivers licenses for drivers under 21.

Many of you probably are familiar with this law, since it exists in 21 other states. We didn't have it yet, so our office worked it through and we've gotten a lot of favorable media coverage from it.

2. A bill to lower the age of consent for blood donation from 17 to 16

This little change, which is endorsed by the Red Cross, will put about 15,000 more pints into the blood supply in North Carolina every year. Not to mention, it will encourage more people to become life-long blood donors by having the opportunity to donate earlier.

Despite our best efforts, we were not successful in getting through the Democratic House leadership an Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which would have allowed criminal penalties to have applied for the death of an unborn child if a murderer knowingly killed a pregnant woman.

We worked hard to try to bridge the gap and not make it an issue of pro-life and pro-choice. We even added a gestation period to the bill, which made several Pro-Life groups flip out on my very reliably Pro-Life boss.

You know, 36 states and the Federal Government have partial or full legal protections for the unborn under these circumstances. Even Dershowitz has said that it's civil libertarian friendly legislation and doesn't challenge Roe v. Wade. Alas, the leadership stopped what would have otherwise been a bill that would have sailed easily into the lawbooks.

And those three bills, along with some measures to reform our State Health Plan (which is on a crash course right now) and get sales tax refunds for public schools, have mainly been my focus of late.

...What's up with everyone else?
 
You can't charge someone with murder for killing something that's not human. That's completely and totally illogical. If you want to increase the penalties for killing a pregnant woman, there's no need to use such a clearly pro-life partisan method. And since killing a pregnant woman is punishable by the maximum sentence anyway, there's no need for the extra murder charge.
 
You can't charge someone with murder for killing something that's not human. That's completely and totally illogical. If you want to increase the penalties for killing a pregnant woman, there's no need to use such a clearly pro-life partisan method. And since killing a pregnant woman is punishable by the maximum sentence anyway, there's no need for the extra murder charge.

That would be the liberal Democratic response to the policy, and the counter is that 36 states and the Federal government already have this law, and that every time a pregnant woman is killed in this state (which has already this year happened on numerous occasions, Lance Cpl. Lauterbach being the most nationally known case), there is a gap between sentencing the criminal justice system issues, and what should be an appropriate response in the view of the victim's family and the general public.

And again, most people would disagree with you that the victim is not human. The bill even had a 20-week gestation period on it. If we can have animal welfare laws and acknowledge that they don't give constitutional rights to animals, we can have legal protections for the unborn.
 
You can't charge someone with murder for killing something that's not human. That's completely and totally illogical. If you want to increase the penalties for killing a pregnant woman, there's no need to use such a clearly pro-life partisan method. And since killing a pregnant woman is punishable by the maximum sentence anyway, there's no need for the extra murder charge.

At what point do you consider an unborn child human? Never? Mine were born and thrived 2 months early. If they had remained in utero would they have not been human?
 
Im talking about when you will be a congressman.

I don't want to run for office until my career is stable and I've accomplished some more things in my life. I couldn't even feel comfortable running for local office right now...imagine the attack ads:

Narrator: Adam Weinberg says property taxes are too high...but Adam Weinberg doesn't pay property taxes...HE'S NEVER OWNED A HOUSE!

Adam Weinberg says he wants to create jobs by cutting tax incentives for major corporations...but ADAM WEINBERG CAN HARDLY CREATE HIS OWN JOB...he's 24 and went to film school! Say, wasn't it only a couple years ago that Adam Weinberg was mowing your lawn for pocket money?

Shouldn't Adam Weinberg stop Whining...berg and leave this to the professionals?

Incumbent: I'm the incumbent, and I approved this message.
 
Last edited:
Welcome back to the madhouse Adam. I have just been killing coons and bashing bush. Bashing Bush is much easier, he has become self bashing.
 
That would be the liberal Democratic response to the policy,

That would be the sensible response to idiocy.


and the counter is that 36 states and the Federal government already have this law,

Argumentum ad popularem.

and that every time a pregnant woman is killed in this state (which has already this year happened on numerous occasions, Lance Cpl. Lauterbach being the most nationally known case), there is a gap between sentencing the criminal justice system issues, and what should be an appropriate response in the view of the victim's family and the general public.

Killing two people carries the same exact penalty as killing one person.

And again, most people would disagree with you that the victim is not human.

Then you are countering your argument that it appeals to people who are not pro-life. It's a cheap shot to ingrain unborn personhood into the law, simple as that.
The bill even had a 20-week gestation period on it. If we can have animal welfare laws and acknowledge that they don't give constitutional rights to animals, we can have legal protections for the unborn.

There's no animal welfare law that literally gives animals the same rights as people.
 
As I have said before where does it stop. Incarceration for pregnant mothers that do irresponsible things ? Neionatal care required by law ?
No sex with preganat women, wouldn't that be sexual child abuse ?
Poking the poor little thing with a penis is sick.
 
If it's murder to kill an fetus along with it's mother, it's murder to kill a fetus alone.

It's truly a tragedy the pregnant women are murdered so much, but there's no greater penalty that can be applied than the one currently on the books. To use murdered pregnant women as a human shield on your pro-life crusade so is, frankly, sickening.
 
I don't want to run for office until my career is stable and I've accomplished some more things in my life. I couldn't even feel comfortable running for local office right now...imagine the attack ads:

Narrator: Adam Weinberg says property taxes are too high...but Adam Weinberg doesn't pay property taxes...HE'S NEVER OWNED A HOUSE!

Adam Weinberg says he wants to create jobs by cutting tax incentives for major corporations...but ADAM WEINBERG CAN HARDLY CREATE HIS OWN JOB...he's 24 and went to film school! Say, wasn't it only a couple years ago that Adam Weinberg was mowing your lawn for pocket money?

Shouldn't Adam Weinberg stop Whining...berg and leave this to the professionals?

Incumbent: I'm the incumbent, and I approved this message.

LOL, they have TV ads for local races in North Carolina? I've only ever once seen a state senate seat have a TV ad in my district. Some rich Republican was running against the senator in Jackson county. But the Democrat won anyway, by the skin of her teeth, with no TV ads.

TV ads are honestly the dumbest parts of the campaign. I can't believe people vote based on the trivial crap they show. Which is one argument for more partisan politics: campaigns wouldn't be waged anymore based on irrelevant personal attacks, but on the issues the party supports.
 
LOL, they have TV ads for local races in North Carolina?

Not really (maybe for Mayoral races in Charlotte or Raleigh), but you get what I mean. We do have radio ads sometimes, and direct mail and other campaign material is common.

But let me address some of your points on the Unborn Victims issue in the following post...
 
With the gestation period I support it. Fetus's can at least have a preference that they exist after the 20th week, which is a reasonable delimiter to set.
 
Then you are countering your argument that it appeals to people who are not pro-life. It's a cheap shot to ingrain unborn personhood into the law, simple as that.

There's no animal welfare law that literally gives animals the same rights as people.

No, the bill does appeal to people who are pro-choice. North Carolina, though socially conservative, does have a history of being a more lax state on abortion. And even so, over 83% of North Carolinians support this bill, and broken down by political affiliation, majorities from every major political affiliation in the state concur as well. That means more than 50% of our Democrats are for this bill.

It has even been argued that these laws are pro-reproductive freedom because it offers sentencing against criminals who violates the right of the mother to be secure in her WANTED pregnancy.

And to the point about animal welfare, I don't see where we disagree. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a legal protection, not a conferrence of a constitutional right. It is well within the jurisdiction of state governments and does not challenge Roe v. Wade or create new precedents. There have been over 25 appeals on this subject and not a single conviction has been overturned.

If it's murder to kill an fetus along with it's mother, it's murder to kill a fetus alone.

It's truly a tragedy the pregnant women are murdered so much, but there's no greater penalty that can be applied than the one currently on the books.

There is a greater penalty being applied in most states. That's why the argument related to the 36 states and the Federal Government is not just a fallacy...it is a statement that this law is already working elsewhere and my state is in a severe minority nationally.

Under some bills, if the woman survives, the killing of the unborn can still be tried.

In Indiana a couple months ago (where a version of this law is on the books), a pregnant bankteller was shot and she lost her twins. Unfortunately the law there only applies after seven months, and she was five months pregnant. So, when Indiana goes back in legislative session in January, they will be dealing with that.

Can you really argue that those twins, because they were not delivered, were not human? I'm fine with the 20 week gestation period in our North Carolina bill for practical purposes, but I think that's even too late knowing what we know about the development of an unborn child. Seven months is an atrocious starting point, as a previous poster pointed out, children can be delivered at that stage.
 
I will say that the 20 weeks period still addresses more than 90% of the murder cases that have occurred in North Carolina.
 
It has even been argued that these laws are pro-reproductive freedom because it offers sentencing against criminals who violates the right of the mother to be secure in her WANTED pregnancy.

Then make it a crime to intentionally make a mother miscarry. Then the purpose would be clear.
 
Back
Top