The Act defines the moment "birth" as the moment the baby leaves the mother's body, which would effectively prohibit abortions where a child is partially delivered out of her mother's body. While Michigan's previous attempts to ban partial birth abortions have been struck down in court, they failed because they banned a specific procedure. By defining the moment where one receives the full legal rights of a person, this act raises some different legal questions, and has a good chance of making its way to the United States Supreme Court.
I agree that she has done nothing to energize the radical base of the Democratic party. Their turnout will largely hinge on whether the Democrats can demonize her opponent or if she can pull some embarassment on Michigan Republicans generally between now and the election (such as causing an ugly standoff like the budget ala Gingrich-Clinton).
The other X factor is whether swing voters will continue to vote her because she makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. It seems like eventually even that type of voter will eventually get clued in to the fact that she hasn't accomplished anything during her first term.
While it's true that Governor Granholm has a "cotton candy"-like quality of saccharine-y emptiness, I sure hope candidates find a better way to spin their attack....
Among the possible opponents to Stabenow, I can't speak to Peter Cummings on the 2nd Amendment or right-to-life issue, or Dick Devos on the 2nd Amendment issue (since neither has held elected office), but Garcia, Hoogendyk, and Cassis are all solid on these issues, given there voting records in the Michigan legislature.
Exactly. If you look at the wages for someone working at a fast food place in the suburbs, they're often making $8, anyway (go figure that the market will set the wage higher in an area where the labor pool won't accept less--but hey, who needs markets anyway? ;-)). This will instead hurt kids working at fast food places in rural areas and in urban areas like Flint and Detroit, which have such high taxes and costs of doing business (esp. insurance). It never ceases to amaze me that this appeals to Democratic constituencies.
A thumbnail of the Sixth Circuit's majority opinion:
It ruled that a judge's statement of Biblical principles during the sentencing of the defendant regarding the abuse of children did not violate the defendant's Constitutional due process rights (the defendant pled guilty to ten counts of rape and one count of pandering obscenity for sexually abusing his girlfriend's five-year-old daughter). The court reasoned that the trial judge had stated these principles as foundational values that guided Ohio's sentencing law, rather than his personal convictions that were used in setting his 51-year sentence (which was actually on the lower end of the range of possible sentences).
We've reached a frightening point in our society when a judge cannot even refer to the principles that inspired our system of justice.