on the supreme court
Not a comment on the actual ruling today, which I generally think was the right idea. Although given that there is another procedure that accomplishes these (very rare) abortions, I'm not sure this will actually stop any abortions from taking place. But I guess the argument/plan would be to use this ruling as a stepping stone, precedent to make layers upon layers of (so-named) rights peeled back.
This is the best site I found for pro/cons to each side of the argument on dilation and extraction (so-called partial birth). It shows not surprisingly there has been disinformation on both sides.
But what it did remind me of is that I think it is long past the time the Supreme Court be limited to a number of years. I would vote 10-15, but the number usually thrown around is 20. With individuals living longer and the near total (to my mind) partisanization and politicization of the courts debate--by both parties/sides--there needs to be a limit put on. Everybody knows John Paul Stevens is waiting around to see if a Democrat gets elected in 08 so he can retire.
The reason I thought of this was in her dissenting opinion Justice Ginsberg hinted that this ruling would hold for now, leaving open whether it might change in the future....say with a Justice changeover. [Is Kennedy retiring anytime soon? He's the only vote that matters now.] While I would be open to a sanely argued counter to the ruling, I was less than pleased with Ginsberg's alarmist bogey man and reference to putting women back where they belonged.
posted by CJ Smith @ 9:32 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Re: sanely argued objection
I object to lawmakers determining what course of actions doctors should decide upon in their situation. Doctors would not suggest this particular course of action on a whim.
I also take issue with your writing off a Supreme Court Justice's concerns about assaults on reproductive rights. I do not think one can overstate the positive impact of these developments, from legalized abortion to preventative birth control in the United States and around the world.
Cole,
Thanks for taking me up on the offer.
I think if there is an argument to be made against it is the first point you raise. As I said, I think given there is another option available for these rare procedures, not much really changes on a practical level. For now. That could change in the future as a result of this no doubt.
I'm not in favor of repealing en masse all abortions. I just thought Ginsberg's response was alarmist.
The majority of Americans--of which I am one on this issue--are not for criminalizing abortion but are for more restrictive legislation. I think the court (via Roberts and Alito not Thomas and Scalia) is reflecting that more.
Alito and Roberts were in the majority but did not support a Scalia-Thomas screed against Roe v. Wade altogether.
I'm not denying some positive impact to such procedures--don't know where birth control came from, I'm definitely all for that--but you to me seem to be (as was Ginsberg) denying any negative impact to abortion as well. There are many and I think on a political level Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot unnecessarily by going full boar on the pro-choice train.
For those like myself who again are not calling for its criminalization but are not singing alleluias of praise to abortion read statements like Ginsberg's as just so out of touch morally and intellectually. It does come off as elitist. At least to me.
And if I'm offended by it, and I'm no conservative, then that would I think point to how far out that opinion is.
Peace.
I think that another option exists that remains legal under the same conditions indicates either cognitive dissonance or alterior motives.
Another objection I have, to go fairly off subject; why does Congress have any power to legislate on this issue. It has nothing to do with foreign powers or interstate commerce. Specifically US vs Morrison(2000) where: "The Court concluded that upholding the Violence Against Women Act would open the door to a federalization of virtually all serious crime--as well as family law and other areas of traditional state regulation. The Court said that Congress must distinguish between "what is truly national and what is truly local"--and that its power under the Commerce Clause reaches only the former. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas went even further, urging abandonment of "the substantial effects" test."
Sorry for all the thunder, I just wake up to more and more troubling news each day and I do always enjoy seeing your POV.
Peas.
Post a Comment
<< Home