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.