Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Three cheers for a bank that needed no bailing out (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Well, here's what Ginsburg said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      third Party please

      ..... Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for terminating a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[54]

      Jeffrey Rosen[62] and Michael Kinsley[63] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative approach movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  One can certainly argue legal points... (7+ / 0-)

        ...regarding the basis on which Roe was founded.

        But today's situation proves just how hollow Rosen's echoing of Ginsburg a decade ago was. Here he is in The New Republic in 2003:

        But the alarmism about abortion rights is wrong. Rather than hanging by a five-to-four thread, the core principle of Roe is supported by six justices. And, even in the unlikely event that Roe were overturned, the core right it protects--the right to choose abortion early in pregnancy--isn't likely to be threatened on a broad scale. For the past 30 years, national polls have revealed a consistent and moderate consensus on abortion: Majorities strongly oppose bans on early-term abortions and strongly support restrictions on late-term abortions. If Roe were overturned, the relative political weakness of the extreme pro-life position would be exposed, and the Republican Party would be torn apart at the seams because many Republicans oppose early-term bans and would desert the party in droves. "The last thing in the world the White House would want is that Roe v. Wade is overturned," says a prominent Republican congressional aide. "The reason being is that it would energize the nation's pro-choice constituency, ... and it would cause a huge fissure in the Republican Party, which has been generally harmonious over the issue because of the belief that the pro-life position will never truly be tested." At the same time, if Roe were overturned, the expanded and moderate Democratic majority would be free to distance itself from extremists in the pro-choice movement who persist in fighting restrictions on late-term abortions, which most Americans embrace. In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.

        I suspect you appreciate his turn-of-phrase in the final five words of that excerpt. But I wonder if you or Rosen have looked at what's actually happened. Most states have worked to restrict abortion and women's access to almost since the minute Roe was decided. Abortion is now more difficult to obtain, few physicians are being trained in it, two states will soon have zero abortion clinics, with two more quite likely to follow suit. More than 135 new restrictions on abortion were passed in 2011-2012 in two dozen states

        The Gallup Poll found in 1995 that 51% of the population wanted abortion to be legal only in a few or no circumstances; by 2012, that figure had risen to 56%. The numbers have sporadically been worse, to be sure, but the current trend is not encouraging.

        If Roe were overturned, nothing to be alarmed about? The Center for Reproductive Rights puts the number of states that would ban abortion within a year at 30. Nine already have laws on the books that ban abortion immediately if Roe is overturned. In 1982, there were 2,900 abortion providers across the U.S. By 2008, there were 1,793.

        87% of counties have no abortion provider. Exclude metropolitan areas and that figure rises to 97%.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:42:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't neccesarily agree (0+ / 0-)

          with Ginsburg or Rosen, but I think that point merited a discussion as I have heard it before. And yes I appreciate the term "moderate majority" as used by Rosen.

          But to continue the discussion since no one else has chimed in I am sure what Ginsburg/Rosen would argue is that a democratic movement in legalizing abortion would have created a more formidable and durable consensus around abortion rights than what you have right now. I hope you're not implying that that Ginsburg/Rosen are bad faith actors since both are pro-choice.

          I don't buy the idea that 30 states would ban abortion if given the opportunity. Even in MS , the human life amendment could not pass when there was a very conservative electorate during the 2012 primaries. Plus I think the idea of state regulations wouldn't be as important because I think we would have ended up with a federal abortion law that set guidelines.

          Neither Ginsburg,Rosen , or I are advocating for the repeal of Roe since Roe/Casey have set a framework for abortion, but in a counter-factual world you could see how a better consensus could have been set up with less acrimony.

          Very few Americans are absolutists on abortion rights although the media does sometimes imply so. I don't think there's a contradiction between being pro-choice and supporting a ban on partial birth abortion bans and supporting parental notification laws for example. I believe Biden and Obama have supported both in principle.

          Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party, in that order always and only." -- LBJ

          by moderatemajority on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:01:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the record, I have been involved... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Urban Owl, tardis10, YucatanMan

            ...in the battle over abortion for more than four decades and helped with 14 other men and women to set up one of the first non-profit abortion clinics in the United States in 1973. It is still in existence (although it was also one of the first to be firebombed; they missed and hit our garage instead).

            I don't agree, at all, that liberal legislation would have spread across the country in the absence of Roe or that federal legislation would have passed Congress. And I have 40 years of legislation across the country of states doing everything they can short of banning abortion to back me up. States are right now working on making it impossible for clinics to operate.

            None of this means I think Roe was perfectly decided. But Ginsburg (with respect) and Rosen and McKinsey are completely off-base if they stick to the views they expressed in the past on the situation. The forced-birthers are winning.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:23:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the premise of your argument (0+ / 0-)

              re: abortion restricted passed post-Roe does not necessarily support your claim. What they and maybe I would argue is that you see this type of hostile reaction because Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberations on abortion rights that were percolating in the early 1970's and engendered hostility. And it of course contributed to political polarization as both parties were heterdox on abortion :The Kennedys were-pro-life , but the Bushes and Goldwaters were pro-choice, but such factions have disappeared post-Roe.

              And you can specifically argue that the circumstances surrounding Roe and Casey created hyberbolic and coarsened discourse. Although in the case of Mississippi it is obvious they want to regulate abortion out of existence there are many-common sense restrictions on abortion such as partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws that are perfectly reasonable with the proper safeguards. However, when such matters come up reasonable discourse is rarely found. Any restriction on abortion becomes the end of Roe v. Wade as we know it and extreme Republicans make loathsome comments about abortion/rape and push ridiculous things like the human life amendment as a tool to pander to their base.

              Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party, in that order always and only." -- LBJ

              by moderatemajority on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:38:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am an extremist on abortion and I do not... (6+ / 0-)

                ...apologize for it. The woman always comes first. The fetus is secondary until it draws breath. Period.

                We know that late-term abortions are rare and undertaken in circumstances of great anguish, not casually. Nobody wants one. But banning them? Another example of lawmakers saying they know better than women and their physicians. (And please, I can have a civil conversation about differences in this matter, but not when I have to cringe through right-wing tropes like "partial-birth.")

                Parental notification laws are fraught with problems and ought only to exist if easily granted, well-known exceptions are possible without the minor child exposing herself to potential abuse. Parental consent laws, on the other hand, should not exist for abortion (with requirements for consent from both parents being the first target for repeal).

                The state should cover the cost of all abortions, elective or medically necessary, in the cases of anyone not able to pay, which means getting Congress to stop renewing the Hyde Amendment every year so that Medicaid will be freed from its forced-birther shackles.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:57:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That you support a law does not make it reasonable (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Urban Owl

                or mean that it's got anything to do with "common sense".

                The false middle isn't the high ground.  It's the home of the Free Soiler and the "Separate but equal" and "Civil Unions but not Marriage" crowd.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 01:32:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's also (0+ / 0-)

                  the home of the Bipartisan Containment Policy that beat back Communism, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Welfare Reform of 1996, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, and I think you get the point :)

                  Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party, in that order always and only." -- LBJ

                  by moderatemajority on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 01:44:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are proud of No Gun Ri and Operation Condor (0+ / 0-)

                    and the Phoenix Program?

                    You're proud of having supported the Taliban?

                    That's "the Bipartisan Containment Policy".

                    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                    by JesseCW on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:03:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i am going to decline responding to your posts (0+ / 0-)

                      for a while.  I enjoy spirited debates, but don't see the point in pissing matches. I think you crossed that rubicon when in earlier post you said

                      "You already know what you can do with your (0+ / 0-)
                      "condolences"."

                      Enjoy the rest of your night or the rest of your day depending on your sleeping patterns, sir.

                      Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party, in that order always and only." -- LBJ

                      by moderatemajority on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:09:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I don't agree that Roe hurt abortion rights (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW

            The idea that all the anti-choice fanaticism would have dissolved in reasonable discussion over decades of local incrementalism ignores a lot.

            The alternative argument, by Scott Lemieux:
            LGM post

            You can comfortably contemplate all those forced births (or illegal abortions) that would have happened in your more incrementalism world. I am glad Roe opened the door to legal and safe abortions for millions of Americans.

            The ongoing assault on women's rights should not be blamed on Roe instead of on the assaulters.

            We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

            by Urban Owl on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site