Skip to main content

The perception in most circles is that the Supreme Court's Roe precedent is the front line to reproductive rights. The perception is that, until Roe  is overturned -- which many expect will eventually happen, thanks to the dogmatic misogyny of Supreme Court ideologues and sympathetic characters -- women's reproductive rights are safe. The perception is that if and when Roe  is overturned, that is when the battle begins.

But the war is already well underway. And battles are already being lost. The perceptions that the war has yet to start are wrong.

Today marks the onset of hearings to fill the Supreme Court. As I write this, the hearings have started, with the obligatory "thank yous" and self-inflation that mark such occasions. And then the games will begin.

And women's lives will be on the line.

We've already been given notice that the purportedly pro-choice committee chair will not go against his party and ask Judge John Roberts about Roe. Will the Democrats? And will they go beyond questions and actually back up their concerns with their vote?

We're accustomed to a lot of firm talk from Democrats lately. Sadly, we're also accustomed to a lot of knuckling under after the speechifying is over. Will this be any different?

Will it matter?

Like the Maginot Line of WW2 that was supposed to defend France from German aggression, Roe has served as an image of defense of reproductive rights, an image of the front lines. But the enemy has flown over Roe and engaged battle state by state, and women are losing.

Women caught in TRAP laws

For years, the anti-abortion movement has pressed its case with noisy demonstrations that blocked clinics, with high-profile legislation that directly challenged the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and in some cases with violence, including the assassination of physicians. But 28 years after Roe, with public support of abortion rights running high, the movement has adopted what might be called a stealth strategy: to chip away at abortion rights, slowly and discreetly, with low-profile legislation and lawsuits that stop short of trying to outlaw the procedure.

The new tactic is to bombard providers with a barrage of costly rules. In addition to the civil-liability law, Louisiana has tried to slap abortion providers with extra-stringent building codes that regulate everything from the width of hallways in clinics to the angles and jet types for drinking fountains. Abortion opponents want to create small, expensive obstacles that cumulatively make it harder for clinics to offer services--or, in the words of one right-to-life leader, to create an environment "where abortion may indeed be perfectly legal, but no one can get one." Not only does the tactic have the benefit of generating little public attention, but it also allows anti-abortion activists to couch the issue in terms of a woman's welfare--for example, the right of a patient to sue her physician for unlimited sums.

States all over are passing TRAP laws. Louisiana has had one since 2001. A US District Court just upheld a 1998 Ohio trap law.

The new law requires that at least one parent give his or her consent to the abortion. Girls are still free to go to court to ask a judge for an
order to bypass that consent requirement, but the abuse defense can no
longer be used.

And how has it escaped people's notice that Texas passed a law allowing execution of doctors who abort a pregnancy? The Operation Rescue agenda of executing doctors is now legally sanctioned.

These are not unique instances. TRAP laws are being enacted in many states.

And now House Democrats -- DEMOCRATS! (who, by the way, dropped the ERA from their platform) -- are about to introduce HR 748, which, among other things, prevents anyone, even a parent, from transporting a minor across state lines to have an abortion. Forget parental rights. Forget legal guardianship. When it comes to breeding, this bill gives the state sovereignty over the womb.

All the courts, not just the Supreme Court

Circuit courts and state courts are affecting people's lives every day. For example:

In fact, abortion opponents have found that the courts are as powerful a tool as the state legislatures. In the past few years, clinics and doctors have been hit with a spate of lawsuits claiming that women didn't give proper consent for an abortion or suffered psychological damage afterward. "A case will be brought against a provider that will most likely be thrown out," says Mueller of the National Abortion Federation. "However, the physician still has to go through a lengthy court battle, and endure costs and publicity throughout the case." Even the most far-fetched claims can hurt clinics. Anti-abortion lawyer John Kindley recently wrote a 21,000-word article in the Wisconsin Law Review suggesting that malpractice suits against abortion doctors "may serve an important role in raising public awareness" of the alleged abortion-breast cancer link. Kindley put that theory into practice in 1999, suing a Fargo, North Dakota, clinic for disputing the breast-cancer theory in a brochure. Even before the case has gone to trial, the Red River Women's Clinic has been forced to pay $5,000 in legal fees. "Part of their strategy is to drag this out as much as possible," says clinic administrator Jane Bovard. "They do everything they can to make us incur more expenses. I think their goal is to nickel away at us, to make it too expensive to provide services."

This points up the importance of having judges who respect human rights on all courts, not just the Supreme Court. (Do you know how many Democrats of the Gang of 14 who compromised with Republicans to avoid a fillibuster showdown are "pro-life"? Does that shed any light, perhaps, on why they felt someone like Janice Rogers Brown would be okay?)

This is what happens when women's reproductive rights are not considered "important shit." This is what happens when women are sold up the river in the name of "party unity." This is what happens when party politics trump morality.

Now is the time to take a stand

We're hearing a lot of strong rhetoric from Democratic Senators today. They say they are showing their colors. They are talking a good game. But will they walk the walk?

Now is the time for all of us who care about gender equality and liberty to stand up for what we believe. Either that, or we can welcome coat hangers back into women's healthcare, and I don't believe anyone but the most rabid misogynist wants that.

[Distilled and expanded from a post on]

Originally posted to media girl on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:12 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  STAR Act (4.00)
    Those f*ckin' @ssholes.  The NERVE of them - to call themselves Democrats and then turn around and support this bullshit of a bill.

    Democrats from Mass., NY, Calif, & Michigan!  Each and every one of them should be targeted for replacement over this issue.

    Kildee?  GONE!
    Stupak? GONE!
    Oberstar? GONE!
    McNulty? GONE!
    Obey?????!!! GONE!

    There's no excuse for this shit - to deny even a parent of the right to cross a state line in order to get help for their kid.  This bill is designed to keep people in their "place" should Roe be overturned.  And it's being proposed and supported by people who supposedly give a shit about us - about our rights - and about this country.

    It's time we went shopping for a new candidate come primary time in their districts.

  •  Great work (4.00)
    While we must, absolutely must, focus on the Supreme Court and oppose John Roberts' nomination, you are so right to point out that even if we keep him off the bench, there are a myriad of other battles that are being lost in many other states around the country, where the rights that Roe recognized are being done away with.

    And the part about House Democrats pushing that bill makes me sick. Dems need to stand up for the right to choose, not become agents of the enemy.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:23:19 AM PDT

  •  I've recently heard (none)
    that Scalia is believed to be against over-turning Roe sv. Wade because, after more than three decades, it is established law. Has anyone else heard this?
  •  thanks to mediagirl and bayprairie and moiv and... (none)
    so many great women working on this issue!  we need to hold these dems accountable for their votes!

    where the womenkossacks went, Our Word

    by artemisia on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

  •  Great post, Media Girl! (none)
    We all need to be talking about this right now.  

    I agree that it's very troubling when the Democrats appear to be losing their way more and more.  I'm still not clear how pro-life Harry Reid got to be the Democrat leader in the Senate.  He has a horrendous record on reproductive rights and yet he is the one leading us?  It's really quite a slap in the face to the women in the party, isn't it?

Click here for the mobile view of the site