Today, the Supremes heard two abortion related cases:
- Now v. Scheidler
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
I'll go into more detail about these cases below the fold, but make no mistake about it. With all the hoopla, etc., the bottom line is that the anti-abortionists want is NO abortions. They use these issues as smokescreens to cover up their real agenda which is unmistakably to outlaw all abortions, no matter what. And their posturing now about "parental rights", "freedom of speech", etc is all BS. The antis intend to chip chip chip away at abortion rights until there are none. Then, birth control. Then, maybe sex. Then, whatever. Let's all chew on this here.
- Now v. Scheidler was the first case argued. This is a decades old case brought to try to stem the tide of rising clinic violence in the 80's. I think this is the 3rd time this issue has been before the Supremes. Two National Women's Health Organization clinics (http://www.nwho.com) were the clinic plaintiffs, and NOW represented the class of women. Clinic violence escalated in the late 80's to include the murder of doctors and clinic workers, harassment of patients, arson, butyric acid attacks, and other vandalism. RICO was the only tool available at that time to use...and bringing the case in and of itself did curtail violence over the years. Unfortunately, the FACE bill was too late to stem this violence totally. The Clinton Justice department made great strides in protecting the clinics, but that has been compromised by the current Bush version of Justice.
- Ayotte has to do with a health exception for parental notification laws. Most clinics I've worked with over the years voluntarily require parental "consent" for abortions, not just "notice". This is for malpractice reasons. But, these laws have to have an exception for medical emergency. Doctors can't just "guess" at what a medical emergency is, as these laws have serious penalties if broken. Would you want a doctor to hesitate taking measures to save your daughter's life because he/she wasn't sure if he/she was breaking the law or not?
I'm putting this up hastily to get a conversation going and will make additions as more infomation comes in about today's arguments. I'm especially interested in the reaction of John Roberts.