Skip to main content

In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court this morning has deemed constitutional the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003.  

The bill, which had been enjoined from enforcement until now, was Congress' effort to overturn the Court's 2000 opinion in Stenberg v Carhart, itself a 5-4 opinion, which had declared unconstitutional a Missouri effort to ban such procedures.

Via SCOTUSblog, until I have access to the opinion itself:

The Court said that it was upholding the law as written -- that is, its facial language. It said that the lawsuits challenging the law should not have been allowed in court "in the first instance." The proper way to make a challenge, if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman's right to abortion, is through as as-applied claim, Kennedy wrote. His opinion said that courts could consider such claims "in discrete and well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."

Kennedy said the Court was assuming that the federal ban would be unconstitutional "if it subjected women to significant health risks." He added, however, that "safe medical options are available."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling "an alarming decision" that refuses "to take seriously" the Court's 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law.

Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said "the Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health." She said the federal ban "and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women;s lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power."

Welcome to George Bush's Court.

e.t.a.: The Opinion of the Court in Gonzales v. Carhart is available here in PDF, and here in an easier-to-read HTML (if not easier to stomach).  "KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined."

And let me put this in some context.  Prof. Hadley Arkes, one of the leading intellectual architects of the pro-life movement (in addition to having been my thesis advisor, though we disagreed on many things, including this), predicted in a chilling October 2006 article what this opinion could portend:

[I]f Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, "We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion."

That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.

Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified.

Chip, chip, chipping away at Casey's "undue burden" test until a woman's right to control her reproductive decisions fundamentally disappears.  This is not the last restriction which Republicans will try to pass -- and remember -- the Supreme Court was able to render this decision because the Senate (with Leahy, Byrd and Reid) and House (with 60+ Dems voting in favor) passed this bill.  Want to overturn this legislation and prevent worse from coming in the future?  Elect better legislators.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:26 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

  •  Damn n/t (31+ / 0-)

    Alberto Gonzalez: "I'd really like to see his diploma." Dick Cheney: "He scares the living crap out of me." -- Keith Olbermann

    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:22:05 AM PDT

  •  Bush appoints activist judges and privacy loses (17+ / 0-)

    If I seem a little insensitive or clueless it is due to my having Asperger's Syndrome.

    by altscott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:23:21 AM PDT

    •  With abortions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this late in term, even Roe basically said that privacy is no longer much of an issue. Once it gets into the 2nd and 3rd trimester, the concern for the fetus basically overtakes privacy concerns for the mother IIRC.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right, it's not about privacy. (8+ / 0-)

        Not this bill. It's about life. The woman's life.

        The so-called "partial birth" procedure is typically done in response to a grave medical emergency.

        And in most cases, "concern for the fetus" is moot, because it is not going to live anyhow.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

        by Canadian Reader on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or it's already dead. (5+ / 0-)

          Someone upthread said it still had to be called that ridiculous term because the now-dead fetus is still "birthed" or delivered.

          More semantical bullshit to fool the uneducated masses.

          When will a majority start to see that the dumbing down of America has led us to this and more horrors to come. People who are too uneducated to dismantle an illogical argument allow things like this to happen. Slow-motion rot.

          This issue is particularly horrible to me because of personal experience. A friend in Texas had to carry her dead baby for two months, until she reached "term," because her doctor was afraid he'd get in trouble for a late-term abortion. Meanwhile she had to walk around with a pregnant belly and deal with the congratulations from people who couldn't possibly know that her baby was already dead. What a bastard.

          And when will men get it that they have no business deciding what women do with our bodies. Equal rights, my ass.

    •  Something to keep in mind (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      decitect, majcmb1, mamamedusa

      It's only certain types of privacy.  I see two kinds of privacy in their eyes: personal and corporate/governmental.

      Under Bush, we don't have privacy in our communications (illegal wiretapping), and we shouldn't have privacy to make medical decisions.

      Under Bush, everybody loyal to Bush can't be subpoenaed and shouldn't be investigated.  His private advice mechanism might suffer.  Corporations should be left alone to do whatever they want, keeping private their activities.

  •  And people wonder if elections matter. n/t (18+ / 0-)

    I think, therefore I am, I think.

    by mcmom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:23:58 AM PDT

  •  Court packing. (32+ / 0-)

    It pays off.  As Justice Brennan used to say about SCOTUS, "Five votes'll get you anything around here."

    Judicial appointments has been my number one issue since early 80s.  This is why.  We must get a Democratic president next term or the judiciary is the handmaiden of the Republican party.

    "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

    by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:24:09 AM PDT

    •  so much for stare decisis (22+ / 0-)

      complete disregard for Roe v. Wade's issues of life and health of the mother.

      •  Roe has been severely limited by Casey (6+ / 0-)

        The question is whether this legislation presented undue burden.

        •  And . . . (12+ / 0-)

          . . . whether any statute which doesn't have a "health of the mother" exception presents an undue burden on its face.  

          •  Well, without getting into my whole (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            view of abortion jurispudence (which is well known anyway), it simply cannot be that the absence of an exception that swallows up the rule is an "undue burden."

            •  Undue burden is meaningless (11+ / 0-)

              Scalia's opinion in Casey had it exactly right...the test proposed in that case is utterly standardless and allows the Court to do whatever it wants.  Little did Scalia know how much the Casey rule would turn to his advantage once Roberts and Alito were appointed.

              That said, it is impossible to square this holding with the "fundamental" holding of Roe that even Casey said remains intact...if ANY abortion procedure can be banned without an exception for the health of the woman, then Roe isn't worth the paper it's written on.  

              The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

              by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:44:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, that observation about (0+ / 0-)

                the test being standardless is precisely why I agree with Scalia's opinion in Casey.

                •  As do I, (7+ / 0-)

                  Except for his analysis of Roe and privacy.  His takedown of the plurality is right on point.  I'm interested, though, in how forcing a woman to die and tying the hands of the medical professionals involved is not an undue burden, under whatever definition you want to give that phrase.

                  The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

                  by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, to begin with there is a lively (0+ / 0-)

                    disagreement amongst MDs as to whether that procedure is ever medically necessary.  It is not, according to the AMA.  

                    •  Ok (9+ / 0-)

                      Let's leave it to the individual doctors to decide then.  There's also a lively disagreement about whether robotic micro-bypass surgery is preferable to stents in the case of blocked heart arteries.  I'd rather have the docs figure that one out than the Supreme Court, wouldn't you?

                      The fact that there is a medical debate is NO justification for SCOTUS stepping in and settling the debate by its own lights.

                      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

                      by Categorically Imperative on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:02:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The AMA, I believe, rescinded that view (6+ / 0-)

                      I am not a member. I do know, however, that the AMA did rescind its support of laws restricting the particular procdure or similar laws.

                      The AMA is a political organization, far far before it's a medical organization. It is not a forum for discussing particular medical procedures. For that kind of info, I'd recommend the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

                      And as far as my discussions with people directly involved in doing terminations, I cannot think of a single one who has ever said there is no medical indication for this procedure, although I'll admit it's a small sample size and not a scientific poll.

                      •  Well, AMA discusses medical procedures all the (0+ / 0-)

                        time.  ACOG is not necessarily any more authoritative at it.

                        As to AMA Policy


                        The AMA maintains its support for HR 1122 (Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1997) as amended while continuing to work with sponsors, and with state legislators on state bills, to improve the language further, particularly to delete the provision dealing with criminal penalties. (Res. 234, A-97)

                        •  Excuse me???? (10+ / 0-)

                          ACOG is absolutely more authoritative on this issue, as the vast majority of docs who perform abortions are gynecologists.

                          I'd sure prefer to hear ACOG's opinion on this, or any gynecologic issue, than a group of plastic surgeons or orthopedists, for example.

                          •  AMA of course (0+ / 0-)

                            in its House of Delegates has Ob-Gyns as well as other physicians (such as FPs) who perform abortions.  Furthermore, ACOG has a seat in the House.

                            Second, much of this is a question of reviewing scientific literature which "plastic surgeons" are just as competent in doing as Ob-Gyns.

                          •  Not the point (7+ / 0-)

                            you stated that "ACOG is not necessarily any more authoritative at it."

                            The AMA certainly has representatives of medical specialties directly involved in doing abortions and providing women's reproductive health. However, the ACOG specifically focuses on women's reproductive health, and the specific question involved in whether or not "partial birth abortion" should be regulated is if such regulation places burdens, call them undue if you wish, on the life and health of the mother.

                            I expect that you know that the research on this is limited, because it is not a commonly performed procedure but it does have indications.

                            If you want to get into questions of reviewing literature, fine and dandy. When you do not have large sample sizes sufficient to have "randomized" studies, as in the case of this procedure, you must evaluate other literature such as case reports and lists, where the evaluation is based on specific experience and not all variables can be controlled for - in fact, they aren't. That is where the experience of the providers of the procedure becomes extremely important, and more valuable than that of a plastic surgeon, in this case.

                            Similarly, if I wanted to review a particular reconstructive procedure that is done for a rare surgery, I'd go to the expertise of plastic and reconstructive surgery literature and their experts.

                            It's not as simplistic as you seem to want to make it.

                          •  Well, then, if the procedure is so (0+ / 0-)

                            rare that studies are of questionable value, then, a fortiori, anecdotal stories by the few physicians who perform the procedure on rare occasions are even less valid.

                          •  Bullshit, plain and simple (8+ / 0-)

                            that's what case reports are all about. Precisely why they become useful. And we're talking about case reports, not "anecdotal stories."

                            And again, that's not what I said. I said the procedure was too rare to have 'randomized' studies, because the indications for the procedure don't come around that often (fortunately.) It's not like treating coronary disease where you have large numbers of cases. It's basic epidemiology, just basic.

                            In the case of uncommon procedures for uncommon indications, you have to go back and look at the complication rate of one procedure versus the other over time. That's the only way to evaluate any claims of superiority - it can be what leads to bigger studies, too. Where the experience of the providers is useful is in evaluating whether the reports themselves are valid based on specific knowledge.

                          •  But again, case reports (0+ / 0-)

                            can be read and understood equally well by almost any physician.  So if it is studies (whether in form of case reports or randomized trials) then ACOG really is not any better positioned.  And if it is just anecdotal stories, then they are devoid of any value.

                          •  I made the mistake (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott

                            of assuming, based on your uid name, that you had some medical or scientific background. Well, you know what they say happens when you assume.

                            Good day to you.

                          •  Indeed I do so your assumption was (0+ / 0-)

                            correct.  (You also could have guessed as much based on the fact that I admitted to being a member of the AMA).

                          •  Well, I looked (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jxg, splashy, Bill W, DC Scott, mamamedusa

                            and it wasn't clear to me that you admitted to being a member, at least in this thread.

                            As for the AMA, how it came to its position, one view

                            In a final blow, the AMA ultimately refused to support the bill, claiming a history of neutrality regarding abortion legislation. Opponents were thrilled, noting at every opportunity that, "Even the American Medical Association does not endorse..." Just weeks later, however, the AMA changed this longstanding position of neutrality and professional objectivity in order to endorse the "partial-birth" abortion ban after obtaining higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors. An internal AMA audit later concluded that the organization "blundered" and that the endorsement was politically, and not medically, motivated. But that would come much later

                            (emphasis mine.)

                            Which is why I won't join the AMA. Personally I favor taking care of patients over protecting the financial interests of doctors. And that decision just proved to me how corrupt the AMA has become.

                            I had hoped they had changed, but you have proven to me that I was unfortunately wrong.

                          •  Uh oh. Beware the hijacked thread, stitch. (5+ / 0-)

                            The Doctor returns from his voluminous postings on Redscape as an "Adjutant" to once again inform the debate on DailyKos.  See HERE, e.g.  I have no idea what an "Adjutant" on Redscape actually is, but it sounds important, huh?  And sort of militaristic.  

                            Roam around the website, if you can stomach it.  I especially like his continuous slams on Dems as a group.  And liberals.  I don't want to call him a troll, but he does tend to hijack threads here with continuous back and forth, ground shifting debate on extraneous issues.  Other lawyers refer to his sort as "anklebiters."  Yip, yip, yip.  

                            Well, the Doc doesn't like abortion, yeah, no news there.  But he started out as a patent lawyer, so I'm not sure how that gives him creds in ConLaw, but hey . . . we all evolve.  

                            Just a heads up, stitch.  This has been going on for years.

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott, mamamedusa

                            information appreciated. "Dr. Aware."

                          •  Also believe he was an MD before going to law (4+ / 0-)

                            school, so he's also got that "doctor's certainty."  

                            Take an MD ego and add a law degree and, well, kind of like handing a fifth of whiskey and car keys to some teenagers.  Off they go.  

                            Be well.

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:30:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I gave you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott, mamamedusa

                            a rec for the comment, but not all of us have that kind of ego (I hope!) Or certainty. I'm hoping to read that new book, "How Doctors Think." I read a review and it appears to be different from what I had thought it was, and could be good food for discussion with my residents.

                            In medicine, it has been my experience that both faith and certainty carry great risks. It takes flexibility of thought and a willingness to admit errors to really do the best for patients. (In my 'humble' opinion. => )

                          •  Props to docs. (4+ / 0-)

                            My dad was a country doc in Alabama who went back and became a general surgeon with a specialty in thoracic surgery.  He absolutely had "doctor's  certainty," and people revered him, but he also recognized that a large percent of healing happened beyond his efforts (the "God" thing).  As I've gotten older, I realize he was quite special:  I've never met another doctor more empathic with his patients.  He died in '91, and when I go "back home" to Alabama, folks still as me if "Dr. X" was my father.  

                            My brother's a health care exec who puts up outpatient surgery centers.  Both sisters are registered nurses, one in the small town hospital that my father started in the 70s.  I'm a health care attorney and have been for awhile.  It's in my blood, I'm cursed to say.  :)

                            I'm very fond of doctors.  But I've also squared off with them when they are wrong, most recently with this pompous ass no longer in charge of my mother's care in a nursing home.  His condescension was both baseless and intolerable.  I've often said I don't mind arrogance when you're right, but to be arrogant and wrong is just too freaking much.

                            At any rate, you sound like a good guy.  Medicine's a nobel profession and a hard one, like most.  Dad never did quite make the transition to "for-profit" hospitals that are now the norm.  He absolutely hated that the hospital he started was bought out by a private company that then jacked up the cost of aspirin to the multiple dollar range.  I found a letter to the hospital administrator in his effects with the line "My patients not only trust me with their health, they also trust me not to rob their pocketbooks."  He was quite the man.  

                            Sorry for the tangent.  I like docs.  But I like 'em more when they're right.  :)

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sound like your dad (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott, mamamedusa

                            was a good guy, and a good role model.

                            Surgery requires more certainty, and probably more 'arrogance,' that I think my specialty (internal med) does - you have to make split second decisions and if you second guess yourself, it could eat you alive. It's a necessary thing in those kinds of fields.

                            But humility is still an important quality too. And it's far too often lacking in docs of all stripes, including the one (sounds like) who was your mom's doc. Good reason to switch.

                          •  Put me in "too soon old, too late smart" crowd. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stitchmd, mamamedusa


                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:35:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I can (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DC Scott

                      personally assure you that it is.

                      I can also assure you that the women having these procedures desperately wanted their babies.

                      Bottom line:  this decision should be between the woman and her doctor.  


              •  That's the point of the whole exercise CI (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Categorically Imperative

                Making sure that the public comes to think that Roe isn't worth the paper it's written on.

                Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

                by Kimberley on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:55:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "undue burdens" to Republicans (11+ / 0-)

          are only an issue when their daughters get pregnant from a sexual assault.

          I piss on the SCOTUS 5, George Bush, and the Republican party.

          The people who brought you the War on Terror are the same ones who brought you the War on Drugs.

          by Terminus on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Roe was gutted by Casey. (20+ / 0-)

          Overturned in all but name only when Sandra Day O'Connor got rid of Roe's trimester system and replaced it with Casey's crystal clear "undue burden" standard.  And it hs been death by a thousand cuts since.  A s-l-o-w march.

          The right just changed tactics, co-opting the judiciary.  Today's decision is one more in a long line of steps to undo Roe in its entirety without causing civil war.  Wonder what the right'll use for fundraising when Roe goes.

          Incremental steps.  It all depends on who gets the next Supreme Court appointment.  On all sorts of matters, not just the right to a safe surgical procedure rather than butchering women on tables in rural Alabama.  

          "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

          by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:35:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes indeed (11+ / 0-)

            The right just changed tactics, co-opting the judiciary.

            That has been their goal for a long, long time, and it's just taken many of us far too long to realize it.

            That is, after all, how Rove got his start - getting extreme right-wing judges elected and placed.

            •  Article III judgeships, whether district court (10+ / 0-)

              or appeals courts, are part of the right's assault.  It started under Reagan by a guy named William Bradford Reynolds, when Reagan didn't get a lot of cooperation on getting his laws through a Democratic Congress.  Who needs Congress when you can depend on judges simply to rewrite the laws?  You can see how this attitude manifests itself 20 years later with W signing statements, unitary executive theory, etc. And this decision.  

              So late Chief Justice Rehnquist was appointed and wrote in dissent for years.  Then came Nino Scalia.  And the execrable Clarence Thomas.  Forming the three horsemen of the judicial Apocalypse.  The fact that the names Sandra Day O'Connor (former head of Republican majority in Arizona state senate) and Anthony Kennedy could appear in the same sentence with the word "moderate" shows how far right the courts are now.

              As the saying goes, "same whore, different corner."*

              *With all respect to legitimate and honorable sex workers out there.  

              "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

              by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:49:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is why during the Alito hearings I diaried (11+ / 0-)

              and posted and pounded out enough electrons that my fingers were tired.


              and I got hammered on this site for obsessing....

              In America, politics is big business. - J P Morgan

              by 4Freedom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nah. You were dead on. And the strategy is to (8+ / 0-)

                pick 'em relatively young, so they'll lock up the courts for years.  Alito, Roberts . . . young guys.

                It pains me beyond measure that Clarence Thomas will sit on that Court for the rest of my life.   He was, I believe, 43 when appointed.

                "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:55:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As I recall, we were all racists because (6+ / 0-)

                  we opposed his selection.


                  "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

                  by bablhous on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:08:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think Thomas's exact words were (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bablhous, decitect, stitchmd, 4Freedom

                    a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks that deign think for themselves."

                    Or something like that.  

                    "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                    by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He was not placed on the Court for his intellect. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      The Anita Hill confrontation was more illustrative of his capabilities.

                      In America, politics is big business. - J P Morgan

                      by 4Freedom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:40:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  well, if only he would (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      think for himself, he might not have been subject to that 'high-tech lynching.'

                      He's been nothing more than Scalia's and the right's lap dog. Has he actually written more than one opinion?

                      •  Um, yes. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Lots of them.  Your criticism borders on racism.

                        •  I'm not that close of a court watcher (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bablhous, DC Scott

                          admittedly, and I'm not a racist. What I have seen of Thomas, in most high profile cases, is a high tendency to sign on to decisions written by Scalia or previously by Rehnquist, although I do know he had differed from them from time to time.

                          I'd be offended by any member of the court, regardless of race or gender, who appeared simply to sign on to another person's position. The role of a justice is just too important for that, but that's where my opinion of Thomas has come from. Not from his race; what I had seen as a lack of independent viewpoints.

                          Thank you for the information; I'll review it later. (That is why I asked, btw, because I don't have the info.)

                          •  It's a hell of an accusation to make (0+ / 0-)

                            And Thomas has many, many high-profile opinions.

                          •  Okay, I apologize (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bablhous, DC Scott

                            but given the discussions I've had over time, I'm not the only one with this viewpoint.

                            I still think Thomas was not qualified for the court when he was appointed. If you believe he met the standards, particularly of experience, that others apppointed to the court have demonstrated, regardless of race or gender, fine, but I will disagree. And I will admit that that viewpoint has probably affected my opinion on Thomas ever since.

                          •  Fair enough. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott

                            He certainly wasn't the best-qualified when nominated, and I would have voted against him on that basis alone.  Since joining the Court, he's proven to not be dumb -- just that he's wrong on many issues.

                          •  When Thomas was approved for the Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bablhous, DC Scott

                            decisions like this were anticipated, and he hasn't disappointed.

                            I write only to point out that I am unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.

                            In America, politics is big business. - J P Morgan

                            by 4Freedom on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:42:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  From NYT "Youngest, Cruelest Justice" OpEd. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bablhous, stitchmd

                            Excerpt from behind NYT subscription only firewall:  Thomas joined Scalia to buck O'Connor and Rehnquist (Rehnquist, for God's sake!) in finding jailers beating a prisoner didn't violate the 8th Amendment:

                            Only four months after taking his oath as a Justice, Clarence Thomas finds himself rebuked by a seven-member majority of the Rehnquist Court for disregarding humane standards of decency.

                            • * * * *

                            A second disappointment concerns hope. Justice Thomas rose from poverty and discrimination in Pin Point, Ga., and his nomination won support from prominent people sure he would bring to the Court the understanding bred of hardship. Indeed, he testified poignantly about watching busloads of prisoners from his window. "I say to myself almost every day, there but for the grace of God go I," he told senators eager to believe him.

                            As a Justice, Clarence Thomas doesn't talk that way anymore.


                            Hell, he hadn't even gotten good and warmed up by then!  

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:40:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, let's give some love to Thomas's Federalist (0+ / 0-)

                          Society clerks, who do most of the writing.  

                          And thinking, I've heard.  

                          "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                          by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  So he was appointed anyway... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bablhous, DC Scott

                      and never thought for himself again. Right.

                      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

                      by Canadian Reader on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:47:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (8+ / 0-)

            ... it also depends on who we elect to legislatures.  Congress passed this thing, including a number of Senators (Byrd, Reid) of whom folks here are mighty fond.

            •  And still we remain fond of Reid ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pozzo, DC Scott

              ... while we don't agree with his position on this issue.  Reid knows that he is a member of a party that is collectively pro-choice, and if Democrats were in the majority for the past six years, the bill would have never been brought to the floor.  We're not about abortion litmus tests.

              Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

              by jim bow on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That all important Congressional majority. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Gotta have it. Committee chairs, majority leaders, etc.

                Big tent Dems.  Gotta have it.  

                "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:37:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And when the next piece of Roe is chipped away... (5+ / 0-)

         SCOTUS, will our party still give it all up for the big tent?

                  How much are we willing to sacrifice to keep the majority?  And what good is a majority if we sacrifice our principles to get it?

                  How much of Roe are you willing to give up?

                  •  I understand your point. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jim bow

                    Joe Lieberman is the poster child against Big Tent Dems.

                    But you start from where you are.  And we're a helluva lot further along now with a Democratic majority in Congress than we were last October.  And a stronger majority in Congress with bigger libs is the goal in '08.  Which is very doable, given the results we've seen in only five (that's right, five) months.

                    And a Dem majority in the Senate shuts down right-wing appointments to the courts.  Just look at the horrible nominees that WITHDREW their names after the Dems took Congress in November.  Read, "4 Nominees To Appeals Courts Are Dropped," HERE.

                    You want to take back the courts, you gotta have a Democractic majority.  For a long time.  

                    And I really want a solid majority so that we can start talking about impeaching and removing Article III judges who lied under oath to get confirmed.  Start with Clarence Thomas and work forward.  

                    "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                    by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:52:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DC Scott

                      There is no way that a Republican-controlled Senate would ever approve a Stephen Reinhardt, a Laurence Tribe, a Charles Ogletree, etc.  You gotta control the government, period.

                      Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

                      by jim bow on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Or Walter Dellinger. (0+ / 0-)

                        Don't forget Walter Dellinger, Clinton's Solicitor General, now heading O'Melveny's Supreme Court practice.  I've never forgiven Clinton for being such a wuss and not nominating Dellinger because Clinton wanted to avoid a confirmation fight with NC Senators Helms and Faircloth.  

                        Dellinger is worth going to the mat for.  He would be the Court's leader and a perfect foil to Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.  A wonderful, wonderful person and lawyer who also happens to be a liberal.  

                        I digress.  :)

                        "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                        by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:05:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I remember that. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DC Scott

                          Well, Walter Dellinger certainly has been involved in his share of politically polarizing fights (Robert Bork, abortion, the flag desecration amendment, etc.).  He's a bit old now.

                          Personally, I'd take Reinhardt, Tribe, Nathaniel Jones over Dellinger.  Heck, why didn't Clinton take Harry Edwards over Ginsburg?  Reinhardt sure would be interesting to have on the Supreme Court.

                          That said, Clinton's first choice was Cuomo, who certainly is as liberal as Dellinger.  Heck, George Mitchell, who it is said that Clinton offered a Supreme Court position, would have been as good as Prof. Dellinger.

                          For now, my choice would be Gov. Patrick or Prof. Ogletree.

                          Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

                          by jim bow on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:20:38 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ouch! (0+ / 0-)

                            He's a bit old now.

                            Perhaps, but he looked pretty healthy biking to work yesterday morning on New Hampshire Avenue.

                            That aside, your choices would be equally acceptable to me.  But Tribe's around Dellinger's age, I think?  I'm a big fan of Nathaniel Jones, too.  

                            You've got a good eye.  Be well.

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:24:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott

                            Gov. Patrick clerked for Judge Reinhardt in 1983.  Hopefully, Gov. Patrick has drank Judge Reinhardt's Kool-Aid.

                            Then again, Judge/Prof. Mike McConnell never drank his old boss's (Justice Brennan) Kool-Aid.

                            I think Profs. Dellinger and Tribe now are more confirmable now that they are much older.  It's a much shorter investment and smaller pill for Republicans to swallow.

                            Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

                            by jim bow on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:31:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  51 votes gets 'em in. Screw the Republicans. (0+ / 0-)


                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:41:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I forgot some other good choices: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott

                            Democratic Reps. Mel Watt (N.C.), Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Bobby Scott (Va.).

                            Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

                            by jim bow on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  The key statement... (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jxg, splashy, nasarius, DC Scott, mamamedusa

             bigger "libs" as you put it.  That is the direction we need to move.  We cannot be satisfied with putting Dems in office that are conservative.  We have to move the discussion of the issues (not just the abortion issue) to the left.

                      Every time we settle for a conservative position on any issue it allows the right wingers to take a step to the right.  The first thing we have to do is stop conceding ground to them, and then we can begin to take back ground.

                      You cannot stop conceding ground to them until you have folks who will stand for their beliefs.

                      •  Agreed. And next election'll probably give (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        splashy, Pozzo

                        us a lot more libs.  

                        I'm just saying that where we are today is a helluva lot better than where we were in October.  A Dem majority however we got there gives control of Congressional committees and what legislation gets to the floor.  

                        But we need stronger majorities, more libs to really get this country's policies back on track after the last 25 years.  We've gone so far away from what we should be doing.  

                        Can't wait to see Lieberman "Party of One" lose and replaced with a good Dem.  Man, that'll be really, really sweet.

                        "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                        by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Time will tell how much better we are. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          nasarius, DC Scott

                          As will some key votes coming down the line.  It's only been a few short months, and while it's looking a bit better there are some serious tests coming down the pike.

                          For example, when Bush vetoes the Iraq War bill and bounces it back, will we stick to our guns and call for a vote to recind funding?  Will we frame it as Bush preventing our troops from getting the money they need all because of his desire for unilimited power?

                          Or will we cave?

                          •  More will be revealed, you're right. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's gonna be interesting.  

                            I personally would like to see some impeachment revved up, but I'm content to let Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy do some more spade work to really get the country riled up.  

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:40:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're heading there... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DC Scott

                            ...with each and every hearing.  AG-gate may well be the final straw.  We need to keep pushing and support those who do the pushing in Congress.

                            Thankfully we have some chairs who act on the principles that got them there.

                          •  Yeah. Conyers, Waxman, Leahy. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashy, panther78

                            Their names go down in the pantheon of "the-guys-who-saved-America."  

                            I'm especially a huge fan of Pat Leahy.  He used to be a prosecutor, the real kind, not the fake kind like Arlen Specter.  

                            There's an old National Review article about Leahy being the Republican's "Worst Nightmare," hang on, just a minute . . . lemme find it . . . .  Ah.  Here.  The quote that I love is:

                            Ask a Republican about Leahy, and he'll shudder. Then he will say that, though Leahy can be nice and smiling on the surface, underneath he is-take your pick-"a left-wing brute," "nasty," "a pile of pure malice." Republicans are not in complete agreement, however: One says, "He's the most obnoxious [SOB] in the Senate now that Howard Metzenbaum's gone"; another says, "Nah, he was always worse than Metzenbaum, it's just that the general public didn't know it."


                            A left wing brute?  A pile of pure malice???  Oh, joy!  Joy!  


                            You go, Pat.  And Hank.  And John.  Tear 'em up.  

                            "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

                            by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:56:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  I'd question that assumption about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, DC Scott

            'without civil war.'  Don't be too sure about that.

            Individual drops of water eventually become a raging tide that sweeps away everything in its path.

            It's raining.


            "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

            by bablhous on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  O'Connor, Kennedy were concerned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              with the effect on the Court's legitimacy if it reversed Roe in Casey, because the right had just gotten a 5 vote majority.  The public would clearly have seen a reversal (at that time) as the unadorned raw politics that is has gotten to be, and driven solely by Presidential appointments.  

              Better to get rid of Roe Roe by first gutting the crystal clear trimester standard, replacing it with the undue burden, then let time do its work on a case by case basis.  And here we are.  

              The Court upheld all sorts of state restrictions on abortion in the immediate aftermath of Casey (parental notification, waiting periods, state information on the procedure), except I recall that O'Connor wouldn't go along with a "spousal consent" law.  Feminist that she was.  

              "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." To Kill A Mockingbird

              by DC Scott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:29:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The health exception was abolished today (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, DC Scott

            A thousand cuts is right.

    •  My Dad told me years and years ago (6+ / 0-)

      that the courts were the "issue" when electing a president.....turns out he was right yet again.

      John McCain Just one more koolaid drinker

      by SanJoseLady on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:49:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here we go... (12+ / 0-)

    2008, people. They're not kidding about their agenda. We need a Dem President. Want the right to choose? Looks like we're going to have to work damn hard for it.

  •  wow... (6+ / 0-)

    I never thought they would actually do it.

    This is reprehensible.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:24:37 AM PDT

  •  So what are the other "safe medical options" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, nasarius, keila, lgmcp, Albatross

    Does this mean any procedure can be banned as long as there is a "safe medical" alternative?

    [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:24:57 AM PDT

  •  What we have to look forward to: (24+ / 0-)

    Roberts:  52
    Scalia:   71
    Thomas:   58
    Alito:    57

    These people will be around FOREVER.  Seventy-one is relatively young these days.  

    Just pray Stevens health and WORK LIKE HELL to elect a Democrat in 2008.

    It's time for a president to to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war -- John Edwards

    by ThirstyGator on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:25:03 AM PDT

  •  I predicted this over a month ago (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thebes, splashy, keila, lgmcp, EnderRS

    Both the breakdown and the author of the opinion.  From the early reports I gather that the Court did not explicitly overrule Stenberg and left the door open to "as applied" challenges.  

    Though in reality I do not see how Stenberg survives (since it invalidated a ban on a facial challenge) or how an "as applied" challenge succeeds given that other procedures are available (which is what AMK emphasized).

  •  This is why (18+ / 0-)

    I cannot support anti-choicers like Casey, even when they have a "D" after their name.

    Does anyone think the SCOTUS is unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade?  I don't.  

    No more votes for anti-choice, anti-privacy, anti-woman politicians, no matter their party affiliation.

  •  We're in... (20+ / 0-)

    Your uteri!

    Whee! Once again, a gang of old rich conservative men slip their cold fingers into the wombs of America's women to punish them for having sex.

    Naughty, naughty vixens.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:26:08 AM PDT

    •  I sit here, tears of rage (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, The Raven, mamamedusa

      filling my eyes.  I can barely see the picture on my desk - the picture taken in the Winter of '92 of my daughter and two of her friends marching in front of the Bush White House, signs held high, smiling and laughing, certain in that crowd of half a million, that their rights to control their own bodies would never be restricted.  Just out of college........they were so young.

      "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

      by Lying eyes on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:53:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thomas won't last as long (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, lgmcp, Dartagnan

    there is a history of health problems in his family

    If I seem a little insensitive or clueless it is due to my having Asperger's Syndrome.

    by altscott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:26:11 AM PDT

  •  Aren't there exceptions (0+ / 0-)

    in cases of rape, for example?
    I'm against partial birth abortion, but not in these extreme cases.

    •  No exceptions except for life of the mother (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      norm, 4Freedom

      In cases of rape etc you can still get an early term abortion.

      •  yeah (10+ / 0-)

        because if the mother didn't "enjoy" herself, it't apparently OK with the wingnuts to terminate.
         If she DID enjoy herself, then she's got to take her punishment....  oh, I mean she's got to give birth.



        I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

        by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh?! (0+ / 0-)

          This bill does not provide for any exceptions save for the "life of the mother."  So I don't know whatyour beef is on this point.

          •  commenting (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, keila

            on "in cases of rape etc you can still get an early term abortion"


            I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

            by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:45:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So? (0+ / 0-)

              You can get them in case of rape or just because you want one.  

              •  so.... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jxg, splashy, njgoldfinch

                I am making the point that many people (wingnuts in particular) think abortion is acceptable IF the woman was raped, but otherwise, no.


                I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:54:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, that is not unusual (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Richard Lyon

                  It is the balancing of two moral imperatives.  People do it all the time.

                  For instance we prohibit escapes from jail, but make an exception if the jail is on fire.

                  •  Are you serious? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, splashy, nasarius, mamamedusa

                    Are you arguing that the disapproval of abortions except in the case of rape is a reasonable, moral opinion to hold?


                    I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                    by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:00:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is morally reasonable (0+ / 0-)

                      It is not what I subscribe to as a matter of public policy, but yes I view it as a morally reasonable accomodation to the competing moral issues.

                      •  I guess we disagree then (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                           Because while I can understand how someone who believes that life begins at conception would find all abortions reprehensible (I get it, I don't agree with it) and I see that as reasoned, I don't think it's reasonable at all to say that abortions are reprehensible unless the woman was raped.
                         If the foetus is a human life equal in value to all other humans living, how is it reasonable to termitate it's life because of how it was conceived?
                         I would love to hear your explanation of the rationale.  


                        I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                        by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:15:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Like I said, it is an accomodation of (0+ / 0-)

                          two competing principles.  

                          One is that the unborn child deserves protection.  Second, is that a raped woman should be put into status quo ante as much as possible to eliminate all (or as many) traumatic consequences from rape as possible.

                          •  still makes no sense to me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Given the incredible importance our culture places on "human life", I can't see how someone who would oppose abortions due to their 'respect for the sanctity of human life' could then find a way to reasonably say "unless the woman was raped, then the taking of another life is OK to spare her trauma"


                            I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                            by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:46:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, we allow taking of human life (0+ / 0-)

                            when one intrudes into your house even if he does not intend to kill you.  We accomodate and balance these sort of values all the time

                          •  yes (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jxg, mamamedusa

                            because we recognize that taking a life in defense of your own physical life (and how often do we know the intents of someone intruding into our home??) is acceptable.
                              Very different scenario, the abortion to avoid psychological trauma to the rape victim.


                            I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                            by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:52:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not suggesting that the scenario (0+ / 0-)

                            is NOT different.  What I am suggesting is that this sort of balancing is rational.  And people when engaged in this sort of balancing come out at different points.

                          •  well again (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            that's where we disagree. I don't think it's "rational" when someone reaches this conclusion. I think it's highly IRrational, based on thinking errors and emotional reasoning.

                            But we can agree to disagree.


                            I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

                            by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:02:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Self-defense clause (0+ / 0-)

                          Essentially, most pro-life moderates (those who believe in the personhood of the fetus but accept abortion in exceptional cases) would fall back on the principle of self-defense to justify the decision.

                          Like the taking of any other life, there are situations in which it would be acceptable as an act to defend yourself.  All but the most hardcore, fire-breathing, and (thus) publicly in-your-face anti-abortion advocates accept abortion to save the life of the mother in medical emergencies.  (It's just that the crazies get the most worked up and get the most airtime.)

                          Similarly, a lot of pro-life advocates accept abortion in the case of rape or incest as an acceptable act to defend a woman from the ramifications of an acts that is generally considered non-consensual.  Basically, it's not considered the result of irresponsibility that she's pregnant.  (A near worship of the principle of personal responsibility is common in conservative circles, and the idea of a consenting woman being forced to endure the hardships that came from her actions is considered vastly different from the hardships that a raped woman would endure.)  Support for this is less than support for procedures to save the life of the mother because the unborn fetus is considered to be another innocent victim who should not suffer for the "sins of the father."  However, support is still common because pro-life advocates tend to find it still easy to sympathize with a woman who was forcibly impregnated while they might not someone who is "killing a child" "to avoid taking responsibility."

                          Self-defense starts to break down as an argument when considering the abortion of malformed children, which is why support of an exception for the abortion of children with (pre-?) birth defects is significantly less than for the other three.  However, there's some blurring of the lines between supporters of incest and deformity exceptions because some people consider incest wrong because of what kind of children it would produce more than the emotionally coercive nature of most incestuous relationships (e.g. child abuse by a caretaker).

                          Most hardcore pro-choice and hardcore pro-life advocates aren't aware that there are logically and ethically consistent positions in between the "always legal" and "never legal" camps, but they are out there.  Some people draw a balance in between the perceived rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother at a different point than one end or the other.

                          "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men." --Ferdinand Kürnberger (1821-1879) on Guilded Age America

                          by Pundimatic on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Forcing Non-Raped Women to Continue Pregnancy. (5+ / 0-)

                            For these so-called "Pro-Lifers" who continually claim to care about valuing "life" by calling abortion "murder" (which must therefore be outlawed); It makes absolutely no sense to selectively allow "murder" just because this "innocent child" (in their words) was conceived as a result of rape. Afterall, the nature of the abortion act does not change based on the circumstances of the conception. Yet these "Pro-Lifers" continually claim that there is absolutely no difference between killing an already born person and aborting a fetus as their justification for compulsory child-birth laws.

                            We all agree that a person walking down the street should not be shot and killed because s/he was born as a result of rape. Why then, do many of these Pro-Lifers who insist that there is no difference between killing the unborn and killing the born, turn around and allow the killing of the unborn conceived as a result of rape? This so-called allowance for cases of rape completely undermines their whole argument that abortion is murder.


                            They are just a bunch of hypocrites for claiming to value human life. They don't care about life. They just want to control other people's personal lives via the heavy hand of government because they don't agree with their personal lifestyles. True conservatives believe in limited government that leaves people alone; they frequently talk about getting the government off of the backs of the people. This certainly should extend to our bedrooms and uteruses as well. These "Bedroom Police" types are not true conservatives as all. Rather, they are fascists.

                            In some ways I have more respect for those Pro-Lifers who genuinely care about the unborn, regardless of circumstances(rape and non-raped). Their motives are not to punish women for having sex but rather, to preserve the lives of the unborn. As much as I disagree with them, I have more respect for these "true believers" than those "busy bodies" who maliciously seek to use the government to punish women for having sex.    

                          •  Rape vs. abortion and victims. (0+ / 0-)

                            Basically, it's an emotional response based on an "ick" factor for most people.  The majority of people's positions on abortion are not the result of careful, reasoned decisions about the ethical ramifications of their positions but about the fact that abortion makes them feel repulsed by forcing a rape victim to carry a child to term is more repulsive.  This is a reason why the composite images of American beliefs on abortion are a general opposition to late-term abortions, support for abortion in cases of rape or threat to the mother's life, and support for fetal-stem cell research.  It's all based on a system of which alternative is "ickier."

                            That said, it is possible to draw certain ethical rules that frame the rape question in a way that allows one to come to a decision that is at least ethically consistent.

                            (Note:  For purposes of building a set of ethical guidelines that allows an otherwise pro-life person to support abortion in the case of rape, we will assume the pro-life postulate that the unborn is a person with inherent rights and that the rights of the mother are not inherently superior in all situations.)

                            Rape and pregnancy is a situation that has absolutely no other parallels in the world, so we can't easily apply the rules from one situation to this one.  In no other situation that I can think of does the mere existence of another human being result as the continuation of a crime violating the rights of another person.  While the fetus is not guilty of any crime or violation, its existence is a continuation of said violation.  By forcing the mother to carry to term, you force the mother to continue to endure the violation of the sanctity of her own life by the rapist.  In essence, the rape continues for the rest of her life.

                            The ultimate victim, though, becomes the fetus.  The unborn is guilty of no crime but existing and yet receives capital punishment for its father's crimes.  No pro-lifer likes this outcome.  To some, it's even more abhorrent than its life being terminated for simply being unwanted, but to a great majority when faced ultimately with two victims, they pick the mother's suffering because they have a better ability to empathize with the mother -- the mother may be someone they know.

                            Yet, this comes back to a slightly hypocritical point.  Do they not know women who loved and were abandoned?  Do they not know people in situations where they can't care for a child?  Ultimately, it comes back to the philosophy of personal responsibility.  Conservatives typically believe that sex shouldn't happen outside of a committed relationship.  (So, your point about them wanting to control your behavior in the bedroom is accurate.)  They believe that you should've known better than to get pregnant in a bad situation because you should've used better judgement.

                            ...Which brings us back to rape.  Essentially, everyone recognizes that a woman in an unwanted pregnancy suffers.  (Only the most strident pro-lifers don't really seem to care.)  The question at the core of the ethical philosophy is whether or not a woman should be forced to suffer for a decision she didn't make.  Responsibility becomes the deciding factor in such an ethical system.

                            Lastly, while I've said that most pro-lifers don't believe in "sins of the father," some do.  In such a system the child is in fact "guilty" for existing.  Such a position is rare (and almost unknown in modern times), but it is out there.  It's non going to be a common position, but it does however open up your question about why you can't just shoot a child born of rape walking down the street.  (Well, of course you can't because you're not the victim, but that's beside the point.)  

                            I would avoid ever using that argument in a debate against a pro-lifer because it opens the door to the debate over why a mother can't kill their child post-birth if they feel the child is a burden.  That's a slippery slope debate that you can't win against a pro-lifer.  (But do consider the question some time.  It may help you shore up your own beliefs or re-evaluate them into something more consistent yourself.)  Use a different approach.  Besides, it's largely irrelevant in a debate over abortion only in cases of rape because it attacks a position that most pro-lifers don't have.

                            "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men." --Ferdinand Kürnberger (1821-1879) on Guilded Age America

                            by Pundimatic on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:17:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The money quote (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Boston to Salem, mamamedusa

                            The majority of people's positions on abortion are not the result of careful, reasoned decisions about the ethical ramifications of their positions...

                            You really needn't say much more.  This pretty neatly sums up the entire Religious Right as well - it's all a bundle of 'feelings' about various things.  Nevermind that they are in conflict and inconsistent.  

                            Logic is a liberal value too, so it seems.

                          •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                            Sometimes I'm reminded how pointless trying to reason out and logically portray another person's argument on a political forum because partisans will simply quote soundbites and only listen to what they want to listen to.

                            Seems that's not exclusively a conservative value.

                            "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men." --Ferdinand Kürnberger (1821-1879) on Guilded Age America

                            by Pundimatic on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:42:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Killing Already Born People vs. Aborting Fetuses (0+ / 0-)

                            Actually, I respectfully disagree with what you say about how I should not mention the killing of an already person walking down the street (who was raped)vs. aborting a fetus resulting from rape. You state that this argument makes Pro-Choicers vulnerable because it "opens the door" to anti-abortionists' charges that if we allow the killing of the unborn because they are "burdens", then this somehow extends to the condoning of killing already born people who are considered a "burden" to others. I don't think my using that situation of an already born person (born as a result of rape)in any way leaves us vulnerable at all. In fact, this argument only strengthens our argument while blowing apart the entire premise of the anti-abortion position.

                            Afterall, it is the anti-abortionists who are always squacking about how there is no material difference whatsoever between killing the unborn and killing the already born. They continually call both situations murder and seek serious criminal punishment for both situations. I have read their literature for many years-long before the internet existed, and heard many of their speeches whereby they continually hammer the point over and over and over; that there's no difference whatsoever between killing the already born and aborting a fetus. In fact, this point is the ENTIRE CRUX & CORNERSTONE of their argument as to their advocacy of disallowing abortions and creating "rights" for the unborn. Yet (as mentioned); many of these same people suddenly undermine the crux of their entire "Pro-Life" argument by admitting (inherently) that there is a material difference between killing the unborn and killing the born through their allowance of the killing of an unborn "person" who results from rape while disallowing the killing of an already born person who exists as a result of rape.

                            If these people are willing to suddenly admit that there is a material difference between killing the unborn and killing the born, then they are implicitly admitting that abortion is not murder afterall. And if abortion is not murder, then there is no justification for banning it unless of course, the true agenda is simply to use Big Govt. to punish people for what they do in their private bedrooms (a place where Big Govt. does not belong). But they have no right to claim the moral highground by peddling their so-called "sancity of life" arguments when their motives are only revenge against women for having consensual sex.

                            As to the argument that using this argument helps anti-abortinists by "opening up the floodgates" to arguments about allowing the killing of already born people who are a burden to others visa vis the burdens of pregnancy; this does not apply here. Pro-Choicers have always argued that there is a HUGE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE between aborting a pregnancy (ie: killing the unborn in the words of anti-abortionists) and killing already born people. This is the ENTIRE CRUX AND CORNERSTONE of the Pro-Choice argument.

                            Therefore, us Pro-Choicers are not in any way being inconsistent or underming our own positions by saying that already born people who pose a burden to others should not be killed while advocating that women have the moral and legal right to decide whether or not to sacrifice our own health, bodies, lives and entire futures in order to sustain a tragic, unwanted pregnancy, free from oppressive government.

                            Killing an already born person and aborting an unwanted pregnancy (regardless of the circumstances of conception) are two completely different situations that do not even begin to compare. Us Pro-Choicers will ultimately prevail in the long run but our spokespeople and our Democratic leadership have to stop ceding the moral highground to the opposition by allowing them to put us on the defensive when we actually have plenty of ammunition to put them on the defensive. In fact, us Pro-Choicers are the ones who have the moral highground and our leadership should stop apologizing for favoring the advancement of women in society which requires that we keep our reproductive rights.

                          •  Consider the audience of your argument first. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think my using that situation of an already born person (born as a result of rape)in any way leaves us vulnerable at all. In fact, this argument only strengthens our argument while blowing apart the entire premise of the anti-abortion position.

                            Of course it doesn't weaken your argument -- from your point of view.

                            If you're trying to convince a pro-lifer of the validity of your position, you're arguing from a position of weakness from their point of view.

                            Basically, it's a difference in inherent assumptions.  Until you find a way to address that assumption either directly or by providing a reason for them to throw that assumption in doubt, you can't budge them.  By asking this question, you lose that fight by accidentally asking them to consider and mentally reaffirm one of the core assumptions of their beliefs.  It's an argument that hardens their position at the same time that you're trying to win them over.

                            That's why I say that it's a pointless argument to use in considering the question of whether allowing abortion in the case of rape is right or wrong.  Instead of using that as a wedge to goad them to consider whether there are other situations in which abortion is permissable (if though still a terrible choice to be forced to make), you do the opposite by making them reconsider whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape.  In essence, you backslide them away from your point of view.

                            That's what makes that argument self-defeating.  Whether it's ethically correct from your POV is irrelevant compared to whether or not it's ethically correct within their POV.  Most positions on abortion (and really any thorny social/moral issue) are the result of reasoning and logic applied after the fact to emotional gut-checks and moral postulates.  This is true whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice.  Both sides pretend to have the absolute high-ground on the reasonableness of their position, but both sides sharpen their reasoning only after having their beliefs tested -- not before arriving at them.

                            Convince a pro-lifer emotionally that rape is not the only place that a woman (and/or child) may suffer for the rest of her life due to an unwanted pregnancy, and their own mind will rationalize out reasons why this okay later.  Convince them that their logic is inconsistent because there's no difference morally to what's being done to the child, and you may guide their reasoning further away from your point of view.  By arguing poorly when testing their beliefs, all you may be doing is giving them strength.

                            "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men." --Ferdinand Kürnberger (1821-1879) on Guilded Age America

                            by Pundimatic on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:22:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  because clearly, moral personhood... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, Boston to Salem, splashy

                    ... is determined by the intentions of the sperm donor.

          •  NO the health clause it out n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Dont call it that, please. (6+ / 0-)

      Name a body part and a planet, and I've taken a bullet in it, on it. Relentless!

      by ablington on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:32:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  in case of rape? (7+ / 0-)

      What does how a fetus was conceived have to do with a medical procedure?

      I am confused by your post,


      I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

      by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm just as confused... (0+ / 0-)

        ... trying to figure out how someone who was raped would wait long enough for this procedure to be the only option?

        I can (maybe) see having exceptions in cases where there is extreme danger to the mother's life, but other than that there is plenty of time to come to a decision before this is necessary.

        •  google image "anencephaly" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's usually not identified until near-viability, via ultrasound.

          •  I understand there are extreme cases... (0+ / 0-)

            I'm aware there are certain medical problems which do not become evident until late in the pregnancy.  I'm just trying to figure out what kind of exceptions besides these kingsbridge77 should be valid.

            My opinion is that there really is no valid reason for this type of procedure except for severe medical problems not evident before this stage.

        •  You still have not answered my question (0+ / 0-)

          I still don't understand your point. Sorry, maybe I am a little dense today.


          I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

          by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  a raped female (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy, mamamedusa

          a raped female might easily be in the situation of waiting to terminate.

          1.  a minor who is raped might not be able to get consent from her parents/guardians.  this would extend the timeline
          1.  a minor who is impregnated by a molestor who is known to the family or is a family member is likely not to report the molestation/rape -- because of the extra impediment of overcoming belief that someone in the family circle did such a heinous act.  this would extend the timeine.
          1.  females are raped all the time by husbands and boyfriends.  that's a fact.  proving that to the authorities or a court of law is another matter.  this would extend the timeline.

          cheers --

          •  I believe the correct course of action... (0+ / 0-)

            ... in the first two examples you cite would be to argue against parental consent - not in favor of this type of procedure.

            In the third example, I am not aware of ANY law that gives husbands or boyfriends the right to prevent an abortion.  A woman doesn't need to prove her husband/boyfriend raped her to have an earlier-type abortion.  So again, what's the point?  If you don't want to have the child (inferring it is a matter of choice not medical necessity) there are plenty of other opportunities that don't involve waiting until the last minute.

    •  google image "anencephaly" (4+ / 0-)

      I'm throwing this into every comment thread I can-- lethal anomalies are probably the most common reason for late-term abortions.

      The ethical issues involved in care of an infant with lethal anomalies are even more complicated than the ethical issues involved in late-term abortions.  

  •  Pray for the health of Justice Stevens (13+ / 0-)

    for his own sake, because he is a great man, and for OUR sake, because we need him desparately.

    I know he fully intends to hang on until his dying day or the next Democratic president, whichever comes last.  But there's no guarantee that his noble intention will ensure his continued health. Especially with the likes of Coulter calling for his assassination.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:28:11 AM PDT

  •  Anthony Kennedy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, decitect, exreaganite

    is the most powerful person in the US right now.  I hate him because of Bush v. Gore, but he occasionnally comes down on the side of the angels.  Not surprised about this one, though.

    He, Stevens and Ginsberg have to hang on until Jan. 2009.  And we must win this one.

    Fortunately, I had a premonition the other day that Obama (not my favorite) and McCain would win the nominations, but that Iraq, party brand (Republicans are unpopular) and age/character issues would make 2008 a 47-state wipeout.  Only Wyoming, Utah and Idaho will go for McCain.

    The recovery will start soon.

    Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

    by Cream Puff on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:28:35 AM PDT

  •  This ruling is just a scrap being thrown to (8+ / 0-)

    the fundies to calm them down and keep them from bolting.  Let's face it, the ban on so-called "partial birth abortion" does not equal banning all abortions and unlikely will it lead to that in the near future.

    As an aside, a hearty "fuck you" to all the "Democrats" who didn't have the stomach to fight the Alito and Roberts nominations.  

  •  Good to know another stupid, right wing (7+ / 0-)

    Orwellian talking point was passed into federal law.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:29:08 AM PDT

  •  n/t (10+ / 0-)

    George W. Bush signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, surrounded by members of Congress

  •  Endorsing Repugs (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, Rob M, norm, skyesNYC, davechen, splashy

    Perhaps now the women's groups endorsing people like Chafee will wise up.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:29:28 AM PDT

  •  They're just not happy (12+ / 0-)

    unless they're making life as dangerous, unpleasant, and restricted as possible, are they?  And while I've never been hostile to Catholics (my mom was very careful to prevent that back when the SBC hadn't yet made common political cause with the RCC), they are lending a very unfortunate veneer of intellectual respectability to a bunch of sexually-obsessed fanatics.

    So more women will suffer (thanks to being forced to use more dangerous methods) medical complications, lose their fertility, have more complicated subsequent pregnancies, or even die, all to score cheap political points.  And to allow a bunch of meddling fundied to weep crocodile tears over the corpses of babies that could never have lived, and that they would never have given a crap about had they managed to survive.  Not even a toddler is as ignorant, illogical, and emotionally self-indulgent as these supposed adults; they're not really fit for a civilized society.

    "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

    by latts on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:30:11 AM PDT

  •  Standing? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not a lawyer, but if Kennedy says the original suit shouldn't have gone forward, but that the court could consider future claims, is this ruling about standing? In other words, would the court have ruled this way if the law were in effect and an individual woman being harmed by the law were to sue? That's how my non-lawyer, lowly BA degree mind interprets this. Someone set me straight, please, if I'm off base here....

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:31:34 AM PDT

  •  Real Numbers on PBA ? Sounds Like Urban Legend (0+ / 0-)

    There are fetuses and mothers with severe problems, but does anyone actually do this electively?

    I often hear about PBA but it always sounds like some sort of whacky urban legend and I have never seen any actual numbers. Is it a bigger problem than cattle mutilations and bigfoot?

    •  My understanding is (13+ / 0-)

      that it's the least dangerous late-term abortion method for certain conditions like anacephaly (in which the fetus's head is often grossly enlarged & full of fluid).  There are certainly other methods that aren't described by the 'PBA' misnomer, but they're a lot harder on the woman physically.  Which-- for these essentially misogynist freaks-- is a feature, not a bug.

      "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

      by latts on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:37:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Understand, But I Have Never Seen a Number (0+ / 0-)

        I've never seen the yearly total or statistics on types of cases.

        When have you ever seen a policy debate with absolutely no data?

      •  anencephaly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        latts, splashy, bernardpliers

        While I agree with your statement that anencephaly is probably one of the most common/most likely indications for late term abortion, I want to clarify what the condition involves.

        "An" means without.  "En" means inside. "Cephaly" means head.  The fetus does not develop that which usually grows inside the head-- a brain.  The fetus has a fully formed body and face, with just a brainstem at the back of the head-- no skull, no brain, no covering over the exposed brainstem tissue.

        If an anencephalic fetus is delivered intact, it will have basic life functions.  That's a live birth, and that's a legal person.  All the legal and ethical requirements to provide care and comfort ensue.  The baby will die slowly over a few days, while the family and care providers stand by grieving.

        Allowing a procedure that terminates the fetus before delivery can both simplify the delivery procedure physiologically and simplify the grief process.

        Anencephalic fetuses are often not identified until near the middle of pregnancy, when a woman has a detailed ultrasound screening.

  •  This started in 1992 (5+ / 0-)

    When Casey eroded much of the foundation of Roe.

    The Court, since then, has allowed restrictions that do not present and "undue burden" to a woman's right to an abortion.

    But if you think about it, this approach to fundamental rights is unique. The Court would never examine whether my First Amendment rights to religion or assembly have been "unduly burdened" to find government action unconstitutional.

    Today is further evidence that Casey changed Roe so much that it might have well overruled it.

    •  Not so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Casey upheld Roe's most fundamental holding. Post Casey courts even struck down a similar law to this one. It's losing the 2000 presidential election and the 04 election by extension that caused this.

      •  Casey really didn't uphold Roe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It just purported to.

        Also, I disagree that the election is determinative here. Rehnquist obviously would have voted with the majority here. The question is whether O'Connor would have.

        Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter were co-authors of the joint opinion of Casey, which provided the precedent needed for today's decision. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority of Gonzales v. Carhart. You assume that O'Connor would have voted against this decision, providing the crucial 5th vote - an assumption which, at best, is a stretch - considering her position in Casey.

        Today's decision is a child of the Casey decision, which did not, as many assume, uphold the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion. If a right truly fundamental, the governments restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, and not merely an "undue burden" test.

  •  The Republican Party In A Nutshell (21+ / 0-)

    Love the fetus. Hate the child. Kill the adult.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:32:22 AM PDT

  •  They say they value life (20+ / 0-)

    But how can you value the life of an unborn child over the life of the mother? That is exactly what this does. It says it is more important that a fetus with possibly severe genetic disorders, who may not live more than a day, deserves that day more than his mother deserves the rest of her life.

    This scares me. I'm a loyal Democrat, but I'm mad as hell at people like Dianne Feinstein (my senator), who were unwilling to step up and forcefully filibuster Alito's confirmation.

    This is a sad day for women.

    I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Rachel in Vista on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:32:25 AM PDT

  •  It's worth noting... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thirdparty, Adam B, 3rdeye

    that neither Roberts nor Alito joined the brief Thomas concurring opinion (joined by Scalia) calling for an overruling of Roe/Casey.  The decision's bad, to be sure, but I'd be a lot more concerned if either or both had joined that opinion.

    •  They may be just holding their fire (0+ / 0-)

      For, inter alia, political reasons.

      •  Possible... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B

        but if these folks were the crazy pro-life zealots that they're sometimes painted as, they wouldn't hesitate to join such an opinion.  Certainly, given how brief the Thomas opinion is, if you accept his central premise, there's very little legal/reasoning purpose for not joining.

        •  But why do it and feed the fears of those who (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, 3rdeye, splashy

          are afraid that Court is just 1 vote shy of striking down Roe?  Better wait, I say.

          Plus, Roberts is generally not a fan of sweeping opinions if that could be avoided.

        •  my 2 cents (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skyesNYC, jxg, 3rdeye, splashy, decitect

          is that Roberts and Alito are smart enough to not make extreme, provocative statements the way Scalia and Thomas tend to.  This moderate tone kept them confirmable (marginally confirmable in Alito's case).

          This does not mean their actual AGENDA is not extreme, though.  Far from it.  It just means they have learned to push their agenda in a more stealthy fashion.  I am guessing the Roberts agenda is not to formally overturn Roe v. Wade, but to allow so many exceptions that it will become meaningless.  So the bottom line is that we should still be very afraid of the Bush appointees.

          •  I don't... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            necessarily disagree.  But it's worth noting that they had the opportunity to at least join an opinion overturning Roe (and I'm willing to bet Scalia or Thomas would have been happy to write a much longer and more fiery opinion on the subject), and took a pass, strengthening the "super-duper precedent" argument.  Alito and Roberts thus far seem to be Judicial Conservatives, rather than Conservative Judges (if that makes sense).

          •  why should they be stealthy? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            they're on the Court for life.
            They can.. and I'm sure do.. express their real views.

            •  The theory... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, 3rdeye, splashy, mcfly

              is that Roberts in particular has carefully watched and been aware of the internal court politics even before he was on the court, and realized that Scalia and Thomas' moral certitude and standoffishness have had the effect of pushing away swing votes like O'Connor and Kennedy.  Roberts realizes that he's got to get Kennedy on board to make a majority, and he's more willing to moderate his views to get there than Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist would be.  (Breyer and Souter perform a similar function on the other side of things.)

  •  Sadly, this was the only way to wake up... (5+ / 0-)

    The moderates & independents who I have been telling for years that they were trying to ban abortion (and birth control is next).

    They keep telling me that it would never happen.

    While this is sad, it should be good for the Democrats prospects in 2008.

  •  Why I can't vote Green (11+ / 0-)

    I've said a few times that if Hillary is the nominee and still hasn't retracted her vote for the Iraq war, that I will vote Green.  But this SCOTUS is just too important to vote third party for the next generation.  

    "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." Prince Harry

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:18 AM PDT

  •  The only good news in this decision is that... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, 4Freedom

    Justice Kennedy opened the door for any specific hardships that come up as a result of implementing this law to re-consider.

    •  That's Kennedy for you..... (12+ / 0-)

      leaving an opening no one can actually use to make himself feel better.

      Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

      by landrew on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:36:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Specific Hardship ?!!? (4+ / 0-)

      How about just being told that your 4-month fetus has a hideous, incurable deformity that will kill it within days of birth and you may terminate the pregnancy in the best, safest way possible but first you have to petition the court for an exception to the law.  I know you'd feel awful just then, and would probably rather tend to your grief, but petitioning the court is no picnic.  Forms, affidavits, letters, medical histories, money (you'd need an attorney too) ... Chin up, Mother-who-just-lost-her-baby! No time for sorrow!  You've got work to do!

      The justices seem an empathy problem with regard to "specific hardship".  It makes one earnestly wish that they experienced a little themselves on occasion. Then they might understand what the f..k they're talking about.

      •  My guess is that doctors will find other... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        safe alternatives to the banned procedure and this will have little effect to late-term abortions.

        As a father who have 2 heathy children (luckily) but we had a 1 of 4 chance in both cases of having a Cystic Fibrosis fetus and would have needed a late term abortion and have a close friend who terminated for Downs Syndrome, I know what it feels like to be told about such tragedies.

        •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Women will suffer and even die as a result of this decision.  Many 'first' pregnancies are assumed to be 'normal' and so often do not have procedures like amniocentesis done that would reveal potential dangers.  Poor women in particular will not make use of such tests.  Problem pregnancies in these cases will not be discovered until it is too late to do anything about it. (Too late now, I should say.)

  •  Thanks again, Ralph ... (11+ / 0-)

    As Eric Alterman often says.  

    •  Don't forget to thank.... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skyesNYC, jxg, splashy, Stand Strong, nasarius

      Leiberman and Chafee for their bravery in voting against Alito, but for cloture.  And don't forget NARAL for endorsing Joe and Lincoln.

      And a special shout-out to the media elite for convincing people that GWB was just a nice guy to have a beer with...

      So many thanks, so little time.

      Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

      by landrew on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Late term abortion isnt a fun thing to do but (13+ / 0-)

    sometimes its necessary for the mothers life, so much for the right to lifers. That puts the right to life to the unborn over the living here and now .Its bad enough of a situation to have outsiders intrude on YOUR life.

    From the Book of Horrible Questions , Would you push a red button for $10 million but 100 random people would die of natural causes, Survey said 55% would ?

    by FAUX GOP DEATH TV on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:35:17 AM PDT

  •  Man reading this decision (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bjackrian, vassmer, 4Freedom, Greasy Grant

    sounds like some lawyer splitting some very, very fine hair

    [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:35:40 AM PDT

  •  Oh well...hats off to those moderate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader, annrose, splashy

    Republicans and Christian Democrats who really thought the biggest threat facing our country was gay marriage!!! ...and I knew a lot of Democrats who were against it too, so much in fact, that I knew many people who probably wanted to go Dem vote for President Koo-Koo Bananas because they really did believe the bullshit that marriage was 'under attack!' Blockheads!

  •  Ok, this is how I interpret it: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob M, thebes, Elise, adrianrf, Greasy Grant

    They say that this law doesn't ban D&E if the fetus is already dead.

    They say that this ban only bans D&E if the abortion doctors intentionally gives a "partial birth" (not their term, but it's a description) with the intent to kill the fetus after giving such a partial birth.

    Abortions that occur if there is no partial birth are still legal.

    They say that there must be a medical consensus that the procedure may be medical necessary to rule against a law facially.

    [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:41:12 AM PDT

    •  Perhaps one silver lining (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, nasarius, Elise

      this ruling does leave open the posssibility of striking down the law if a case comes up in which an abortion has to be done in violation of the law to legitimately save a woman's life (basically, they're shifted the burden of proof to show that it is medically necessary).  

      Also, Thomas and Scalia were the only ones who signed onto a concurrence which basically said that they still think the supreme court has pretty much no business overturning abortion bans, so Alito and Roberts are still apparently with Kennedy holding at least a future possibility of overturning the law.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:47:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, nasarius

      and, interestingly, the opinion also says the doctor can kill the fetus by giving it an injection, while it is still wholly within the uterus, and then bring the fetus out intact and that is OK. The distinction is very narrowly drawn - it's OK to kill the fetus while it is still completely within the mother's body, it's not OK to kill it if it's already been partially brought out of the mother's body.

      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

      by thebes on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (0+ / 0-)

        thats why I said above that it was splitting hairs pretty good.

        [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is an attempt (0+ / 0-)

        to draw a line between abortion and infantaside. Almost everybody is opposed to the latter. The majority of the public favors the right to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. The closer the situation gets to actual birth the murkier the value judgments become. Courts and legislatures are generally in a position of having to make fairly arbitrary distinctions.

        I doubt that we are ever going to have a broad public consensus on all aspects of the abortion issue. The question is who is going to ultimately draw the lines, the courts of the legislatures.

    •  I'd be willing to have the law be this: (0+ / 0-)

      A living fetus acquires the right to life when some portion of the fetus' body is outside of the woman.  Exceptions to this would be to preserve the life or physical health of the mother, or if there were grave complications to the fetus.

      When 100% of the fetus is inside the woman, the woman has the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

      I'd go along with the first part if the wingnuts would agree with the second part.  Not holding my breath, though.

      "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

      by Greasy Grant on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not willing to have you or anybody else make (8+ / 0-)

        laws concerning my body and my medical treatment. I am not willing to allow my most personal decisions in these matters to be second-guessed by anyone.  AND I'm not willing to abandon women who have the misfortune to live in states where knuckle-dragging christianists make the laws.  I find even a discussion of "leaving it to the states" to be offensive.  What?  Tens of millions of women can suddenly lose their most basic human rights out of political convenience?  Is that what we have become?

        •  Let's get real. (0+ / 0-)

          At some point in time, the fetus becomes a baby.  If this wasn't the case, infanticide would be legal.  Heck, my mother could kill me now, and I'm over 40 (don't give her any ideas)!

          Compromising with religious fanatics literally makes me puke.  That said, the bad framing of these issues by our side is leading to Roe v. Wade being slowly chipped away.

          I'm willing to give just a little bit.  If the head is out... OK, if the head and the torso are out, the fetus becomes a baby.  I only want to control your body while the baby's feet are still inside of you.  TR me if you must.

          "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

          by Greasy Grant on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:45:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You have just described today's ruling n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  If I'm not mistaken, (0+ / 0-)

          the partial-birth abortion ban that was upheld allowed no exceptions to preserve the health of the mother.  My proposal, which I've seen proposed elsewhere as a pro-choice compromise, does have the health exception.

          "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

          by Greasy Grant on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:35:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  D&E post-fetal death (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is not an abortion, so not relevant to this discussion.

      Cuando a merda tiver valor, pobre nascera sem cu.

      by sayitaintso on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:58:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think I said (0+ / 0-)

      D&E above. that might not be the proper term. I just saw it and wrote it down (not sure which is which)

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:59:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The decision still abolished the health exception (0+ / 0-)
  •  Congress can ban all abortion now-no problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, MKS

    Seriously a nationwide ban on abortion is likely if there is a prolife president and congress in the future-its not a state issue anymore.

    •  Not going to happen. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      decitect, montpellier, adrianrf

      Because Republicans, before they believe in any principle, believe in attaining and holding power.  Strategists admit privately that the overturn of Roe would spell electoral disaster as suburban battlegrounds experience a massive blueshift.

      As Thomas Frank brilliantly explained in "What's the matter with Kansas?", abortion and other SoCon wedge issues are a means to get poor whites to vote against their economic interest.

      Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

      by Cream Puff on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:57:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

        Look at the Schiavo legislation.  It was opposed by vast majorities of the American people, yet it passed......

        •  Yeah, they blew that one. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I believe it was more miscalculation than anything.  Also, it was in an off-year, when only the most committed pay any real attention.  I believe they would've reacted far differently if the Schiavo thing had come to a point in Sept. '06.

          Plus, Rove was distracted by Plamegate and they were all a little giddy back then about a permanent majority.  Watch them act more cautiously now.

          Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

          by Cream Puff on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:51:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about the cowardly Dems (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cream Puff

            who did not oppose it?

            •  Same narrative (0+ / 0-)

              Those Dems still believed the myth of Rove as the brilliant Machiavelli that could turn anything into political advantage, and thus didn't want to oppose him.  Either that, or they forsaw how it would play and gave Republicans enough rope to hang themselves.  I suspect the former.

              Joe Lieberman drew all the wrong conclusions from Bush's first term.  John Kerry and John Edwards paid a terrible price to learn their lesson.  I only wish all Dems were more like Russ Feingold.

              Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

              by Cream Puff on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:26:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]


    congress can ban abortion procedures now and I guess all aboriton.

    •  agreed (6+ / 0-)

      those who think that abortion will go "back to the states" if Roe is overturned should pay attention to this case.  They should also look to Ashcroft v. Raich, the Commerce Clause case involving medical marijuana from a few years ago, which shows that Scalia will not let federalism concerns get in the way of conservative social legislation.

      What this means is that a future right wing congress could pass a straight ban on abortion, and a future right wing court could uphold it.  Which, again, is why elections matter.

  •  What was Needed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, splashy, Terminus

    I hold the opinion that the majority of people in this country are truly apathetic to most issues until it strikes home and personally to them. The Iraq war being a great example the majority were for it until the long ugly slog started to affect their communities.

    In the same way this decision will serve as a wakeup call to a good portion of this society that the Repug party is not what they were made to believe. The South Dakota abortion bill served as a wakeup call to the population of that state and here is to hoping this decision will serve as a similar wakeup call for the country.

    Maybe now all those people in 2004/2006 that did not vote or voted Repug because they wanted to keep more of their tax money will give those decisions a second look in 2008.

    Sometime the only way to prove to people they were wrong is to let them have a taste of the repercussion of their actions.

  •  MDs need to speak the fuck up (10+ / 0-)

    If I were a doctor this would piss me off. This is basically the Supreme Court stepping in and telling doctors that despite the research showing the the intact dilation and extraction of the foetus is the safest method for the woman under certain cirumstances, they can't use it.
     It's interfering with MDs ability to take the best care possible of their patients.

    I take the bible seriously, but not literally.

    by Boston to Salem on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:43:12 AM PDT

  •  So, if an American woman has a life-threatening (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    late-term pregnancy, it will be a federal crime for physicians to intervene to save her life? Is there a way around this, can physicians get a court order?

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:43:57 AM PDT

    •  Well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, Agathena

      the decision still leaves open the possibility to look at the law again if a case comes up showing medical necessity.

      However, what this ruling does is essentially shift the burden from those who say it isn't medically necessary to those who say it is.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:48:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody does this procedure... (7+ / 0-)

    so the effect is technical.

    How do we draw the lines about what this procedure is and what it isn't.

    This is creating murky waters at best.

    As far as I know (from being in the business for over 30 years) this procedure has been abandoned years ago.  There never was really a medical term "Partial Birth Abortion".  It's a political term coined to enrage and misinform.

    The problem could become with selective enforcement, and of course, the precedent set that this Supreme Court has set that they will throw Roe v. Wade out the door.

    Elections do have consequences.  And the Dems who didn't filibuster Alito and Roberts have foisted this "consequence" upon American women and families.

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:44:07 AM PDT

  •  The health exception is GONE (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, hornrimsylvia

    Wow this is almost the end for legal abortion

    •  Not totally, but (0+ / 0-)

      They say that there is still a debate over the medical necessity of it, and thus they can't overrule the law on it's face.

      It essentially shifted the burden of proof to those who think it is medically necessary.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:50:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The law had no health exception (0+ / 0-)

        Constitional laws about abortion are supposed to. I can't believe it.

        •  Basically they said (0+ / 0-)

          not having a health exception wasn't a problem because there isn't a consensus that it's medically necessary.

          However, if a case came up showing that there is a case that it was medically necessary, that would be a reason to overturn the law, but like I said, the burden is now on those who say it is necessary.

          [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:54:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are being too specific (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, adrianrf

            Broadly speaking the idea that an abortion law has to have a health exception is gone!

            •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              before, the court basically said "if there is a chance that it is medically necessary, then the law is overturned"

              They changed that to "if we aren't certain that it may be medically necessary in some case, then the law can stand until such a case is shown"

              [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:01:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  here is the quote (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            The Court assumes the Act’s prohibition would be unconstitutional, under controlling precedents, if it “subject[ed] [women] to significant health risks.” Id., at 328. Whether the Act creates such risks was, however, a contested factual question below: The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their positions. The Court’s precedents instruct that the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists.

            [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:57:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The health of the mother is basically the only (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, nasarius, adrianrf

      medical reason for a late term abortion.

      What is the court saying, that US doctors are barbarians?

      This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

      by Agathena on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guess a vote for Ralph Nader doesn't matter (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, andgarden, BlueTide, adrianrf

    Right? Since there's no difference between Bush and Gore anyway.

    Yes, I'm still flogging that horse. I want everyone to realize by the flying dead horseflesh that this is one of many, many things that have happened in the US and the WORLD because Ralph had to run his vanity campaign, and give Bushco the chance to slither in, seven long years ago.

    Nader had and has a right to run. We all have the right to do any number of stupid, stupid things with horrendous long-term consequences for everyone around us. That doesn't mean they aren't stupid things to do.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:45:56 AM PDT

    •  Better control our own first (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbeach, adrianrf

      Not only this, but we have to hold accountable all the Democrats who counseled not to filibuster on Alito.  We have to hold OUR party accountable to OUR principles.

      We say that a Democratic Senate would never have confirmed Alito.  How can we be sure?  Our party did not act when we had the power to stop Alito with a filibuster.  How do we know that a Dem majority would have done anything different?

      Ralph may deserve some of our anger, but we need to take care of our own first before we go flogging someone else's horse.  

      If we can't control our own folks, how can we expect to counter anything the Greens offer?

    •  Big difference (0+ / 0-)

      Alito and Roberts were in the majority, and I'm sure both would vote to ban abortion when the time is ripe to do so. If the Republicans win the presidency in 2008, Roe v. Wade will be overturned if not sooner.

      However, political scientists will disagree with you on one point. We do not know whether Nader really caused the election to swing toward Bush. Common sense says that Nader did help Bush win because liberals that would have voted for Gore voted for Nader. However, the analysis fails to take into consideration of the decoy effect. According to the decoy effect, Nader would have pulled away independents and undecided voters away from Bush toward Gore because Nader's presence in the field caused Gore to look more moderate.

      However, I tend to agree that Nader did cause Gore the election, because moderates tend to lose votes from people who are looking for strong leaders. People who are looking for strong leaders may want to vote for candidates on the extreme ends of the political spectrum on the belief that these candidates are not afraid to express their convictions.

      •  I question how many Bush voters Nader got (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, I really question it. I can't think of a single willing Bush voter who'd rather vote for a gosh-darn dirty-word Librul like Nader.

        I agree with your point about moderates, though.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:05:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Turns out Ralp Nader was right after all (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SanJoseLady, Elise

    there was no difference between electing Bush or Gore. I'm sure President Gore would have nominated jusitces who lied with a straight face about their deference to stare decisis and would rule this way.

    •  Would a Democrat Senate have confirmed them? (0+ / 0-)

      Would the same men who believed Alito's lies when they were in the minority have suddenly changed if they were in the majority?

      Given the mix we have right now in the Senate, I suspect Alito would still have passed.

      •  It's possible (0+ / 0-)

        But unlikely. It's also at least possible that Bush might not have nominated him, fearing that he didnt' have the votes.

      •  Probably not (0+ / 0-)

        And given the wide latitude given presidents in judicial nominations, there's a strong argument that Alito deseved to be confirmed once nominated. But if Bush never becomes POTUS, Sam Alito is in a less harmful position in the Circuit Court.

        •  And if Dems used their valuable powder... (0+ / 0-)

's decision would not have happened.

          But our powder is still dry.  Let's have fireworks on the Capitol lawn...if the GOP will let us.

          •  Oh, bullshit... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, Pozzo

            ...Alito would have been confirmed after the nuclear option would have been imposed.

            Why the dems on this board don't see that, I don't know.



            •  Yes...the nuclear option would have been used... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...and would likely have failed.  Do you think the GOP really wants to destroy the filibuster as a tool for opposing judicial appointments?

              If you do, then I have some land just off the coast of Louisiana to sell you.

              I can't believe that there are still folks in the party who think that there was a serious chance for that to succeed.

              •  It would not have failed. (0+ / 0-)

                The GOP believed that they would be in power forever.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a lot of party discipline.  They would have gotten the numbers through.... believe me.



                •  I highly doubt that the GOP would have gone nuke (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Even some of their more strident conservative members were questioning the logic of handing a future Dem majority a tool that big.


                  Face it, if Santorum was questioning it, you can bet others were.

                  The nuke option was a paper tiger, and we ran from it.

                  •  Question all they want... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...when it came to vote time, they would have said yes.

                    You've seen it before.  "Moderate" republicans questioning the president, but when vote time came... they went lockstep with the guy.

                    They had the votes.  They wouldn't have gone as far as they did if they didn't have the votes.



                    •  So you are saying the Greenies are right? (0+ / 0-)

                      If I buy your bag of crap then there really is no difference between the Dems and the Repugs other than the Repugs carry through on their threats.


                      It was still a win/win situation, and you know it.  If they failed with the nuke option, we won on Alito.  If they succeeded, we win when we get control of the Senate.

                      But hey, our powder is still dry.  God forbid we ever use it.  Maybe we can wet it a bit and make some fake balls for Dems like you who haven't got any.

  •  Women's Votes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfadden, chemsmith, adrianrf

    In 2000, 52% of women voted, of whom 43% voted for Bush.

    In 2004, 54% of women voted, of whom 48% voted for Bush.

    In 2007, 11% of the Court was female (Ginsburg), who voted against the ban. 55% of the Court voted for the ban.

    The court clearly doesn't represent women in a purely gender way. With just one Justice, it's impossible to make a sexist argument either way whether she represents "women" (which is not her job, per se). But the high and increasing percentage of women who voted for Bush, who undoubtedly would outlaw abortions, shows women voting almost as much for government to ban abortions as the Court just voted to do so. Bush also replaced 11% of the Court that was female with a male, and replaced a male with a male, reducing the female representation by half - both of which males voted to ban abortions.

    Everyone saw this coming. And nearly 50% of women voted for it. Will women vote in larger numbers in 2008 for a president who will get to replace 2 or 3 Justices, including the last woman, with Justices who will protect their rights?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:46:56 AM PDT

    •  I've said this for a long time (0+ / 0-)

      I'll come right out and say it again: Women of America, you have seriously disappointed me. Yes, you did better than men, but NOT much. And you should be MORE sensitive to women's issues than men are. That's natural. But you voted nearly 50/50 for a man that has nothing but disdain for women. You get what you ask for.

      (Obviously this doesn't apply to women around here, but there are certainly way too many clueless women, AND MEN, in this country.)

      Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

      by chemsmith on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do Nader voters still believe (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, Elise, andgarden, exreaganite, adrianrf

    There's no difference between Al Gore and W?

    •  Yes they do (0+ / 0-)

      and Nader is still threatening to do it again...

      •  Then we need to put up pro-choice Dems (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, adrianrf

        Casey was elected in Pennsylvania.  Would he have voted against this legislation?  Probably not!  Will he vote to repeal it if/when we get a Dem President?

        We can't count on it.

        We need to elect PRO-CHOICE Democrats.  We need to get them ON RECORD as opposing this decision, and opposing this legislation.

        We can't control the Greenies.  We CAN control our party.

        •  Fine then (0+ / 0-)

          YOu are unwittingly advocating the death of the Democratic party, and thus, all reasonable opposition to conservatism. There are LOTs of Democrats who are pro life. Look at it this way, we would not hold the House right now if not pro life Democrats.

          •  How far are you willing to retreat on this issue. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, adrianrf, mamamedusa

            ...for the sake of keeping a house of Congress in our control?  

            Be specific much of a rollback of Roe is too much?

            •  Entire rollback, quite frankly (0+ / 0-)

              Because I think the Democratic party is too beholden to Roe, which is becoming moot anyway. There are many places where it won't matter, since you can't find a DR. willing to perform an abortion anyway. I think its rapidly becoming a moot issue. Also, Roe itself, as this case and Casey clearly demonstrates allow restrictions on abortion and in fac, according to some legal scholors, even allows for legistlation restricting most abortions anyway, as medical technology advances. It's not what I want, but its reality.

              •  If we give up Roe for to keep the majority... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jxg, adrianrf

                ...what else are we willing to give up?

                ...Unitary Executive
                ...Opposition to pre-emptive war
                ...labor laws

                How much are you willing to give up just to keep Democrats in control?

                If you don't draw the line at Roe, where do you draw the line?

                Is this is case of 'as long as it's not my ox being gored, it's OK'?

                •  No, its just reality (0+ / 0-)

                  Protecting Roe really won't save many oxes. I don't see this as a good thing, just reality. I think the pro life side has more or less won and that  we should be wary of sacrificing  too many other progressive issues to protect a case that doesn't appear to mean to much anyway.

          •  Sure but pro-life Democrats are WRONG (0+ / 0-)

            they are serioulsy misguided on the issue.

  •  I have nothing productive to say (9+ / 0-)

    about this at the moment...

    so I'm just going to go stew in anger...more like rage really...

    I fucking hate these people. Really really really really fucking hate them.

  •  i wonder how naral feels now... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mlafleur, hornrimsylvia, Pozzo, panther78

    ...about their endorsement of chafee.

  •  If a Dems take the White House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If a Dems take the White House and  make super-majoritarian gains in the Congress then they should at least move to pack the Court. If the rightwing reactionary Opus Dei types don’t  modify their approach to abortion and other issues then  expanding the number of  Justices should go forward.


    My loyalty is reserved for the country with the most generous social safety-net.

    by greenpagan on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:50:44 AM PDT

    •  Issue number ONE in the primaries... (0+ / 0-)

      ...just became abortion, if we are to overturn this bastard of a law.  We cannot allow a "no comment" or a waffle comment to stand.  We have to force the candidates for President and the Senate to speak clearly, plainly, and openly about this issue.

      We cannot afford equivocation any longer.

      •  Re: Issue number ONE in the primaries... (0+ / 0-)

        >>>>just became abortion, if we are to overturn this bastard of a law. We cannot allow a "no comment" or a waffle comment to stand. We have to force the candidates for President and the Senate to speak clearly, plainly, and openly about this issue. We cannot afford equivocation any longer.

        There seem to be a lot of Number One Issues: Universal Healthcare, the War, Taxing the Corporate Masterclass up the Gazoo, etc. But speaking clearly as we might speak clearly  isn’t always smart and/or possible  in the political arena as is in this country. Sometimes it’s like walking on eggshells. You have to play it by ear, gauging  public sentiment and trends.  Americans have been so very easily frightened out of their wits and stampeded by demagogues.  I like Kucinich best of all the Dem candidates, for example. But do I think he’ll be elected? Hell no! Nevertheless it’s a good thing he airs his POV.  If we don’t expect politicians to be Jesus Christ (or personally appointed by the same)  we’ll all be better off.


        My loyalty is reserved for the country with the most generous social safety-net.

        by greenpagan on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:50:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kucinich is pro-life (0+ / 0-)

          I am not sure you intened to make such a point.....

            •  Kucinich is pro-reproductive rights... (0+ / 0-)

              like any good free-thinking "Black" Catholic worth their salt. He's also been divorced twice. So? His current wife, Elizabeth Harper Kucinich (she's a babe...) would be--if Dennis did become President--the first red-haired First Lady since "Lucy" Adams & probably the only one who ever actually worked with Mother Teresa.

              Major items of Kucinich's progressive agenda:

              Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.
              The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and replacing them with an international security force.
              Guaranteed quality education for all, including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
              Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
              Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
              Fostering a world of international cooperation.
              Abolishing the death penalty.
              Environmental renewal and clean energy.
              Preventing the privatization of social security.
              Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
              Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
              Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
              Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
              Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
              Ending the war on drugs.
              Legalizing same-sex marriage.
              Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
              Restoring rural communities and family farms.

              Sounds good to me.

              My loyalty is reserved for the country with the most generous social safety-net.

              by greenpagan on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:09:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Filibuster (0+ / 0-)

        You would need 60 votes in the Senate to overturn the law.....I doubt that will happen.......

  •  I don't get why people are downplaying this (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    norm, jxg, landrew, splashy, mcfly, adrianrf, panther78

    This means the health exception is GONE. That should have been the slam dunk reason for overturning the law. THe court ignored that completely. THis is the most alarming decision concerning women in recent history.

  •  Kennedy is a jackass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, hornrimsylvia, adrianrf

    At what point does a "fraction" become small enough for an unconstitutional law become constitutional?  If it violates the rights of even a single individual, then it is unconstitutional.  Any high school sophomore learned this in Civics class.

  •  The Thugs got what they wanted (0+ / 0-)

    But in the end it will do them no good.  The tide is moving against them, and in time, this decision will be reversed, not by a court, but by legislative act.

  •  Half pro-abortion people... (0+ / 0-)

    ...this procedure doesn't exist (Dean) and the other half say it's necessary... uh huh...

    Sometimes things are just wrong.

    •  It's about time the AMA stepped up n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Chicagoan in Naples
      •  Called the AMA. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The counsel's office, which was the department that would be involved according to the very helpful secretary, wouldn't even talk to me.

        "The AMA doesn't comment on issues of this type"
        is the quote.  Funny, I thought the AMA was interested in issues concerning medical practice.

        Now, I am not an AMA member.  Perhpas they would be more responsive to member, especially if that member were male and "not so involved"  with the issue.

        Any takers?

        It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

        by clio on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  excuse me? Nobody says it doesn't exist (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, splashy, MKS, mamamedusa

      certainly not Howard Dean. what doesn't exist (statistically speaking) are women who've been pregnant for 8-9 months, then flippantly decide to have an elective abortion at the last minute because they suddenly don't like the idea of having a baby.

      You think it's less wrong to let both the woman and the baby die, is that your stance? because that's what we're talking about here, with this procedure.  

    •  "Partial-birth abortion" vs Dilation & Extraction (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clio, jxg, bten, adrianrf, mamamedusa

      "Partial-birth abortion" does not exist; it is not a recognized medical term. It's a propaganda term. That's what Dean and others are talking about when they say it doesn't exist.

      The relevant procedure is a D&E (dilation and extraction), as opposed to a D&C (dilation and curettage). As I understand it, a D&E is necessary to extract the fetus prior to its destruction in cases when keeping the fetus in the uterus would be dangerous to the pregnant woman. This is often the case with severe birth defects. In a D&C, the fetus is removed bit-by-bit from the uterus.

      The D&E procedure affected by the law is relatively rare, and typically used late-term, though it can be used at any time during a pregnancy. The law, as far as I can tell, bans the procedure at any point during a pregnancy.

      The typical scenario where this procedure is necessary is when a woman in a high-risk pregnancy decides to carry to term. For example, tests might indicate a chance of birth defects, but a woman personally opposed to abortion might choose to face those risks. Then, when its determined that the fetus has a major defect and is likely unviable, the options are to give birth to a baby that will almost certainly die, or to have a D&E. A D&C at this later stage often carries much greater risks to the pregnant woman, not always to her life but sometimes to her future ability to have a child. So a woman who wants to have a baby and did everything to have a baby, and wants to preserve the future ability to have a baby, would be well-advised to choose a D&E.

      Banning the procedure throws all these considerations out the window and will consign women in circumstances like this to completing a pregnancy that is unlikely to result in an even minimally healthy child and may prevent them from having another child. It is anti-woman, anti-child, anti-mother, and anti-life. It's an abomination, and anyone who supports banning this procedure is either ignorant or immoral, and should be ashamed.

  •  Slow Down, Plan Concretely, Get Religious! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, montpellier

    First, look at the decision (as far as we can see at this point; Roberts seems to have limited his vote to how the case was filed, not the merits of the arguments against the law. That is probably political. He doesn't want complete chaos before the next election.

    Second, there are two remedies: First, a case filed the way he suggests (a mother of an anencephalic child who suffers physical harm because of the limitation.)

    Third, and most importantly, pray for the health of Ginsburg and you send a contribution to the next crop of Democratic senatorial candidates.

    •  How immoral and anti-life is Roberts... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, splashy, bten, adrianrf, mamamedusa

      ...and Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, that they are saying they will not consider the health of women in general until a specific woman dies or is permanently scarred because they decided to prevent her doctor from giving her necessary treatment?

      "Send us a sacrifice. Ruin a woman's life. Then, maybe, we'll think about preventing it from happening again. Because we're pro-life."

      This whole attitude makes me physically ill.

  •  Ok, all I can say right now ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, LordMike, adrianrf

    Damn those activist judges.

    If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shall not ration justice -- Judge Learned Hand

    by Todd42873 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:58:45 AM PDT

  •  Sincere question (0+ / 0-)

    Would we be better off if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and the question of abortion were decided instead by individual state legislatures (or perhaps referenda)?

    Wouldn't that eliminate the disproportionate power the SCOTUS (and therefore the President) wields regarding this question?

    To be absolutely clear: I am ardently pro-choice.  I am not attacking the spirit behind Roe v. Wade, but rather wondering whether leaving it as a political question that we could directly influence would be a better path toward achieving pro-choice objectives.  

    •  This was a FEDERAL Law (0+ / 0-)

      states could become irrelevent on the issue of abortion

      •  I guess what I'm asking is (0+ / 0-)

        Whether abortion shouldn't be decided federally, whether we'd be better off that way?

        •  I think (0+ / 0-)

          I would rather have no state be allowed to ban abortion and women are better off with a constitutional right to choose. But now with this decision Abortions a federal issue and can be banned federally. This is the entire opposite of Roe. Roe essentially has been overturned.

          •  Whoa (0+ / 0-)

            Roe has essentially has been overturned.

            This opinion is not that drastic.  It reiterates Casey, which pretty much sets in stone first-trimester abortions.  The following ain't going to happen now or in the near future:

            1. This Congress passing a federal law outlawing first-trimester (or even most second trimester) abortions.
            1. Congress going red to the point of a fillibuster-proof supermajority that would pass such a law and make it veto proof.

            The bigger threat is the "death by a thousand cuts" that others have discussed.  But this case is not the bedrock to outlaw of first-trimester abortions--even at the state level.  And it probably won't have much effect on second-trimester abortions.

            That doesn't mean that states won't try.  But it will lead, at some point, to a bolder line in the sand.  Roberts is a pragmatist.  He's not going to want to be remembered as the Chief Justice who led SCOTUS to this century's version of the Dred Scott decision.

        •  I guess it depends on whether you live in Alabama (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy, adigal, montpellier
      •  Did anybody challenge whether the federal govt (0+ / 0-)

        has the power constitutionally to legislate on this matter?  (I suppose it would have to be defended on the basis of an expansive view of federal powers under the Commerce Clause.)

        I wonder what implications this has as to the constitutionality of more sweeping federal legislation on abortion.

        Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

        by lysias on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:11:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thomas said the Commerce Clause issue (0+ / 0-)

          was not before the court and wasn't raise below.

          •  Thomas hints the statute violates the Comm Clause (0+ / 0-)

            The end of Thomas' concurring opinion (which was joined by Scalia) strongly hints that he would find this statute to be an unconstitutional overreach of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

            Based on other recent SCOTUS cases, Thomas would indeed find this statute unconstitutional for that reason, but Scalia would not.

            So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause.

            by MJB on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:54:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But would Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens (0+ / 0-)

              find it unconstitutional if the case was decided in that way and not any other way? I don't know why he brought this up-he is pro-life and would vote on the issue that way.

              •  That's a good point (0+ / 0-)

                Most of them would probably be very reluctant to issue an opinion of the Court that so restricts Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, because that opinion would then be used by green-haters and dirty industries to try and invalidate Congress' regulation of environmental matters.

                So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause.

                by MJB on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  My right-wing religious lawyer friend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          (strange, I know, but the friendship transcends the politics) says that the states have the ultimate power in the matter and that it should be decided in the state legislatures.  If the states act now, they could bolster the basis of Roe, that women have a right to have an abortion.  While the likelihood is that we'd have a lot of states not allowing it, there would be just as many that did, and it would be a safeguard against losing Roe and not having any safety net at all for women.

          We don't know when the next justice will die, and if it's from the liberal bloc, it won't help any.  Today once shows that we can't rely on the Bush Supreme Court to protect certain rights and liberties.  The power is with the people, and we need to get the states to act.

          There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

          by wolverinethad on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Commerce Clause hook (0+ / 0-)

          was that it is in the interest of interstate commerce to regulate the medical profession.

          Why the same thing wasn't true for guns near schools (the Gomez decision), I have no idea.

    •  No, for several reasons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Most importantly, on principle, basic rights should not be limited by legislation.

      Practically, state-by-state legislation would prohibit most abortions and make it practically difficult for many women to have access to the full range of medical options to make decisions about their own health and fertility.

      Also, once the fundamental right is replaced with a state-by-state decision, practical access to abortion will be chipped away even in liberal areas.

      Unlike with guns, where rural and urban communities have different perspectives on what policies are safest and most respectful of their traditions, the choice of abortion is something that women need regardless of where they live. Without control over their own bodies, women are not free. Their economic and social options become limited. When the options for women are limited, the broader social benefits of liberalism come under attack. I don't think it's an accident that some of the earliest activists in the ACLU, protecting in practice a right to free speech that had previously existed only in word, were women who had stepped out of traditional gender roles in the early 20th century.

      True conservatism defends what has worked in the past, and true liberalism makes changes to our society in order to strengthen long-standing institutions by allowing more of the population to participate in them and recognize the rights and privileges previously enjoyed by an elite minority. Abandoning a fundamental right to abortion is a threat to both liberalism and true conservatism. It is a reactionary step back to policies that failed in the past, and an assault upon the longstanding liberal traditions of the Enlightenment.

    •  If Roe is overturned (0+ / 0-)

      ... it's unlikely that it will revert to the states, at least not for long. First, there is the possibility that the Supreme Court would not merely overturn Roe, but reverse it, and ban abortion outright. Secondly, if it is overturned, the right will not be satisfied with abortion being available in some states but not in others.

      It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

      by A Citizen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:22:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for nothing, O'Connor (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, splashy, adigal, A Citizen, adrianrf

    It's sad the first woman justice will go down as a total disgrace. First she helped install Bush, then made sure to step down when he was in power. If I were a woman, I'd despide O'Connor.

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:02:20 AM PDT

  •  Was this merely a jursdictional ruling? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
         The fear, of course, is that Kennedy, free of the pull of Justice O'Connor, has joined the Dark Side, and would vote to reverse Roe vs. Wade (joining the four certain votes of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito).

         Another possibility is that Kennedy's decision in this case is purely jurisdictional, and that he simply does not believe that a constitutional challenge should be heard unless and until a person claiming to have been adversely affected by the law brings a case.    That would be keeping very much in line with the role that Justices Powell and O'Connor played on the Court, using a swing vote to avoid the need to decide the most controversial matters.

    •  nope. (0+ / 0-)

      And in Stenberg, Kennedy held these same views.

    •  His decision allows the law to go into effect (0+ / 0-)

      A kind of abortion is banned at the federal level now. The simple fact remains. The law didn't have a health exception, Roe and Casey says you need health exception. The law without a health exception is constitional now.

    •  That largely sounds like it (0+ / 0-)

      However, he did overturn previous court belief that if there is debate over medical necessity, then the law should be, by default, overturned and switched the burden to those who argue that it may be medically necessary.

      [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To clarify (0+ / 0-)

        If a procedure is deemed not medically necessary by one doctor even if 100 think it is. A law that bans an abortion procedure because some think its medically unnecessary is given more weight than all the doctors who say it is by this decision?

        •  Not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

          They didn't say that the belief had to be unanimous, they said there should be a consensus (I'd consider 100 vs 1 to still be a consensus in a situation like this) so in that sense, no, a single doctor couldn't go and say "I disagree!" and derail the process, especially if they can't come up with any good evidence for that argument.

          However, shifting the burden from those who say it isn't ever necessary to those who say it may be necessary is still disturbing.  It's not the deathknell of this particular procedure, but it makes it harder to overturn the law.

          [/stop politics] Go to my Anime Blog! now powered by WordPress! [restart politics]

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:25:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Imagine the horror of choosing me or my baby's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    life and now you dont even have that choice. Controlling global wars isnt enought for these guys that want total control of every single life and then they choose who to kill who they see fit to die, like in Iraq.

    From the Book of Horrible Questions , Would you push a red button for $10 million but 100 random people would die of natural causes, Survey said 55% would ?

    by FAUX GOP DEATH TV on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

  •  sorry, kos... (0+ / 0-)


    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:14:59 AM PDT

  •  And also .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Move out of HICK states where abortions (any abortion) will soon be illegal.  I grew up in such a backwards state, but moved to a sane state the DAY after graduation.  California.  Where abortion was legal before Roe vs. Wade.

    Enough of this bullcrap.  You ARE where you live.

    •  This is so wrong (0+ / 0-)

      You ARE where you live? ever consider that some people don't have much choice in the matter. Maybe it's a miltiary family tied to a particular base. Maybe its someone forced to accept a job transfer in order to make sure their pension will vest and safe a safe retirment. Maybe its a college student who could only afford college at the one school who gave her a scholarship. Maybe its someone who needs to stay nearby to take care of elderly parents.  

    •  this law was federal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, jxg, splashy

      I don't see how moving anywhere in the US will matter if congress can ban all abortion now.

  •  Really don't care to be honest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    If people were intelligent enough to take advantage of the forms of birth control than abortions would number in the few thousands or even hundreds.

    If you can't afford the pill and a box of rubbers, than you can't afford to have sex.  Obviously you don't have enough money to support a child or an abortion operation either.  Actions have consequences.  

    If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

    by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:24:12 AM PDT

    •  You HAVE to be a male (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zericm, splashy

      And therefore, this is none of your fucking business.

      And IF you are a female, you are deadly stupid.

      No, YOU (no matter what your gender) will not tell ME what I can or can't do with my reproductive issues.

      So, just shut up.  MY ovaries do not concern you.

      •  Show me one woman who ever (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cartwrightdale, Pozzo

        got pregnant without the aid of a man (save Mary if you're religious)

        I never even disclosed my views on abortion, I don't think you should have sex if you can't protect yourself.  I also don't think you should have kids if you can't afford to provide them with healthcare, education, and love.  

        If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

        by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:32:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are a flaming right-winger (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zericm, splashy, drmah, mamamedusa

          I can tell by your comment "You can't have children if you don't have healthcare."

          I don't care to chat with right-wingers.  Get educated!

          •  Obviously presumptious (0+ / 0-)

            Go through my diaries and read my comments before you make a fool out of yourself again.  

            My girlfriend and I use multiple forms of BC because we don't even want to be faced with what would be a difficult choice.  And there's nothing right-wing about that at all.  The left preaches sex education as a way to beat abortions and unwanted pregnancies and sexual diseases, and I am merely following that as a way to avoid a lot of trouble.  

            So send your flames elsewhere mr/mrs presumptiousness

            If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

            by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:00:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with the first part (0+ / 0-)

          The idea that men are not allowed to comment on issues of abortion is rather insulting, bordering on ludicrous.  You can comment on gun control without being a gun owner, or Mormonism without being a Mormon, etc.  Of course you can.  

          Besides, national polls tend to show that a slim majority of men are pro-choice, and a slim majority of women are pro-life (2000 Gallup, etc.)  So if it was just up to women, we'd conceivably see additional restrictions on Roe.  Just sayin.

          The second part, though, sounds a little to me like "hey, if you're a type 2 diabetic, you shouldn't expect medical care, since you could have afforded diet programs and exercise which may have prevented the onset."  

        •  I'm an educated HCP who got pregnant using BC! (6+ / 0-)

          Wouldn't it be great if every contraceptive were 100% effective? Guess what? They are not. The pill is something like 98% effective when used correctly - that means there will still be pregnancies even when a woman takes the pill as prescribed, does not have a drug interaction that renders it less effective, and so on. Condoms have an even higher failure rate when used correctly.

          I am a pharmacist, for heaven's sake - I am trained to educate people about contraceptives, and I myself got pregant using an "effective" method of contraception with my husband! Methods fail! Should I not be having sex with my husband if I don't want another child?

          And what about the situation where the fetus is horribly deformed and has no chance at life? Having gone through a difficult delivery myself, is it fair to ask me to risk seriously my life again for the sake of a child who cannot survive outside my womb? Is that fair to the daughter that I already have, that I should risk my life and possibly deprive her of a mother for the sake of a brain-dead fetus? Good god, it's not like women enter into these decisions lightly. So please, spare me the simple-minded talking points that show no true understanding of what it's like to be a woman in our society.

          •  Understandable (0+ / 0-)

            As a pharmacist, what is the possibility of pregnancy after proper condom use AND the pill?  I want to say it's less than .01, correct?

            And I am very much on your side in terms of a fetus with no chance to survive, no questions there.  But these are no simple talking points, and I don't have anything towards women, including my girlfriend.  I'm sorry, but I think anyone who engages in sex should be responsible about it.  Poor people can have all the sex they want, but they should protect themselves.  Otherwise, that gets close to another slippery slope of if poor people can have all the unprotected sex they want, then what about 15 year old girls?

            Surely you'd agree with me as a pharmacist that education is key.  I know a LOT of people like to think otherwise, but sex can have an end result other than orgasms, and you have to be prepared for that.

            If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

            by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:54:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and believe me (0+ / 0-)

        I don't want to tough your ovaries, or anything near them.

        I'm really into nice chicks lately ;)

        If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

        by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:36:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  tempted to troll-rate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, adrianrf

      But I'm hoping you're willing to consider some discussion.

      Intelligence doesn't predict consistent, appropriate use of birth control.  Is modern birth control readily available to everyone who could use it?  Does the general population understand how to use effective modern birth control?  Whose responsibility is that, and whose problem?

      Poor people don't have the right to sexual intimacy?  Do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

      You're implying here that anyone who has an unplanned pregnancy deserves to carry it and raise a child as punishment.

      •  Careful (0+ / 0-)

        Modern birth control is fairly available from any walgreens to planned parenthood to public high school.  When you buy a pack of condoms, those things are good for a couple of years, so why not even buy ahead of time.  And the pill, that is very affordable, I know girls that get something like 3 months worth for less than 40$.  

        I agree, intelligence doesn't predict the correct use, but people should be educated and do research and read labels.  If someone doesn't know how to properly use bc, than they're just plain not ready for sex.  It's not hard to walk into pp or surf the internet for 15 minutes to become prepared.  

        I agree it's a slippery slope, but birth control is readily available and affordable, even to the poor.  And I certainly don't think anyone that has an unplanned pregnancy should be forced to raise the child as a punishment.  However, I would look to see if the bc was properly used.  Did she take her pill every day?  Did he put the condom on at the beginning. Etc. etc.

        I just can't believe I get nearly troll rated and even called a right winger because I think we are obliged to be sexually responsible..

        If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

        by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:05:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But birth control is not completely reliable (0+ / 0-)

          That is the issue here. We are dealing with biology, not machines.

          The process is the reality. ~ Samuel Johnson

          by splashy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Usually because they don't use it well (0+ / 0-)

            If you don't use a condom AND the pill, then you're not doing enough.  And I don't want to hear people exaggerating saying that well why don't you just get a visectomy too and so on.

            The point is that people who protect themselves rarely get affected by these sorts of things.

            If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

            by Romaniac on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:56:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nature being what it is (0+ / 0-)

              You are expecting people to be far more in control than they are. The drive to procreate is way too strong for some people to even think straight. If you have not experienced it, then there is no way I can tell you how it can be.

              The process is the reality. ~ Samuel Johnson

              by splashy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:05:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You're wrong - period (5+ / 0-)

      I'd use stronger language, but as a guy who has been failed by the pill twice now, I can't pass on letting you know how very wrong you are. I have a sibling who had the same issue.  Plenty of people practice birth control and otherwise safe sex, and still wind up pregnant.  Just because the shit's not likely to land in your lap, doesn't mean it's not landing in the laps of others.

    •  Your (0+ / 0-)

      moronic birth control/consequences comment assumes that third-trimester abortions exists for convenience.  One more time, slowly:

      third trimester abortions are performed on women who desperately wanted that baby

    •  I tutored pre-teen girls is Psyc hospital, raped (0+ / 0-)

      by mother's boyfriend, grandpa or dad's drinking buddies. To tell these children they must now bear the children of such unions is OUTRAGEOUS!  The "no exceptions" rule is cruel and unusual punishment.    

  •  Why don't the Dems focus on the Republicans view (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, adrianrf

    of life.

    Shouldn't there be ads run focusing on the adoption system of this country. How many mulit-million dollar tv ministers are adopting kids (American Kids). Since Madonna is so in love with African kids.

    The pro-choice folks are going to lose this war. It's getting closer everyday. The problem is that nobody really understands the other side of the issue.  

    Nothing wrong with adoption outside of the fact that nobody does it. If every church member with resources adopted kids we might make some headway, but they wont.

    Also womans groups need to focus on this concept that old men can control there bodies. Until you get that issue framed for the young woman of America they will have no clue what's about to happen to them.

  •  Thomas' concurring opinion is interesting... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, Pozzo, adrianrf

    He made two points which may require some tea-leaf reading:

    I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.

    No surprise there.  But note that neither Roberts nor Alito joined the concurrence.  Probably doesn't mean anything, but it is interesting.

    "I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.

    Are federal abortion regulations impermissible under commerce clause jurisprudence?  Previously, I wouldn't have thought so.  After Lopez, I'm not so sure now.

  •  Voted to fillibuster Alito (0+ / 0-)

    Only these senators stood together, but not my senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who also voted for the war. What good is she? What good having a woman in power who won't stand for women? I'm as angry today as the day Cantwell voted against all women everywhere, and ignored all of us who wrote, faxed, emailed and called.

    During this campaign, MoveOn members reached out hundreds of thousands of times to our neighbors, the media, and Congress. Here's a quick summary of how you helped to generate such historic opposition:

    You gathered over 510,000 petition signatures and comments
    You raised over $300,000 to put ads on the air
    You phoned in over 114,000 calls to the senate
    You wrote over 91,000 personal letters to your senators
    You sent in over 21,000 letters to the editor of 1,250 different newspapers and held dozens of in-person meetings to ask for editorials
    You made over 7,000 individual trips to senators' offices to deliver your petitions

    Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
    Biden, Joe (D-DE) (
    Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) (
    Dayton, Mark (D-MN) (
    Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
    Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
    Feingold, Russell (D-WI)
    Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
    Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
    Jeffords, James (I-VT)
    Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA)
    Kerry, John
    Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)
    Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
    Levin, Carl (D-MI)
    Menendez, Robert (D-NJ): (
    Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
    Murray, Patty (D-WA)
    Obama, Barack (D- IL)
    Reed, Jack (D-RI)
    Reid, Harry (D-NV)
    Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
    Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
    Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
    Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

    The truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. -Fitz

    by mrobinson on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

  •  Put this in perspective - from Europe. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The perspective from Europe: Remember, on a day like this: The US is the only country in the "civilized world" that permits abortions all the way through the third trimester.

    Most European countries have free choice during the first trimester, some restrictions during the second trimester, and a ban after viability / during the third trimester. This ruling will open the door to state legislatures moving (parts of) the US to be more in line with Europe in these matters.

    It is time to bring back this time-honoured tradition: We never go to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

    by PoliticGeek Pro on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:36:45 AM PDT

    •  The federal government too (0+ / 0-)

      As this was federal the congress could pass a total ban on third term abortions. States are meaningless now.

      •  Possibly (0+ / 0-)

        That is indeed possible, but very, very unlikely. Some states will, though.

        It does not, however, follow from this ruling that such a ban, either state or federal, would be upheld by the court.

        My point is that such a ban is already in place in most, if not every, Western European country, with or without very strict "life or serious health of the mother"-exceptions (I don't know the exact rules in Eastern Europe.)

        Note that I do not state any opinion on whether such a ban is a good idea. But I do think it is important to note that, in Western Europe, free choice in the first (and in some countries early second) trimester is not affected at all by discussions of what should be the rule after viability.

        It is time to bring back this time-honoured tradition: We never go to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

        by PoliticGeek Pro on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:14:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the info. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

      by deathsinger on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:52:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, mamamedusa

    A doctor is going to have to be imprisoned or a woman is going to have to bear a child with it's brain growing outside of it's skull before a remedy may be sought.

    Very compassionate conservatism, if you aske me.

  •  The filibuster was "too extreme" for Alito (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mlafleur, splashy, adrianrf

    Congratulations, you spineless Senators.  Unless Kennedy or Scalia croaks relatively soon, we're stuck with these people for years, undoing all the rights we've fought for.

    I'm not the biggest fan of abortion, but women have a right to choose and sometimes a necessity to have a late-term procedure done.  I've seen firsthand the necessity for it.  By not standing up on principle and telling an already unpopular president (remember, Katrina had already been in the books when the Alito hearings went on) to shove it, that he wasn't going to pack the court with ideological neanderthals (read: unitary executive), our elected officials made a grave mistake, one which the average person is going to be paying the price for.  This is just the first of many rollbacks.

    There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

    by wolverinethad on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:42:35 AM PDT

    •  Remember - prochoice groups supported Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Who voted for Alito.

      •  Lieberman voted AGAINST Alito (0+ / 0-)

        Facts are facts.

        •  He voted against the filibuster (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zericm, jxg, mlafleur, splashy, chill, adrianrf

          Same freaking difference.  He knew what the result would be.

          There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

          by wolverinethad on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:52:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The larger point is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That Lieberman has, no the whole, an EXCELLENT record on pro choice votes. If you oppose him on that reason (there are many others for which I oppose him), then you have a purity test that very few candidates can meet. If someone with Lieberman's pro choice voting record is not welcome, who is? And can the Democratic party function without all those we exclude?

            •  I oppose for far more than that (0+ / 0-)

              I simply objected that Lieberman, among others, voted against the filibuster in a situation where Democrats needed every last vote to hold up.  Alito is far more dangerous than Roberts, and they knew this going in.  You said Lieberman voted against Alito, but that was only after the outcome was determined.  If he and others had a spine, we could've gotten a more palatable Supreme Court justice, so to say he voted against Alito isn't correct in the broader sense.

              I'm not applying a purity test.  I support Reid, Casey and others that are pro-life.  I respect their positions.   This isn't a pro-choice argument per se, it's an Alito is terrible argument, and they acted against our interests by giving him the greenlight.

              There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

              by wolverinethad on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:21:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  A water balloon where the brain of a fetus should (8+ / 0-)

    have developed.  If I understand correctly, that's what the Supreme Court says obstetricians have to try to deliver intact, with the fetal body still attached.

    I'm a doctor, though I don't treat pregnant ladies or newborns.  As I understand, the procedure in question was developed for cases in which a fetus develops massive hydrocephalus -- "water on the brain".  In a fetus, the bones of the skull haven't fused into one piece, and the head can expand, sometimes massively, when something goes wrong and too much cerebrospinal fluid accumulates.  I think I read that a fetal head can get as big as a foot in diameter in such cases.  (By that point, it can't survive outside the womb, and is probably already brain dead.)

    The Supreme Court seems to say that in such cases, the obstetrician must make a huge incision -- as big as the fetal head, or nearly so -- to remove everything intact for no sensible medical reason.

    The maybe-banned dilitation and evacuation procedure is minor surgery.  Anything with a foot-long abdominal skin incision is big, major surgery, like the old 'open' gallbladder removal procedure.  People who've had their gallbladder out that way usually need a month to feel 'about' back to normal; and after around six months realize, "Hey, I'm finally completely back to normal."  

    All that, plus extra risk to the pregnant lady, all to deliver a doomed or dead fetus that grew a water balloon where its brain should have been?  This sounds more like the Terri Schiavo case all the time.

    We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

    by david78209 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:43:08 AM PDT

    •  And once the baby is born (7+ / 0-)

      In Texas, anyway, they can decide to take it off life support anyway for monetary reasons.  They just have to deem it a hopeless case.

    •  And for this fetus, I will have to risk my life (6+ / 0-)

      Pregnancy is a medical condition - it is not free from harmful side effects and delivery is certainly not without risk! There are still 7.5 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country, according to the CDC.

      So to protect the fetus in your scenario, I could develop pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, go on bedrest for months on end. My uterus could rupture, I could have an embolism, I could bleed to death or develop a fatal infection after delivery. While the risk of death is small, it is still very real.

      Is that fair to me or to my family? Aren't the children I already have entitled to their mother? To ask them to risk losing me for the sake of a brain-dead sibling? It is beyond my comprehension.

      We need to focus on how this decision affects FAMILIES! Is the fetus with no chance at life really more important than the children I already have?

      •  I think the pregnancy could still be terminated (0+ / 0-)

        legally, but it would require an operation similar to a ceasarian section -- maybe even bigger if the fetus had a huge head.  The bigger operation comes with more (though still small) risk of complications; with enough bad luck complications can lead to death.  

        We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

        by david78209 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's the penalty (0+ / 0-)

    for violating this ban.  And against whom does the penalty apply?  A woman is in labor, going to die.  Who goes to jail for saving her life?  She or her doctor, or both?  Does she wait for the Bush Supreme Court to decide if she has a right to live?

    I know I could research it, but I have to leave in 5 minutes.  If someone happens to know off the top of their heads I'd appreciate.

    •  the doctor would go to prison (0+ / 0-)

      Under pro-life thinking the woman is a victim.

      This decision is awful.

    •  from the bill (0+ / 0-)

      "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter."

  •  My mother's life was saved... (9+ / 0-) a "partial-birth abortion."  The "baby" had a grossly enlarged head and no brain.  This was in the mid-50s.  

    ...setting the way-back machine...


    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:46:37 AM PDT

  •  Flashback: Democrats Waver on PB Abortion Act (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It is sad to recall that significant numbers of Democrats supported the legislation that so jeopardized women's health and reproductive rights:

    Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on October 22, 2003. Large numbers of Democrats joined a nearly unanimous GOP in both houses; the bill passed 63-34 in the Senate, and 281-142 in the House. President Bush signed it into law at a White House ceremony on November 5.

    For the disturbing history, see:
    "Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights."

  •  My thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    It seems like I keep hearing people say this law doesn't contain an exception for the health of the mother.  Unless I am confused, it does.  

    The statute states that "This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."  

    My wife is an OB/GYN and I am loathe to have politicians tie the hands of physicians in any way.  I am also wary of slippery slope where this leads to more attempts to ban certain procedures.  

    That said, this was definitely the low hanging fruit of abortion procedures.  

    I would be interested to hear more about when this procedure is medically necessary as opposed to other procedures.  If it isn't, then outside of my concerns iterated above (tied hands & slippery slopes), I must say that I'm not so opposed to this law.  Of course, this is partially fueled by my wife's statement to me that she doesn't think a good, ehtical doctor would perform this particular procedure was medically necessary for the life/health of the mother OR unless the fetus had an abnormality that would not allow survival.

    One other thought - its funny to hear us using the same arguments against this law that global warming skeptics use (i.e. the science is still disputed).  Granted the global warming science is basically over 99% in our favor and the only opposing science is funded by the oil companies.  Still, it made me laugh when I read a few comments along this vein.

  •  Those who didn't support the filibuster (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, mlafleur, MJB, splashy, adrianrf, panther78

    against Alito did support Alito. The only way to stop him was to join those who wanted to filibuster - listed above. Sen. Maria Cantwell didn't join the filibuster, didn't vote to stop Alito. The next day she voted against Alito - and bragged about it in her campaign literature and web site. makes me sick! As bad, pro-choice groups then asked us to "thank" Cantwell for her courageous vote! I mean. Really. How stupid do they think we are? (Very. Very. Stupid.] I saw the vote on C-SPAN, Hillary and Maria joshing afterwards. Everyone so friendly and my heart was breaking.

    I'm still angry.

    The truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. -Fitz

    by mrobinson on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:02:20 AM PDT

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      There are some of us who passionately, vehemently oppose filibusters in principle who still are disheartened and angry at the Alito appointment.  

      But even if you disagree with my opposition of filibusters in general, look at it in a selfish way -- in 2008 we'll have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress.  Since it's mathematically impossible to go below 40 Republican seats in the Senate (there are far more small red states than blue states), do you really want to have to settle for moderate to right-moderate appointees from our side, to overcome a Republican filibuster?  Of course not.

      •  All the more reason... (0+ / 0-)

        ...for us to have filibustered Alito and told Frist to "bring it on" when it came to the Nuke option.  If the nuke option passed the filibuster is off the table when we lock up Congress and the White House.  If it failed we block Alito and show the GOP as impotent to get their right wing agenda passed.

        And for those who oppose filibusters in principle, would you filibuster Pat Robertson if his nomination to SCOTUS had come to the floor?  

        But hey, we have dry powder.  Let's ask the GOP if we can have fireworks on the Mall!!

        •  Well, no, because I oppose filibusters (0+ / 0-)

          Therefore I wouldn't "filbuster" anyone, because I think it's a practice that should be banned altogether.  :P  My Democratic principles outweigh ANY invidual test case.  

          Put it another way -- if a Supreme Court vote was going to be 5-4 against something you believed in, would you support kidnapping the families of two conservative justices and threatening to murder them unless they changed their vote?  Of course not.  Because regardless of what the outcome would be, you don't compromise your principles for an individual case.  

    •  But you have to ask yourself (0+ / 0-)

      Whether McGavick would be an improvement over Cantwell. That was your alternative.

  •  Adam, if you were guessing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    do you think any of the Democrats that supported this bill thought they would get bailed out by the courts?

    The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

    by deathsinger on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:06:41 AM PDT

  •  Try this European perspective (0+ / 0-)

    The death penalty is unlawful and to join th European Union a nation must first abolish the death penalty.

    The truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. -Fitz

    by mrobinson on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

  •  As I look more into the decision... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, Pozzo, ReEnergizer

    There are some silver linings:

    1. Kennedy did not say it was not an undue burden, he said that the test has not yet been met since there has been no undue burden because the law had not been implemented.  His view was the law should have taken effect and there should not have been any stays of the law and then the specifics can be litigated.  Not wonderful but certaintly not supporting overturn of RvW.
    1. Roberts and Alito did not vote with Scalia and Thomas so that means there are really only 2 reliable votes for direct overturn of RvW.  Now that also means lots of litigation in this area which can mean big gains for Democrats as Independents continue to move away from the Anti-Choice Rethugs
    1. The timing is great here for Democrats as a rallying cry for the 2008 election to get a Democratic president and Democratic Senate to hopefully get 2 Supreme court nominations.
    1. If this does embolden states to enact South Dakota Lite abortion bans that will also help elect Democrats nationally to help block legislation in that area nationally.  Additionally, it will keep it in the news through the 2008 election cycle and keep Rethugs from getting their message out by having to focus on this issue.
    1. Hurts Rudy G's chances of winning the Rethug primary and I believe he has the best chance of any Rethug of beating the Democrats.  The Anti-Choice people will now move away from Rudy G. because they want a reliable anti-choice nomination to the SCOTUS.  While Rudy has use code words, I do not think they will trust him on that since he is not "one of them"
    •  Sliver linings are nice, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but I still think this totally sucks.

      I don't think most Americans will understand the true impact of this decision and therefore will not consider it when voting in 2008. Due to the nationally shortened attention span, they will vote based on:

      1. what they've heard on talk radio in the last two weeks;
      1. pre-disposition (Republican or Democrat);
      1. or just not vote at all... once again allowing a tiny percentage of the population (far right churches) to decide the election by organizing their members into the polls by the bus-load.
      1. God-help-us, they will consider the Iraqi war, if we have any luck at all.

      I'm just not convinced that people - the great majority of the voting public - considers the minute details (or even the obvious impact) of decisions like this. I guess I'm being a wet blanket on your silver lining, but that's the way I see this today.

  •  dammit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This decison makes me sick, scared and angrier than I have words for.

  •  Time for a "litmus test" for all legislators (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Do you or don't you support a woman's control of her own body?

  •  All I can say is (0+ / 0-)


    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:17:57 AM PDT

  •  Slightly OT... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I was shocked to learn on another board that many of it's conservative members will NOT make charitable donations to the Susan B Komen Breast Cancer Foundation because SBK gives a small grant to **gasp** Planned Parenthood to provide low-cost mammograms.

    Compassionate conservatives, my ass.

  •  Work Your Green Through Blue on This! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, splashy, Planned Parenthood, adrianrf

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Artist Unknown

    Ms. Magazine - April 18, 2007

    BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Upholds Federal Abortion Procedure Ban Without Health Exception

    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act, a ban on an abortion procedure that the Republican controlled Congress passed in 2003. This ban has no exception for the health of a pregnant woman.

    Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal issued a statement this morning, saying, "This ruling shows the true colors of the current Bush-stacked majority of the Supreme Court: it does not care about the health, well-being, and safety of American women. This must serve as a wake-up call to women: we are losing our fundamental rights as Bush continues to stack the courts. Elections matter: this is the consequence of a Republican, ideologically driven president and Congress."

    While Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, calling today's decision "alarming."

    You can reject this ruling by donating to the organizations that fight for women's right to private reproductive health care with full options:

    Planned Parenthood

    National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL)

    National Organization for Women (NOW)

    When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice, all is lost. Therefore you must not give up.

    by EmilyD on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:23:48 AM PDT

    •  NOT Naral (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zericm, annrose, adrianrf

      NARAL is part of the problem. They were instrumental in the confirmation of Alito, knowing full well that their support for Chafee and Lieberman would result in Alito's confirmation. As it did.

      We raised a stink then. Don't forget.

      And please don't let the Dems who voted for this specifil legislation (including Leahy and Reid) get off.  They voted for this. They own it.

      I'm so angry.

      •  Planned Parenthood (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zericm, jxg, splashy, adrianrf, mamamedusa

        Personally I always send my donations to Planned Parenthood because they do the actual work of reproductive healthcare for women. I've also started giving the ACLU a monthly donation.

        I am not ready to completely write NARAL off but it is very disturbing that they didn't fight Alito's nomination. Here is the result, a stacked court and Bush delivering his promises to the religious right wing. This will shore up his sagging poll numbers no doubt.

        So ironic how the fundies can be radically for "life" of a fetus yet willing to kill prisoners, citizens of other countries, people who have other religious beliefs, etc. Goddess save us from the
        Jesus Campers.

        When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice, all is lost. Therefore you must not give up.

        by EmilyD on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:34:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but NARAL helped bring this about... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...and they deserve to pay for it.

  •  Kennedy rejected on procedural grounds. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheRover, BlueTide

    Still don't know how he will vote when the substance of the thing is heard.

    Stay healthy, Justice Stevens.

  •  Press conf @ 12:30 EST (4+ / 0-)

    Center for Repro Rights and Planned Parenthood, co-counsels in this case, holding phone press conf at 12:30 EST

    "The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." ~ Bruce Springsteen

    by abs0628 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:31:47 AM PDT

  •  Nice job SCOTUS... (0+ / 0-)

    ...make sure your decision came out today, when no one would be paying attention.

    Who says the court isn't full of partisan activists!



  •  time to put up or shut up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, splashy, adrianrf

    will every person, especially women,  who is pro-choice but voted for George Bush either in 2000 or 2004 please stand up and apologize to the rest of the nation?

  •  We Need a Constitutional Amendment (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, splashy, adrianrf, mamamedusa

    I have been arguing for years that progressives must organize and try to pass a constitutional amendment that would essentially uphold Roe v. Wade. Waiting for Roe v. Wade to actually be overturned before organizing would be a mistake. I know conservative activists who have told me that they already have a game plan for such eventuality. Progressives are behind the curve.

    If the Republicans win the next election Roe v. Wade will be overturned. However, the Supreme Court could be signaling that they may be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade some time in the near future.

    •  Roe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      montpellier, adrianrf, mamamedusa

      Once its gone and eventually the Rethugs will over turn Roe Amerika will digress back to a country with some states slave and some free. Women who don't have control of their own reproductive destiny are slaves to the state. Their wombs no longer their own but State property. This is about power not protecting children. Never has been. Women are to be reduced back to chattel by these people.

      Once Roe goes the next step will be to make it illegal for a women in Alabama an anti-abortion state to travel to NY a Pro-choice state for an abortion. Sound familiar? Then the step after that will be for bounty hunters to come after these women if they try to move when pregnant to a Pro-choice state. The south has learned NOTHING since slavery its only changed its slaves!

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

      by Blutodog on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:36:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is why judges ARE important and better (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to err on the side of a liberal jurist than a conservative jurist!!  After all, this country was founded on Liberal principles of individual rights, equality and freedoms, not conservative ones of King and religion uber-alles.  Also, members of the Federalist society (e.g. Scalia) should be a red flag!!  Of course, anything from this administration should be automatically suspect.

    I hope the pink tu-tu Dems learn this and start really fighting these shitty nominations.  Alito and Roberts should have never been confirmed and should have been resisted with all possible strength.  Dems that voted for these asses, whether in the full vote of hearing vote should be held to account!

    The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

    by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:43:16 AM PDT

  •  Democrats who voted to maim and kill women (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, sclminc, splashy, adrianrf


    Might deserve a piece of our mind.

  •  7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MJB, splashy, BlueTide, adrianrf

    Considering that, I think we're doing pretty well.  It's 4 more-or-less reliable liberal votes, 4 more-or-less reliable conservative votes, and one moderate who tends to side with us on important issues.  

    Roberts - Appt. by Bush II (R)
    Stevens - Appt. by Ford (R)
    Scalia - Appt. by Reagan (R)
    Kennedy - Appt. by Reagan (R)
    Souter - Appt. by Bush I (R)
    Thomas - Appt. by Bush I (R)
    Alito - Appt. by Bush II (R)
    Ginsburg - Appt. by Clinton (D)
    Breyer - Appt. by Clinton (D)

    Things could be worse.  But the way to make them better is simple: win more elections.  :)

  •  The 5 Catholics on the court have ruled!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zericm, splashy, adrianrf

    Why don't we just outsource the Supreme Court to the Vatican.  Save some money!!

    The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

    by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:47:31 AM PDT

    •  Many Catholics are pro-choice (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      seaprog, MJB, FightTheFuture, ReEnergizer

      The majority is wrong because it's wrong, not because it's Catholic.  I don't like this kind of argument at all.

      •  The one Catholic that really counts ISN'T!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zericm, splashy, adrianrf

        That is, of course, Pope B #16.  Also, it's not wrong according to the current Catholic position and all these justices are Catholic.

        If the Church were to change it's position and allow abortion, as they did some many years ago, then I have little doubt this ruling would be very different!  Ipso facto, the Catholic angle does play here and you would be a fool to think it doesn't!!  Just because many Catholics identify with the principles of their country over the church does not mean shit for the moment!!  It's the rulers and lawmakers that count.

        The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

        by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:36:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No . . . (0+ / 0-)

          . . . because one surely does not need to be Catholic to be pro-life, or to believe (wrongly) that the Constitution does not protect reproductive freedom.

          •  You're confused. This is a negative, which (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, adrianrf

            proves nothing to the fact that these justices religious leanings have informed this opinion in a wrong way, which we both agree on.  

            One can be a Catholic and be pro-choice, but they are then in conflict with their Church's teachings and positions.  In the case of this ruling, all were good little Catholic boys, following their churches teachings.  Even more so, Scalia and his lapdog Thomas added their separate opinion that Row V. Wade as no Constitutional justification.

            Yeah, this is a Catholic issue, for as I said, if the Church's position were different, then I doubt this would have been the ruling.   In the larger picture, it's an affront to women on their reproductive choices and to their own body. That is well in line with the Catholic church's behavior!

            Try to face the reality that the asshattery of religion is seeping into our laws more and more, and Catholicism has no shortage of bullshit!  

            The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

            by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:47:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I have no reason to believe that all nine Justices were doing anything other than interpreting the Constitution in what each believed was a good-faith effort, and have no reason to believe that anyone's religion played a part.  Justice Brennan was a Catholic too, after all.

              •  If you believe that then you must also (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                splashy, adrianrf

                believe that Bush is a honest, if misguided president, and Cheney is a stern, but fair VP!!  Wake up!

                The fact that Brennan did not support this asshat Catholic and fundi-Chritianista's position just shows he puts his country's principles above weakly supported religious dictates and misguided notions of what human life is, and isn't!!

                IMO, Alito, Scalia and Thomas(a late convert by Scalia to Catholicism) were being honest to their Catholic programming, and found ways to twist the law with ridiculous assertions and produce this turd.  Kennedy is an conservative asshat, and fucking this country to hell with his 2000 support, he might as well go all the way.  Roberts is a typical conservative tool in that he will do whatever gives him more power, such as this ruling.  He is the most dangerous on the court because  his very nature is inherently dishonest.  

                But hey, good for you to give them benefit of the doubt at this point!  If 6 years of this bullshit, including that ex-Nazi Ratzinger's (now Pope) transparent interference in our 2004 elections to deny communion to Kerry and question his faith is not enough to convince you, why will I?!  

                The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

                by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:25:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, you do agree that Catholic Church is wrong! (0+ / 0-)

        The majority is wrong because it's wrong, ...

        Ergo, you agree that the Catholic Church's position on abortion is also wrong.  That's a good start!

        The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

        by FightTheFuture on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUS unsprising decision (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We knew this day was coming on Nov. 8th 2006. The voting public has no finger of blame to point other than at themselves.  And this decision is just the the tip of the proverbial iceberg, the first slip on the slippery slope etc etc etc.

  •  When push comes to shove... (0+ / 0-)

    ...better to confront people with the reality of the law and actual anecdotal effects. So in other words, time to go out and convert.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Five old Men (5+ / 0-)

    This is how it will be for women in fascist Amerika in the 21st century. Roe will Go all W needs now is one more judge and in the next 2 yrs. he's very likely to see his shot with Stevens at 87 and Ruth Ginsburg ill. Will the Demos. fight to stop another Roberts or Alito? Not likely. The country will then be divided once again by this issue. North and South. The anti crowd won't stop there either. They won't be happy until they end abortion in all 50 states and also end contraception. The control of people's reproductive systems is the no. 2 goal of the hard right.  Right after eliminating all taxes on the rich that is.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:42:02 AM PDT

  •  Christians Gotta Be Piiisssed. (0+ / 0-)

    7 Years.

    Bush's war.


    Corporate corruption unparalleled.


    All this and all the Christians got was some half-assed partial birth abortion ban.

    You can't stop Progress at this rate.

    Everything the Christians wanted out of Bush, he's just basically taken a big fat dump on.

    And now, because of Bush's other agendas, the Dems will now be in power.

    Some might say the court now  has a generation to ban abortion. But that's not the direction Progress is moving, and if they haven't done anything by now, it's looking dim for the lunatic party.

    Bush so totally ripped off the Christians. Hopefully by now, they realize how they've been used by Bush, like a nasty piece of toilet paper.

  •  Press Release from NAF and ACLU (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bread and roses, splashy, adrianrf

    From the NAF and ACLU:

    ACLU and National Abortion Federation Criticize Decision by U.S Supreme Court Upholding Federal Abortion Ban

    Decision Allows Politicians to Interfere with Personal Medical Decisions

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                              
    April 18, 2007                                                      

    Lorraine Kenny, ACLU,(212) 549-2634;
    Alexis Rice, NAF (202) 667-5881 ext. 219

    WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions.  htIt is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.

    "Today’s decision has placed politics above protecting women’s health," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF.  "This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making.  The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women’s health."

    The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.

    A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today’s Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.

    "Today’s decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion."  

    Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

    Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.

    As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today’s opinion: "Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law’ and the ‘principles of stare decisis.’"

    Today’s cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

    The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women.  Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors’ offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year.  For more information, visit our website at

    The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United  States. For more information, visit:

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:11:19 AM PDT

  •  Practicing medicine without a license. (8+ / 0-)

    That's what the Court is doing.  

    One of the many variables of treatment is how a desired result can be obtained.  Let's say you are having gallbladder attacks (biliary colic. There are several treatments: surgical procedures, laparoscopic and open, medication to dissolve the stones, and even "watchful waiting" to see if things calm down or worsen.

    Any one of these treatments may be the right treatment.
    Depends on the patient's condition.
    Any one of these treatments may be the wrong treatment.
    Depends on the patient's condition.

    And who decides the best treatment?  
    It has been the physician.
    In the case of late term abortion it will now be the Supreme Court.
    Notice the condescending "in discrete and well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."

    and the medically advisory

    would be unconstitutional "if it subjected women to significant health risks."...however..."safe medical options are available"...

    I don't recall seeing Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito in the OB-Gyn residency at my medical center.  Must have trained elsewhere.

    I assume that Supreme Court Justices will henceforth be fitted with pagers and have call rotation so if a physician contemplating the allowed "...commonly used and generally accepted method..." realizes that the patient has one of those "well-defined instances" where "a condition [exists] or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used." the on-call Justice can give timely medical advice, just as they are on call for death penalty stays.

    Deep breath.

    I don't know that women will die because the Supreme Court has decided to practice medicine. It's likely.  Every restriction on legal abortion has increased the number of illegal abortions.  Late term illegal abortions are particularly deadly.  It's also likely that that infanticide will increase, although the Supremes don't care about that.  

    I do know that women's risks and complications increase when safe procedures are denied them.  The Court doesn't care about that either. They don't know the risks of hemorrhage, laceration, uterine perforation, sterility, premature hysterectomy and prolonged operative recovery.

    Because in spite of the fact that they are practicing medicine none of the Justices are really doctors.  

    They each just like to play one during Court sessions.


    It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

    by clio on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:23:14 AM PDT

  •  Bush Got His Right Wing Court (0+ / 0-)

    This Court could care less about a Woman's Right to Choose.  We need to spread the word on this restrictive ruling.  Voters need to remember that rulings like this are why it is important to put the Dems back in power.

  •  Not John Edwards' finest moment (0+ / 0-)

    JE's satement today:

    "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

    But when JE was in the Senate, he had two chances to vote against this bill. Once when it first came up on March 13, 2003, and again when the reconciliation bill came up for final vote on October 21, 2003.

    Both times, he abstained.

  •  The end of the Roe era? (0+ / 0-)

    Is this the end of the era where we no longer regonize   a women's right to choose I feer this. This decstion might leed to states drafting simmilar laws that restrict a womans right to make her own medical desistion and with the Robberts court those laws will be up held.

    It is really important that we take the whitehouse in 2009 so we will have a president who will aponit judges who are pro-chocie like 72% of America

  •  Look for the silver lining (0+ / 0-)

    With the Supreme Court finally overreaching (as BushCo has being doing), the issue of reproductive rights, and more broadly, the idea that a citizen has the right to autonomy over his/her own body will finally start to turn to our political favor. Over the last 30 years the repro rights movements has become a weak political force, overly dependent for the protection of citizens' rights on a Court made up of Justices who were actually worthy of the title (Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun).  Those great men are gone, and that strategy is no longer an option.  From here on out, the battle becomes political, to be fought in the trenches of state legislatures and Congress.  

    I say bring it on.  In a straight-up political fight over human rights, our side will win, because we have the voters.  Frankly, I would hope we take that aggressive tactic on all the other issues related to "privacy".  

  •  A Reality based view (0+ / 0-)

    Among the many flaws with this law is that it decrees that this procedure is never needed to protect the life or health of the woman.

    Facts are facts. You cannot decree facts. It's a symptom of the Republican rejection of reality.

    It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

    by A Citizen on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:30:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site