An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Role of the Roberts Court
The Roberts Court has expressed its raison d’etre today by making it more difficult for women to get abortions. What an attack on our rights!
AP via Washington Post:
Supreme Court says Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not violate women’s constitutional rights.
Melissa at Shakesville says:
Five men—Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—just decided that the health of every woman is America is worth less than a terminally ill fetus.
Joe at AMERICAblog says:
Obviously need more details, but this looks like a victory for the theocrats. They’ve got the Supreme Court they want now — and they won’t stop here. Yes, this means a woman’s right to choose is in peril. That’s the dream of Bush, his Republican party and the theocrats who support them.
73 Responses to “The Role of the Roberts Court”
Holly, is this really an attack on women’s rights?
The ban applies to a specific technique applied in the second trimester. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester.
In fact, most polls have shown the public willing to ban abortions in the second trimester altogether.
I am generally pro-abortion, but am disturbed by the Partial Birth Abortion practice as well as by the late term of the abortion. As you know, the later in the pregnancy, the more the fetus shows independent brain activity etc.
I think this is probably a middle of the road decision, that will receive general public approval, reflecting the views of the “Kennedy” court.
The MSNBC news webpage (not a bastion of conservative writing) has a very succinct recap and does a much better job, IMO, of trying to reflect a centric discussion of the issue than your one sentence cropping above.
A centric will be influenced by the fact that this has absolutely no impact on 90% of abortions currently performed. (ed note…why does it take 10% of the women so much longer to decide to have an abortion?). A centric will be influenced by the fact the “internal dismemeberment procedure” is still available. A centric will be influenced by the fact that the Court did hold that if a case demonstrates “medical necessity” for the partial birth method, it would look at that as a different matter.
Marlowe: Yes, it is an attack on my rights.
This is the second ruling demonstrating the futue direction of the nation. Just as our justice is for those who can afford it, we will have civil liberites for only those who fit into a designated culture/class box.
The ruling about Mr. Jordan was apalling, sidestepping the issue of retaliation.
The ruling on abotion is apalling sidestepping the issue of what’s best for the woman. The fetus is our new idol, while impsing the death penalty on real live people is excused.
It is ironic that this is happening while we condemn the treatment of women abroad. Do as I say, not as I do.
Holly, it really is incumbent on you to explain how this infringes on your rights or the rights of any other woman. You made the assertion, now make your case.
There is really no purpose to try and converse on this issue. On the left, those such as Holly accept no limitation whatsoever on the right to abort, on the right they want complete abolition.
The fact that this is a rollback from the position of absolute right at anytime in the pregnancy is undeniable. Why some limitation on a right that didn’t even exist until 1973, and was not created via democratic mechanisms, and that the majority of the country has consistently stated should have some limitations, should be proof of the misogyny of the SCOTUS is beyond me.
However, fanatics on both sides will insist it either went to far, or not far enough. That sounds like a centralist ruling to me, but I believe that as I am a man, I probably am not allowed to have a valid opinion, unless of course it is to support anytime abortion.
[...] UPDATE II Also more at: The Moderate Voice; Holly, “the Roberts Court has expressed its raison d’etre today by making it more difficult for women to get abortions.” [...]
The procedure that was just banned is *not* solely for the purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Of the roughly 5k D&X, or D&E procedures, 99.9% of them are to terminate a pregnacy that has gone horriblily wrong. Most of these procedures are done to remove a fetus that will not survive, period, due to a fatal defect, such as an enlarged skull filled with fluid.
These women will now have to choose to risk normal delivery, which could rip the vagina to shreds, or the uterus, or any other number of body parts. Or have major surgery of a C-Section, which also carries a large number of risks to the woman.
Just how the *&^%#@)_(&% is this about ‘life’?? It’s about control, pure and simple.
CStanley said:
I would agree. I don’t see any real infringement here.
This bans a procedure in the Second Trimester, not all Second Trimester abortions. And most abortions are in the first trimester.
Given the consistency of public opinion polls on this, it is doubtful the ProChoice/ProAbortion forces will make any headway here.
Justice Kennedy is a middle-ground judge, and he has found the middle ground here, I think.
No rights are absolute Holly. Not even the First Amendment. There are always qualifications.
To echo Christine,
This is not about whether the procedure is ‘nice’. It’s about ignoting the impact on the woman’s health. Indeed, the woman’s civil liberties are being trampled.
domajot,
Have you read the Kennedy opinion? The health issue wasn’t ignored; the court felt that the legislature had satisfied the need to address women’s health because there wasn’t evidence that this particular procedure was necessary rather than other procedures.
If you disagree with that opinion, then again, it’s incumbent on you to show where it is wrong but don’t say that the whole principle was ignored because that’s simply not true.
[...] The following post was published at my own blog. I wanted to cross post it here, but then saw that Holly had already posted about it. However, after talking to Joe, I have decided (with Joe actually) to publish my post on this anyway. For an interesting discussion be sure to check Holly’s post – she was on top of this news when it broke. [...]
I’m not sure why it’s the not the ultimate decision of the doctor and the patient.
As an aside, I wonder if C Stanley and Marlowe support capital punishment…
“Given the consistency of public opinion polls on this, ”
When a woman is consulting her doctor about her health, she should not be subject to opinion polls as to the advice she gets.
I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion at all times nor pro partial birth abortion.
It’s about who makes the decision: the woman and her doctor or an intrusive state.
Domajot said:
Domajot, I don’t think rights are ever absolute…even the First Amendment which I believe in passionately. I support abortion rights, but at a certain point the fetus becomes a viable entity while still in the womb. I mean, the politics would demand a woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy at any point, as it is always the woman’s body…but I don’t think the public would be willing to support that morally.
This is a volatile issue, I know. But beyond the screaming propaganda -”Bush Court Destroys Abortion Rights and Women’s Right to Choose” – I don’t think this dog will hunt.
Capital punishment was ‘legal’ in America for ages, abortion is a newly invented ‘right’.
You cannot compare those two issues from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, perhaps, but not from a legal perspective.
My assertion is obvious and unambiguous and supported by many previous statements.
Our government has no business placing any restrictions whatsoever on abortion.
The choice between aborting a fetus and attempting to bear a child should always be made by the pregnant woman in consultation with her family, physicians and clergy.
Here are some Resources Concerning Abortion, Stem Cell Research and End-of-Life Issues
CS-
When the decision is taken out of the hands of the woman and her doctor, that is infringement on civil liberties on its face value. No further proof is required.
Rather, I would ask for proof how this decision does NOT infringe on the rights of the woman.
Percentage quotations do not apply. If 99.99% of convicted criminals are rightfully convicted, the civil liberties of the others can still be violated.
Chris said:
No. I am opposed to capital punishment.
Was in favour until the Duke case, where I saw how a rogue DA could effectively override all the checks and balances in the system (with the assistance of leftist academics, and the backing of the NYT).
Don’t really think capital punishment analogy applies here. Far beyond apples and oranges.
So, a safer procedure – the D&X, or D&E is to be scrapped for a riskier procedure of a C-Section just to salve the conscience of ‘anti-choicers’?? These women are left with fewer options to appropriate health care.
In some cases it’s a fatal heart condition. These could be carried to term and or have an early C-Section. But, then when the fetus is delivered, possibly live, the hospital will then have to perform heroic measures on now born child that will not survive the week. Are you going to pay for the counseling and other medical costs??
Holly said:
I agree…to a point.
But this did not even ban second trimester abortions. It only banned a practice.
Domajot said:
But Domajot, there are never absolute rights to anything. In many jurisdictions, suicide is illegal. Assisted suicide is illegal in most — and that is one’s own body (altho I am a supporter of the right to assisted suicide, I must admit).
Proofs are always required, as few things in life – save the sun rising and setting – are clear to all.
I was going to draw the parallel between two different types of sanctioned murder, and how as a society we’ve decided that one form (like hanging, or the electric chair) is worse than lethal injection.
Chris,
No, I do not support capital punishment at all.
Doma and Chris: Roe and Casey both recognized that the right to an abortion was not absolute, that the state also has an interest in protecting the life of the fetus. That is what was upheld in this case. The right for doctors and patients to make health decisions is very important but that doesn’t mean it is absolute to the point of allowing procedures which would harm others.
Holly and domajot,
The majority opinions in Roe and Casey didn’t even go as far as you two are going in asserting the right to an abortion as an absolute. You may want to read the decisions of those cases and then read Kennedy’s decision on the current case; he is not overturning those decisions, he’s simply not going beyond them as you would have him do.
Alluding to capital punishment is perfectly legitimate, because this is definitely a debate about morality, the value of life and the relative value of different lives.
As it is, those who want to save the fetus by degrading the woman’s value will be ready to kill it when it’s grown up to be nasty. The woman will still be the mother with no say in either event.
At the very core is the question of what kind of life we value: potential life or actual life with all its complexities.
Christine, what is your source for this? Are you aware that the person who testified before Congress about this later said he was lying through his teeth and that most of the D&X procedures were not done for that reason at all?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf
Chris said:
Interesting point. That does highlight how the state/society/courts often muddle through these gray areas though.
I think this is one of those areas. I counselled a friend through her abortion last December, which was pretty traumatic. We decided that it had to be done early, if at all. I know there are a lot of strong feelings on this issue.
But I do think the “Kennedy Court” tried to arrive at a middle ground here.
Even if it is, it’s a moot point in the current discussion since both of the people who were questioned on this have now responded that we are opposed to capital punishment.
> is this really an attack on women’s rights?
No, and it’s also not “all about control” [of women] or “theocracy at work,” or any of the other lies the radicals are already spewing.
Liberals have wanted federal intrusion outside the proper sphere of the federal government, liberals have cheered court legislation from the bench in the past, including Roe v. Wade, that opened the door to federal legislation of abortion issues as well as federal legislation of so many other things properly reserved to states and localities, and now you get it. Don’t whine when it goes against you rarely instead of with you ordinarily.
C Stanley Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
No, I don’t have *proof* of this. I don’t keep links to everything I’ve ever read on the ‘net, nor clip every book, magazine, or newspaper I read.
CStanley, that was a great find. Very disturbing, that people are so driven in this debate that the end justifies the means.
Marlowe said:
“In many jurisdictions, suicide is illegal. ”
—————-
This just adds to my position that there are inviolate private areas of life in which no authority should indtrude.
Advocate, counsel, draw up guidelines, whatever. But the decision is private.
Re suicide: will the corpse be sent to prison?
And of course, nobody has any right to any abortion at all provided by public funds if the public says this shouldn’t be provided.
That’s something to bear in mind when Medicare is extended to everyone by a Democratic Presidency. This ruling is sensible and normal people will move on, as it doesn’t surprise them; but abortion will defintely return with a vengence when Medicare is extended to everyone. That means Medicare-provided therapeutic abortions.
That’s fine, Christine, but when you make assertions and can’t back them up, then I can’t help but call you on it if I know that I’ve seen conflicting evidence. I know that people hold very strong beliefs about abortion but one of the most difficult parts about discussing it is that many of us have heard things that simply aren’t true and we should all be careful not to base our opinions on false information.
Thanks for including me in your round-up, Holly!
You’re welcome, Liss!
CS-
My comment about capital punishment was directed to a certain political sector.
When I address a particular person, I indicate I’m doing so.
As I commented in Michael’s thread:
Abortion is a difficult issue. I boil it down to whether I’d rather have politicians or pregnant women making these decisions. I like what Hillary Clinton said about “Safe, legal and rare.�
> Alluding to capital punishment
and murder, even (leftists think capital punishment is the same as murder, anyway, and often use “execution” in place of “murder” in their language)
> is perfectly legitimate, because
> this is definitely a debate about
> morality, the value of life and the
> relative value of different lives
Definitely. While the lefties rush too quickly to fundamentalist straw men nightmares, most of those I have observed who are very or totally anti-abortion may or may not disfavor capital punishment (because justice, atonement, and deterrence, and responsibility for one’s actions are involved) but they typically are against euthenasia, where the value of a life is truly being judged relative to others as well as “absolutely,” and where the judgment is, or may become, made by other than those who lose their lives.
I’m not anti-abortion, particularly early in the term, and I view abortion in a neutral and practical manner that is similar to contraception — both have been practiced since women have been able to get pregnant. But later in the term, for convenience, not merely medical necessity to save the mother? As a liberal acquaintance told me, “If it’s viable, it’s murder.” All the lunatic fringe leftists are stuck with the caricatures they have earned: “I want to go on that cruise I scheduled. We really want that Porsche.” Serves you right.
Just wait until Medicare is extended to women of childbearing age. Just wait. That means federal funding of abortion. Under what rules and regulations?
Marlowe:
I concede that rights can not be absolute. I am talking about the relative valuation of competing rights.
What I find frightening is that the rights of the fetus (potential person) are valued higher than
the rights of the woman (living and breathing person).
If this trend continues, we will soon be debating the rights of sperm and the immorality of menstruating.
domajot,
So if the state’s interest in protecting the life of the fetus is upheld in any small way, (in other words, if the balance isn’t 100% woman’s right vs. 0% fetus’ right to life), you feel that this will inevitably lead to protection of right to life for gametes? I think you know how absurd that thought process is.
All:
I just wanted to say how impressed I am that everyone has kept the discussion on what is a very emotional and difficult topic on a thoughtful, respectful level. Nearly everyone has avoided ad hominem attacks. The discussion has been informative, thought provoking for me and I find it incredibly refreshing. This is one of the many reasons I read this blog.
I don’t see this as a civil liberties question. I see this as a question as to whether the government should be deciding whether or not women can have abortion and deciding for obstetricians/gynecologists how they should practice medicine.
This is an issue that politicians play up for political gain without even knowing all the facts. First of all, the term “partial birth abortion” isn’t even the correct name for the procedure. It’s a non-medical term that was invented by a bunch of politicians. The correct name for the procedure is “intact dilation and extraction.” However, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists points out that the law was written so broadly that it could be construed to also ban certain variations of intact dilation and evacuation, a procedure that is completely different from intact dilation and extraction:
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a solution in search of a problem. It is not supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who filed an amicus brief challenging the ban. The procedure described in the ban is EXTREMELY rare. Most hospitals in the country don’t even perform “partial birth” abortions either because they don’t have the specialists capable of performing such a procedure or because the hospital opposes the procedure on moral grounds.
I don’t think that the American people understand that hospitals and the medical community have their own very strict set of standards that they expect their doctors to uphold and that obstetricians/gynecologists aren’t just performing these procedures for the hell of it. What this law does is give the federal government the power to search through medical records and prosecute obstetricians/gynecologists, potentially even sending them to prison.
The last thing we need is for the government to further expand its policing powers into the realm of medicine. I understand that many people genuinely disapprove of this procedure based upon moral grounds. But a lot of misinformation regarding this procedure has been pushed by pro-life politicians–many of whom don’t even know what this procedure entails.
CS said:
“I think you know how absurd that thought process is. ”
——
I always presume that people will recognize the difference between a cartoon and a photo.
Both can contain a message, however.
Nic,
I actually agree with you that it’s not a great law and that it isn’t a great victory for the pro-life side. My opinion is somewhat close to Ron Paul’s, actually. But the law is what it is and I think that SCOTUS decided the case correctly.
When you talk about the concern of state intrusion into medical records though, I’d like to know more about the basis of this concern. Can you fill me in on what the provisions are for enforcement and punishment of doctors or hospitals? After all, the states do regulate all kinds of medical practices, and I see no reason why this would be any different in terms of giving sweeping authority to the state to search records without justification.
Thanks DGO!
Ah well, doma, then please don’t complain when people whose positions differ from yours also make cartoons of your viewpoints.
As nicrivera stated above, this law can be intrepted many ways and has the potential to restrict medical procedures beyond the original implied intent. So, I would like to as what will happen to the women who miscarry at the 5th, 6th, 8th month of pregnacy?? The law as written could mean that these women can’t get a safe procedure to remove the dead fetus. C-Section isn’t without risk to the mother.
A friend of mine miscarried 3 times in the 5th or 6th month of pregnacy. Each of these babies were more than wanted. The procedure to remove the dead fetus is called a D&E. This is not an invasive surgial procedure that will leave major scar tissue in the womb and potentially cause future miscarriages.
The ‘left’ can argue the slippery slop just as the right can….. next will be a ban on D&E, then a ban on D&C (which is a very common procedure for ‘natural’ miscarriages), then a ban on ‘Plan B’, then a ban on any ‘chemical’ birth control, then a registration of women’s cycles……
Just take a look at the stem cell argument, it’s already happening.