Victory for Pro-Life Movement
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.
Mark Sherman reports for the AP (via Yahoo) that the U.S. Supreme Court “pheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.”
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and
President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.
As Sherman writes, the ruling by the U.S.S.C. “is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.”
From now on, quite clearly, ‘liberals’ in the U.S. will be on the defense – conservatives on the offense and… conservatives will be on the offense, from now on, with the idea that they can actually accomplish something.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meanwhile, wasn’t too happy with the decision; she called the decision “alarming” and ‘said the ruling “refuses to take … seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.’
She said that before mentioned decision “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.”
I for one believe that Roe v. Wade was not the best of decisions. I do not quite see how the U.S. Constitution protects the ‘right’ of abortion. It was never considered a ‘right’ before Roe v. Wade. The only way to label it a ‘right’ was by appointing some creative and ‘open-minded’ judges to the bench. That being said, it is established law now, of course.
That does not mean that it should not be legal, it just means that they should have chosen a different way to make it legal than by a court decision.
Also: I believe that Roe v. Wade was, in the long run, a bad decision for the feminist and progressive movement in general. Why? It came too early. It should have been the end result, the last ‘victory’ for the feminist movement. Now it came while they still had a long way to go, they still had to accomplish and change a lot.
Quite a historical decision and… the blogosphere is reacting: Happy Furry Puppy Story isn’t happy, neither is Beck at Unfogged. A.J. Strata and Wizbang’s Kim Priestap meanwhile, celebrate. I am awaiting reactions of some of the major bloggers, both Left and Right, so this post will be updated.
UPDATE
Ed Morrissey: “Today’s ruling is a victory for moderation and common sense.”
Feministe: “Thank you, Anthony Kennedy.”
Vanessa at Feministing: “We’re fucked.”
UPDATE II
Also more at:
Melissa at Shakesville: “Does any of that sound like these “pro-lifersâ€? give a diddly shit about healthy women and healthy babies? Of course not. Because it’s not about healthy women and healthy babies; it’s about control.”
Joe at AMERICAblog: “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.”
UPDATE III
For those who are wondering: I already stated this in the past, so I thought it would be useless to repeat myself but.. seemingly, repeating myself would be useful. My view on abortion: I was a strong supporter of the woman’s right to choose. Nowadays, I am becoming more and more conservative perhaps, I am not sure anymore. My religion, I have to admit, plays a role in this. As a conservative liberal, this issue is an incredibly difficult issue. Above else, I value freedom, liberty. But… not if that means that one kills another human being / soul. Is it a human being, does it have a soul, or not? If so… I find it difficult to support abortion. On the other hand, separation of Church and State.
In other words: I really, really, don’t know.
It’s not the popular thing to do, to not have a strong opinion on this matter, but it is like it is.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
122 Responses to “Victory for Pro-Life Movement”
If all of these pro-lifers are so concerned with unborn fetuses, why leave the case at abortion? Why not outlaw pregnant women to smoke, or drink? Or hell, even make it illegal for women who plan to be pregnant in the near future to smoke or drink, or maybe even ride a rollercoaster for fear of unintentionally losing the child? I wholely disagree with these religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on the whole of American women. Why should it be up to a bunch of men (and a few women) in suits what should happen in the hospitals?
“Over the next two days, the power of modern pharmaceuticals is unleashed in an attempt to quiet her uterus and save the twins. In reality, this attempt is focused on the twin who is fully contained in the uterus, since the one who is almost inside the vagina has no realistic chance of achieving viability. The efforts are valiant — these twins were conceived after 10 years of marriage — and the desire is strong to salvage as much of this pregnancy as possible….
Inducing labor before membranes have ruptured, or before there is a maternal indication such as infection, is technically an elective abortion. This hospital, like most hospitals in the metropolitan area in which they live, has a strict no-elective-abortion policy, which forbids her obstetricians from rupturing her membrances and initiating labor. Women who want elective abortions go to Planned Parenthood; the ones who want to deliver full-term babies go to hospitals; and so the woman andher husband are told they cannot exercise that option at this hospital. The two of them, recent transplants from California used to a less faith-based practice of medicine, are shocked by this. Nobody wants this pregnancy more than they, they argue. The sole reason they are doing this is because the risks outweigh the benefits. Does the hospital require emergence of a frank infection before intervention is permissible? Is this in keeping with the highest standards of practice in modern obstetrics? Her obstetricians are sympathetic but helpless. Finally, they come up with a plan. The sole hospital that does not have such an abortion policy is a university teaching hospital several miles away. Telephone calls are made, a direct admission is arranged, and the woman’s husband drives her to the teaching hospital, where labor is induced. The twins are delivered the next day. They are stillborn.
You might wonder, reading this vignette, how I happen to know so many details about this case, or even whether this is a fictional teaching case that so bedevils medical students. The unfortunate truth is that this is real life: I am the husband in this story.
But the greater tragedy here, to my mind, is the straitjacket that a religious worldview imposes on the complexity inherent within clinical medicine. Our world sometimes presents us with situations that cannot be simplistically categorized as pro-choice or pro-life, and other patients across the nation will be faced with decisions like the ones we made on that fateful day.
This is why hospital policies that originate in religion rather than science can be unhealthy and unsafe. Personal religious beliefs can and should guide the lives of clinicians of faith. The extent to which they guide a clinician’s professional life is the clinician’s personal matter, and I hope that clinicians will choose specialties and practice settings that ensure that patients receive needed care regardless of the clinician’s religious beliefs. However, the extent to which these beliefs guide hospital policy is a matter of concern to all of us, whether we are patients or clinicians. The extent to which the US medical establishment succeeds in circumscribing the circle of influence of religion-based medicine will determine the quality of health care that phsycians can offer their patients. Clearly, irrespective of what religion each of us belongs to, this is the very least that our patients deserve.”
> Why not outlaw pregnant
> women to smoke, or drink?
It’s a good question if this isn’t already defined in some places as child abuse.
> I wholely disagree with these
> religious fanatics forcing their
> beliefs on the whole of American
> women.
Those opposed to the procedure aren’t restricted to the religious, and they aren’t trying to “control women” [sic].
> Why should it be up to a
> bunch of men (and a few
> women) in suits what
> should happen in the hospitals?
They believe this procedure is always wrong.
DLS:
I’d sooner worry over sentient independent beings (animals down to social insects, some fungi and plants) than mere clumps of cells, or even the insentient fetuses that others worry over.
But, even were science not on the side of the pro-abs, the anti-abs have used such deceit and treachery, and outright lying, that they should utterly disgust any civilized person- from the Silent Scream, to this nonsense.
It should also be noted that it wasn’t until the Women’s Rights Movement of the 1960s that men even started worrying over this issue.
C Stanley (and others)–
You seem reasonable. But your concern for a paralyzed deformed fetus who will die IF it can come out, over the life of the mother it is stuck inside of (and it has happened – give it a read http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3116) finally brought home what the leftists say when they ramble about the the idolatry of the fetus. And I am Catholic, and a mom, not supportive of abortion “on demand.”
What is most upsetting to me is that the mother’s health was tossed aside. It WAS. Read Ginsberg.
Please, note how the Republican, pro-life, conservative men in her family felt about the “procedure”, clearly a medical option that is NO LONGER ALLOWED. So where would her voice be today? Where is my voice if that happens to me?
You might enjoy sacrificing your life, but my husband works and we have a family to raise so I might be upset if my very much wanted preganancy seriously threatens my health and the law says “too bad, so what?” If there is another procedure why wasn’t it used? What exactly will replace the D&X in such cases? The fetus’s head was chock full of fluid, should they just C section and keep it hooked up to machines forever? Why are so many Drs REFUSING to deal in “non healthy pregnancies” if NOT for the chilling effect that a D&X will now, or very soon be a criminal offense?
So, by applauding the wording of this law you make it clear that you choose the baby over the mother. Righteous and honorable, and in 99 cases out of 100 I’d probably be inclined to agree with you. BUT you sacrifice the mother’s health, possibly her future fertility in the 1 case, and if that woman is me, let me tell you – that isn’t YOUR (or the SC’s) choice to make for me.
I usually refuse to post on political blogs as rule (one that I broke tonight to post this link). But it is food for thought. Such cases do not happen. It made me think about the darker side of this opinion. Remember that as you celebrate.
Cosmo said:
> I’d sooner worry over
> sentient independent
> beings (animals down
> to social insects, some
> fungi and plants) than
> mere clumps of cells, or
> even the insentient
> fetuses that others
> worry over.
You won’t get unanimity that the fetuses are insentient.
So you draw the line at birth, then (100% of term, abortion is OK). Very well.
As I’ve written elsewhere, I know someone who feels very much as you do (though I wonder how she would have felt if she had progressed through her term before making her decision). Pro-abortion sentiment can be quite strong if one doesn’t want (or like) children.
> But, even were science
> not on the side of the
> pro-abs, the anti-abs
> have used such deceit
> and treachery, and outright
> lying, that they should
> utterly disgust any
> civilized person-
> from the Silent Scream,
> to this nonsense.
The Left outweighs the Right when it comes to poor and wrongful behavior, as we’ve seen since the mid-1960s.
The Court ruling today is not nonsense. It even is fully compatible with the illegitimate Roe v. Wade decision. (If you can handle facts as you imply you understand science, Roe inserted into the Constitution something that is not there, then proceeded to craft federal law rather than have Congress do so, instead of correctly stating that this is not a federal issue and it is reserved to state and local government.)
> It should also be noted
> that it wasn’t until the
> Women’s Rights Movement
> of the 1960s that men even
> started worrying over this issue.
Which men, the ones who would help pay for illegal abortions prior to that time (and who also joined women in practicing contraception), or the men who joined the anti-abortion (and anti-euthanasia) movement out of concern for the helpless in growing numbers even before 1980? Men weren’t all reactionaries upset by women’s rights, civil rights, and long hair, you (should) realize. (Plenty of men would find easier abortion a relief, as much as you would, even neglect contraception and rely on abortion if need be, right?)
> Why are so many Drs
> REFUSING to deal in
> “non healthy pregnancies�
> if NOT for the chilling effect
> that a D&X will now, or
> very soon be a criminal offense?
Lawsuit madness!!!
Yes DLS l- awsuits buy the federal government on the part of people like you.
If you believe Roe v. Wade was right but came too early, would you also have thought that the 14th amendment was right but came too early?
MBP: I did read Ginsburg’s dissent but I wonder if you read Kennedy’s majority opinion. The health of the mother was not “thrown out”; in fact a lot of evidence was considered that showed that if this procedure were not available then others could take it’s place without sacrificing health considerations of the mother.
“If there is another procedure why wasn’t it used? What exactly will replace the D&X in such cases?”
Forced to carry until labor naturally sets in and then heroic efforts to try to save a life (because the fetus was technically alive when delivered) that has no realistic chance of survival. Or have a C-Section, with all its risks, and the heroic effort to try to save a dying fetus.
Women with eclampsia and don’t terminate a pregnacy, if it’s before 24 weeks gestation, or have an emergency delivery after 24 weeks has an 87% fatality rate (of the fetus and/or mother).
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000899.htm
Tell them that their health is less important than the fetus. Or is the sole role of women to be incubators?? If that’s the case, then be prepared to take a whole lot of cold showers.
CS-
I’m late in responding. I actually took a break to see to the rest of my life.
The answer to your question about what you believe is the same as I’ve stated before: You have every right to believe what you believe and live according to your beliefs.
But I want the same right – to live according to my beliefs. I don’t want to be forced to join your belief system or to live under it.
Your focus on the fetus, in my belief system, is perverse, as it promotes the rights of that fetus above that of the woman.
That’s a pure value judgment, in black and white, without even the grace of some areas of gray.
As no one, not you, not your church, not the law, and not the government can do anything to nullify or assuage the effects of this enforced judgment on the woman,those who support this kind of interference are, IMO, assuming the role of God. And woe to him who thinks he is God’s representative on earth.
A tourch of humility here is in order.
CS-
I got carried away and forgot to address your ‘obligation’ point.
That’s the same kind of obligation miisionaries feel – to convert every one to what they see as the ‘truth’.
What this approach does not include is respect for the objects of this obligation.
It is an ‘I know best’ attitude, that I see as pure arrogance. You take no responsibility for the impact of your obligation. The consequences be d.m.ed, because you, and only you, know what’s right.
I know I sound heated, and that’s only because I am. My frustration with this authoritarian attitude is sky high.
C Stanley – you keep mentioning this “evidence” that mother’s health concerns were not set aside- but I do not see it in Kennedy’s opinion. In fact he talks alot about how mental issues and regret are his concern. Which leads me to believe that real, albeit rare health issues of women are simply no longer of any importance 1)in this debate 2)possibly in this country.
I DO see the statement of the ob-gyns who CARE for pregnant women though.
I refused genetic testing because no matter what we were accepting our gift of children. But when p-eclampsia hit unexpectedly & late I was forced to deal with how dangerous pregnancy can be. We are blessed and all was fine — but guess what- it is a dangerous physical situation sometimes.
You just keep repeating that the health of mother was not overlooked – while hospitals stop even considering anything CLOSE to an emergency D&E at ANY STAGE of the pregnancy (and it does include a dying baby in the birth canal) because they do not want criminal charges – but keep repeating it. If the health of the mother was under consideration I would have no issue with the ruling.
I thought us Catholics valued mothers too? Hrm. Not if you applaud the totality of the decision.
domajot,
I can sense your frustration and I appreciate that you gave a forthright answer that was NOT overly heated IMO. Even though I obviously disagree with you, I can now better understand your point of view.
MBP,
)
Yes, we Catholics do value mothers too (I happen to be both a Catholic and a mother myself so I hardly see how I could not value myself
Please don’t put words in my mouth; if you think I’m wrong to believe that the Kennedy court did look at the evidence and decide that this ruling doesn’t endanger health or life of mothers, then say so. But please refrain from implying judgement about who I care about or don’t care about.
I have to be away from my computer this morning but due to your comments and some in the thread by David S., I will have another look at the court opinions later to see if I find any point of agreement with your statements about health concerns that could not be addressed by alternate procedures.
DLS-
I know I won’t get unanimity on insentient fetuses. Many people live in their own worlds- be they blog trolls or that little VT killer bastard. But reality is what it is whether one accepts it or not.
Pro-ab sentiment is strong if one is in command of the facts and views things with logic.
I’m no fan of the Loony Left, but as the last quarter century goes, the Right has done far greater harm to this nation- starting w cutting many of the safety cords of the Great Society, their relentless voyeurism into people’s sex lives, and their constant wish to abrogate Civil Liberties of all sorts. The Left touts obnoxious PC, but fortunately they lack real power to implement their nonsense. The Right has bastardized the Supreme Court, run up huge deficits that cripple this nation’s economic future, and lied us into a war for oil.
Sorry, the Left is pathetic, but they are jokes. The Far Right is filled with people utterly detached from reality, and the power to pull the best of this nation down w them.
As for the anti-abers? When is someone going to admit that these are the same cretins who, a few decades ago, were hiding behind white hoods and robes? The vast majority of them are the recrudesence of the White Power movement who distortedly believe thay abortion is a plan by Leftists to eliminate the vaunted ‘white race’.
I agree with DLS that Roe vs. Wade was poor legal reasoning, and that the decision just reached rolls back Roe. But, Cosmo, I don’t agree with your reasoning that people who employ logic can only support unlimited abortion, or that the Left is less of a threat to civil liberties than the Right.
For starters, there is nothing in the US Constitution which really guarantees a right to abortion. This was a fabrication of the court in Roe, and Roe WAS a usurpation of the legislative rights of the states. This is why the decision remains so controversial. Frankly, we would have been much better off had the SCOTUS refused (correctly) to hear Roe, and sent it back to the states to handle through the legislative process. We would probably have some states with very liberal abortion laws, and some with very restrictive laws, which seems to be where this will end up, only forty years later than it would have been otherwise.
On the Left, we have PC hate speech and hate crime laws which punish thought which are deemed unacceptable; we have fabricated an absolute right to abortion from thin air, and no one on the left sees anything wrong with these laws. On the Right, we have laws like the USA Patriot Act, and support for the death penalty. The problem is both groups are willing to suppress certain aspects of the lives of other people to protect things which they value.
Abortion, like the death penalty, is an ugly business. I think both are necessary at times, but I would prefer both to be used sparingly. I think the people have a right to restrict the use of both abortion and execution through the legislative process to terms which are acceptable to the majority of citizens. This is precisely why Roe has been so problematic – it was a mandate handed down by the SCOTUS, not a result of the legislative process, and many citizens know that the constitution was short-circuited for political expediencey by the pro-abortion folks. This case is not the end of abortion, nor is it the ultimate triumph of fetal rights overcoming mother’s rights. It may, however, direct this discussion about abortion back to the state legislatures, where it should have been all along.
Orson, when slavery was ended that said humans are sovereign ober their bodies. That includes fetuses. The Constitution says nothing about wiretaps, but seventy years ago manifest extrapolations can be made. Constitutional originality is just silly.
Those justices that do not seek forward meaning are dinosaurs. And they are dangerous to society, for they do not want to alow growth.
As for states rights, well, slavery usurped much aof that as well. No state can contravene the Constitution. Period. They can only add rights to it.
As for the Left, I am no fan of theirs, but as I said, it’s the Right who have the power for the last few decades.
We’d not be in Iraq if a ‘Liberal’ were Prez.
Re: cap pun- it;s unfortunate, not ugly. There is a sense of justice in killing a murderer. The guilty cannot be murdered, merely executed. Fetuses, however, are not even in the equation, since they are not citizens- nor even sentient.
And I love how no one ever replies to the ties of the anti-abers to White Supremacists. Very interesting.
OK, cosmo, I’ll respond since you are waiting for someone to do so. I don’t know specifically to what ties you are referring, but since the majority of the RTL movement has nothing to do with White Supremacy, I’d say that your mentioning of this is at best an association fallacy.
Take a look at all the Southern Leaders- the Randall Terrys and such- all w White Supremacist backgrounds. A few years back, the Minnesota Anti-Abortion group- it’s tag name I forget, Right To Life MN or something, had billboards all over the state on how to stop abortion.
It featured sweet little babies on the billboard- all lily white. I interviewed a fellow who was head of an Atheist group in Alabama in 2003, and he was also involved in pro-ab (although he’d say pro-Choice) activities, and he said the same was done by many anti-ab groups around the country. When he researched why that was he was told that ‘black babies simply don’t show up well on billboards.’ Huh?
20 years ago, when i escorted a girl to get an abortion and some sickos stood in our way, and I tossed them down a flight of stairs, their shouts were, you’re committing genocide against your own race- even though the girl was Hispanic, and I’m white. They asumed I was th efather. I wa snot.
That’s BS, CS. I’ve seen it first hand. The hatred these sickos have is palpable- every bit as delusional as the VT killer or OBL. The thin veneer of respectability they put on does little to hide their white hoods- and don’t even talk to me about the deluded Uncle Toms they recruit to prove they love the Nigras.
Anecdotes still don’t make it any less of an association fallacy; I can see how and why you personally have been affected by these types but that doesn’t mean that these people represent the face of the pro-life movement.
I agree with you that the kind of hatred you’ve described is despicable.
Personal experience is not mere anecdoture. It is first hand witnessing- not hearsay. Deny it all you will, but a spade is a spade and a hood is a hood- be it in Madison Ave pinstripes and waving a sign to stop the white genocide. Please, get real.
The most ridiculous thing about blog comments is that so little of them deal w the real world, only on how folks want things to be.
Life ain’t like that. deal w it!