April 18, 2007, Theocracy Now!
Those of us who were kind of troubled by the inability to mount a successful fillibuster of Scam Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court get to shake our heads and say "surprise, surprise"... the High Court voted to dispense with a number of earlier precedents and outright find a so-called partial birth abortion ban constitutional (5-4... of course.)
I'll defer to Scott Lemieux's observations on this; I think the short answer is "it's about the patriarchy, stupid." You little ladies don't really know what to do with your bodies so we'll tell you for your own good. Note that the High Court found the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to be a perfectly valid basis for Congressional action here. Well... let's think about what that says... as if we didn't realize that we are all commodities of those more powerful than us. Isn't that the principal that Scam Alito has stood for since those halcyon days at Princeton?
Well, let's hear it for the Republican framers: they have picked a peculiarly unpopular aspect of a peculiarly popular right [this poll, albeit a bit dated, shows overall 57% support for all abortions legal in all circumstances, up to 88% in some circumstances, though still 69% favor a "partial birth" abortion ban.] And now... they have rammed it through. Elections have consequences indeed.
It seems the right finally has the Supreme Court it has always wanted. Democrats could pass a bill reversing the 2003 ban... let the chips fall where they may... either play a fillibuster or a veto against the Republicans. Of course, such a move requires... spine. Just as those bills to restore habeas corpus have been so successful... Maybe it will happen. And maybe...
As Scott notes, this is NOT a moderate decision, by any means: this is an extremist decision, opening the door to an eventual reversal of Roe, and the opportunity for a Congressional ban on all abortions in the United States. That's the goal. That's one of the many reasons why competent professionals have been replaced by Pat Robertson's otherwise unqualified Macchiavellian theocrats in the highest ranks of our government.
Good old American exceptionalism... well, there you have it. I guess I picked another bad week to give up sniffing glue.
Comments
Looks like you've been sampling too many of them wire-hanger fearing commentators. How long have you been a member of the absolute-right-to-abortion camp? Do you truly subscribe to infanticide? Did we forget that Roe v. Wade did not speak of an absolute right to abortion?
Posted by Drill'm Dano at April 21, 2007 4:40 PM
Well, Dan'O, the procedure in question usually amounts to a second trimester procedure (the third trimester procedure is already illegal in most if not all states) and Roe has thus far been interpreted as protecting the right to second trimester abortions... until now.
The fact is, the "D&X" procedure at issue, though relatively rare, is generally a second trimester procedure, and for example, would be used to extract an already dead fetus... and would be the safest course to do that... but the procedure has now knee-jerk been declared illegal, which will put otherwise healthy women at far greater risk than necessary while saving not a single fetus.
The abortion opponents have framed this issue beautifully, and the fact is, most people, as a knee-jerk matter, are appalled at the prospect of an advanced fetus, i.e. a viable baby, having its brains sucked out. Hey, I am too!
That, of course, is NOT what is usually happening with the procedure at issue (I can't say it has never been used for that, though my understanding is that "almost never" is pretty accurate). The ban has been defined in a sufficiently blunderbuss fashion to criminalize a whole panoply of procedures that have nothing to do with
what I just described.
But Congress defined the issue in political terms, not in medical ones; before this case, the courts weren't taking that bait. Things is different now.
As an aside, btw, let me say that I actually appreciate the honesty shown by Thomas and Scalia, who outright just said "We want to reverse Roe; we're not going to pretend that we can "respect precedent" while trying to dismantle it, and we don't believe that there is a Constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Honest, and straightforward, whether you agree with it or not. By contrast, Roberts and Alito (joined by Kennedy) were much, much more sinister, pretending to defer to existing precedent and pre-established rights, while actually gutting them, and using the same kind of weasel language we've come to expect from... weasels.
And let me repeat the facts on the ground: abortion is already unavailable in 86% of the counties in the United States, and later term abortions are unavailable in an even greater percentage than that. It is odd that abortion rights seem one of the few things that Democrats can hold together on, yet even Harry Reid voted for the ban that has just been upheld...
And did you not note my concern that the Commerce Clause was used to do this? In other words, women and their bodies are now... commerce. Period. Hey, we are all commerce, now. The Court could have tried to use the 14th Amendment's penumbral rights, extending them to the unborn for example... but it didn't... and that is far more than symbolic. It bespeaks the place of where those of us not in the ruling class now are... i.e., matters of commerce for those who are in that class.
Posted by the talking dog at April 21, 2007 8:28 PM
If a party needs abortion to hold it together, when there are other major issues actually affecting most of the electorate, then that party should not longer exist.
Posted by Steve McGarrett at April 22, 2007 1:29 PM
Can Chin Ho, or Kono be far behind? Maybe Duke? Wo Fat, perhaps?
Anyway, Steve, if your point had validity (which the facts on the ground indicate that it does not) then the Republican Party should, unquestionably, go out of business, because clearly, THAT is the party that needs abortion to hold it together, and has been using it that way since the Reagan era.
The Democrats, by contrast, have clearly moved beyond abortion as a unifying common ground issue. Indeed, they appear to have moved beyond everything as a unifying common ground issue, once again proving Will Rogers' famous adage.
Posted by the talking dog at April 22, 2007 3:24 PM