SCOTUS
Unacceptable. That's the short response. But I think it's critical that in the coming days and weeks we carefully outline all the reasons why Judge John G. Roberts really shouldn't be our next Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court Nomination Blog is a good place to start - they outline his more notable opinions (perhaps most notable is that only TWO were apparently worth mentioning) and link to his federal judicial profile. We can't just make it all about abortion, else we'll get labeled everyone's favorite word - shrill, and anything constructive we may have to add to the debate will get swatted and ignored. I'd add excerpts from some of his more offensive opinions, but if I read any more of them tonight I may cry. That said, I still want to post this, because it bears repeating:
1. The number of abortions is "continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976."
2. "Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions."
3. "Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers."
4. "The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years."
5. "low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services.""
6. "Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks."
7. "Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks."
(emphasis mine)
Amazing. Sex education works. Access to contraceptive methods work. And women don't want to (can't) raise four children on $28,000 a year. These should not be incredible revelations. Once again, slowly, for those who rode the short bus - women don't choose abortion out of convenience. Making it illegal does not remove its necessity. We all want to see the number of abortions decrease. I would love if no woman ever again had to have one. So come talk to me about sex education classes, not this abstinence crap. Devise a plan for livable wages and insurance that covers birth control and pharmacists who fulfill prescriptions for birth control. Let's have a dialogue about reproductive health, and child health, and child care. And yes, father's rights. If more anti-choice activists started with those points, I might be more willing to stand and listen.
One more thing - through a series of fruitful discussions I've come to the (perhaps obvious) conclusion that my hardline stance when it comes to abortion is based far more (though not entirely) on the political context of the issue than the morality issue. This was a very interesting and productive revelation for me, so thanks S and S for prodding me along.
5 Comments:
Well, if you were to look at the side-effects for aspirin, it wouldn't get through the FDA's approval process in the modern era. So, really, side effects shouldnt be too scary. Well, it probably wouldnt be if it weren't for all the recent "geez, we faked/covered up our drug data" stories from pharmaceuticals.
In your case... ask yourself if the reason you dont think you need your pills is because you're a control freak, or 'cause you really don't think you need them. I bought into the stigma of mind-altering pharmaceuticals, too, until I saw them help a friend through her depression.
~Sid
p.s. Who are S&S?
Oh, and I agree-- Bush's nominee doesnt seem the right man for the job. Likely, he's there so that a fight in the senate deflects attention from Rove.
The liberal republicans of alaska have begun to gird themselves for the upcoming battle. I am dutifully armed with my gin and tonic and smarmy political commentary.
~Sid
No prob, I enjoyed the discussion.
I've been reading a bit about Roberts online yesterday and today, and I must say that I'm not sure what to think of the guy.
One thing to keep in mind re: abortion is that his co-authoring a brief calling for the overturning of Roe doesn't necessarily mean he personally is rabidly anti-Roe. While its possible that his personal views agreed with the brief, its also possible that he was, like any good lawyer, zealously representing the views of his client.
While he seems to be fairly conservative in ideology (what did you expect?), he doesn't seem to be a "movement conservative" like Scalia or Thomas who radically want to change SC jurisprudence (sidenote: apparently Ann Coulter doesn't like him as a nominee because he's not in-your-face enough; thats got to be a good sign). But the biggest thing is he's an unknown - he's been arguing cases rather than writing opinions for most of his career. In that light, even if you dislike him, there's not much to get traction with.
I think the hearings will be the key to reveal his mettle. One thing that somebody suggested - since he doesn't have many opinions of his own, and Bush said he wanted someone like Scalia or Thomas - ask him about a bunch of Scalia/Thomas opinions (including dissents) and whether he agrees with the reasoning.
-Steve
Read this and couldnt help but share:
What do you get when you cross a Republican with a Christian?
I don't know, but you better keep it away from your uterus.
~S.
Read this and couldnt help but share:
What do you get when you cross a Republican with a Christian?
I don't know, but you better keep it away from your uterus.
~S.
Post a Comment
<< Home