-
Intact Dilation and Extraction
(3)In this decision, once again, the “justices” prove that they are what they were appointed to the Supreme Court to be: political hacks.
Otherwise, I’ll let the NYTimes speak for me on this one:
Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a womans place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.
3 Responses to “Intact Dilation and Extraction”
-
The (majority of the) Supremes think my mother is a child.
I don’t think anyone on the Supreme Court can escape politics, but they don’t have to be smug and patronizing about it. I’m glad that the four Justices dissented, even though that’s all they could do, it seems.
Any president would try to appoint Justices whose opinions matched his own, but it seems lately that they’ve gotten more aggressive about stacking the Court. Maybe it’s always been that way.
Oh, well. Chin up. All we can do is try again.
-
“So this bill skips the preliminaries of dismantling womens rights one at a time and instead gets to the heart of the matter. Late term abortions are performed for maternal health reasons, full stop. Sometimes its a fetal health issue, that its dead or will die as soon as its born, but in the end, its still about not forcing a woman to go through labor and delivery, which are dangerous, for no reason. And sometimes they are performed because the mother will die, be crippled, or have serious mental health problems if she delivers. The concept of choice isnt really part of this discussion so much. This is about the concept that women deserve to be treated as full human beings who deserve proper medical care despite their current situation of being in a state only women can be in. That is what was on trial and the answer is no.”
-
sherry April 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Thanks, Tommy. I’ve heard it said that this issue should have been settled in Congress and not the courts and perhaps that is right. NARAL is starting a movement to do just that. Might be a good thing to support.
Leave a Reply
My Books
Dance the Black-Eyed Girl
My Will and Testament Is on the Desk
Artistic Support
Sherry has also received an Artist Enrichment grant from the Kentucky Foundation for Women.
Recent Comments