July 1, 2005
-- by Dave Johnson
There's a new ad over on the right. It says, in part,
For the first time in over a decade, there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Unless we act quickly and forcefully, the Bush administration will make sure it’s filled by a right-wing activist bent on ending a woman’s right to choose.Yes, this IS the big one. The Supreme Court has been divided 5-4 on many decisions, and outgoing Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote on a number of these cases. Most notably abortion.
So this is the big one for abortion. This is it. Next year states could have the right to decide if you or someone you know can or can not have an abortion if necessary. Believe it or not.
P.S. I found that 5-4 list through The Carpetbagger Report, who writes
As the debate moves forward in the coming months, everyone will have a stake in the outcome. Abortion, church-state separation, civil liberties, affirmative action, gay rights, the environment, federal regulation of businesses, criminal justice, labor rights, election law … you name it, O'Connor has helped decide it. Take a moment to read People for the American Way's list of 5-4 rulings in which O'Connor made the difference. It's stunning.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
You're just being hysterical. If Roe v. Wade is overturned it will not end a woman's right to choose in the U.S., it will end the Federal enforcement of that right. Instead, it will be turned over to the states to decide, many of which will protect the right. You are parroting the central myth of the pro-choice crowd: that if Roe v. Wade disappears all American women will be forced into the back-alleys.
I support a woman's right to choose, but I do not support lies and propaganda in support of that right.
Posted by: Pericles at July 1, 2005 2:44 PM
No, you don't support it. Fucking liar.
Posted by: richard at July 1, 2005 2:55 PM
No, you don't support it. Fucking liar.
Wow, richard, you know everything about me from the dozen or so comments I have made on this site. Are you a mind-reader, or did the voices tell you that info?
Posted by: Pericles at July 1, 2005 3:10 PM
WOW, its amazing! You liberals are scared shitless that you will lose one of your left wing wacko supporters! The only way liberals have gotten their agenda forced on the American public for the last 40 years is through activist judges in the courts - judges like O'Connor. I hope each one of you liberals gets their home and land taken away so a Wal-Mart can build a new store on it - then how happy will you be that O'Connor made that decision!
More power to Bush - I hope he puts forward a true CONSTITUTIONALIST - for you liberals, let me explain: that means someone who interpets the constitution to see what the framers meant - not some liberal wacko that decides in their own mind what it means - like O'Connon deciding that abortion is guaranteed by the constitution - SHOW ME WHERE!
GO BUSH! And if this comment even makes it into the posts I will be totally amazed. But, it will probably end up in the trash bin because, like ALL MEDIA except FOX, it doesn't represent the liberal view so it doesn't get said.
Posted by: Norm at July 1, 2005 4:28 PM
She was appointed by Reagan, wingnut.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at July 1, 2005 5:02 PM
Yes, Norm is a Wing-nut even by my standards.
Posted by: Pericles at July 1, 2005 5:12 PM
Pericles, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly how many states allowed open and safe abortions prior to Roe v Wade.
As for "Norm", I'd recommend that he note that those alleged "Constitutionalists" (or, more accurately named, "strict constructionists") are little more than smoke-in-the-butt-blowers. No one, and I mean NO ONE, knows exactly what the Framers "meant" other than what was actually written down. The Constitution was constructed by committee--hell, the Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison who originally opposed the idea. So what does that say about Madison's "meaning"? Did he believe they were needed or not? He didn't seem to believe they were necessary when framing the original text, but he came to believe they were necessary later.
As for the "right" to an abortion, "Norm", maybe it would benefit you to read the background to Roe v Wade before blasting it with your extremist point of view. The law that existed in Texas (the heart of the Roe v Wade case) made *having* or *performing* an abortion a crime (that meant punishing both the woman and her doctor). As the case proceeded, the specific fight was based on guarantees provided by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and that these guarantees were being restricted to pregnant women. As for this notion of "intent", most anti-abortionists believe that there's a "right to life". Well, show me where THAT is in the Constitution. Guess what--it doesn't exist.
Posted by: JosephW at July 2, 2005 3:21 AM
I'll be writing something about the history of abortion later because we need facts to fight with. Meanwhile, contemplate these facts. Abortion was NOT ILLEGAL in this country until 1879! That's awfully late. Also, even in the RC Church, most vigorous enemy of abortion rights, early abortion was not grounds for excluding anyone from communion until the mid 19th century, either. So considering abortion in any way a crime was law for really a very short period of time.
Don't make the mistake of thinking there weren't any abortions and that's why it wasn't illegal. Abortion was routine from ancient times on. There are ancient Greek and Roman medical texts that teach how to safely do abortions. It simply was not considered immoral or illegal. When abortion was finally banned, it was for political reasons, not ethical reasons.
Posted by: MJ at July 2, 2005 7:23 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)