Après Alito, Le Deluge

A wise Kirk Johnson report in The New York Times notes that with the new justices confirmed and unsettling abortion precedents, we're now due for another ugly era of legislative boundary pushing. It's clear that the votes don't exist at this point for a straightforward overturn of Roe or Casey, but also clear that the votes do exist for a substantial narrowing of pre-existing doctrine. What's more, some circuit courts are already very rightwing and no doubt chomping at the bit to push the boundaries, as are legislatures in at least some states. Thus, we can expect a big new tide of legislating, at both the state and federal level, followed by a big tide of litigating, appeals, etc., etc., etc.

4/20/07 12:56AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

How depressing.

Posted by: fnook on April 20, 2007 02:21 AM

O for Harriet! Even if she came to the same judgment -- and who knows if she would? -- she'd be 61 while doing it.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on April 20, 2007 03:17 AM

I used to think I was pro choice. Then I had a child of my own. Now I'm pretty much pro life, although I prefer "anti-abortion." Except for saving the life of the mother, killing a helpless fetus is now totally incomprehensible to me.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 07:52 AM

A man who sees nothing wrong in reducing adult women into state-controlled incubators.

How surprising.

Posted by: Ron on April 20, 2007 08:24 AM

A man who sees nothing wrong in reducing adult women into state-controlled incubators.

State controlled incubators! You've been practicing your rhetoric. I said I was anti-abortion, don't think I mentioned the role of the state.

Well, as it happens my wife feels more strongly about it than I do. So why don't you go fuck yourself, Mr. Man.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 08:30 AM

Shorter Bill: I'm not only a concern troll, I'm an enraged concern troll.

Posted by: br on April 20, 2007 09:17 AM

No, concern trolling would be advising the Democrats to temper their pro-choice-ism for political considerations. If they believe abortion isn't murder they're obviously entitled to that opinion. I'm unable to persuade myself that abortion isn't murdering someone, an opinion I arrived at after seeing my son in numerous ultrasounds.

I'm not "enraged." Mr. Ladies' Hero just trotted out the usual bullshit rhetoric, which was more telling about his impersonal attitude toward child-bearing women -- they're "incubators" -- than mine, I feel.

But you're all right, life would be much simpler if we weren't legally responsible for anybody but ourselves.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 09:25 AM

State controlled incubators! You've been practicing your rhetoric. I said I was anti-abortion, don't think I mentioned the role of the state.

So you're both opposed to "killing a helpless fetus" and opposed to state legislation that would make said "killing" illegal? You stand in a fascinating moral space.

I think basic claims to bodily autonomy that are foundational to democracy trump the (highly dubious) claims that fetuses are rights-bearing subjects. So I'm pro-choice. The stance on legislation and legal disputes follows clearly from the moral stance. Yours, it seems, takes a slightly more complex route.

Posted by: DivGuy on April 20, 2007 09:26 AM

Thanks for sharing, Bill and Ron, your experiences and feelings mean a lot to all of us. Now maybe you guys could take your flame war on over to one of the 500-post threads on DailyKos or Huffington Post, where they'll be more fully appreciated.

Posted by: James Gary on April 20, 2007 09:29 AM

DivGuy:

Beyond opining that abortion is a species of murder I haven't made any claims about the role of the state. What words you put into my mouth or stances you have me occupy beyond that are of no interest to me.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 09:45 AM

maybe you guys could take your flame war on over to one of the 500-post threads on DailyKos or Huffington Post, where they'll be more fully appreciated.

Thanks, Barack.

Posted by: Ron on April 20, 2007 09:54 AM

I think basic claims to bodily autonomy that are foundational to democracy trump the (highly dubious) claims that fetuses are rights-bearing subjects.

I'll note this as the second instance of a pro-choice advocate in this thread resorting to de-personalized language about the victims/perpetrators in question. One poster assumed I was for "state controlled incubators," readily associating a woman's pregnancy with a term normally reserved for chicken eggs. So no, if I dislike the idea of a woman/doctor killing a fetus it doesn't mean I have therefore reduced the woman to an incubator. She would remain a pregnant woman in my eyes. (Gee.)

The above quote denies that fetuses are "rights-bearing subjects," which is as abstract a political term for a fetus as anyone pleases. I personally don't see what's so dubious about it, given that I would have preferred nobody kill me in utero -- had I been able to speak for myself, of course, the disenfranchised, unspoken-for being a concern of many liberals elsewhere.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 09:55 AM

Matt,
Dare one hope that the title of this post is a Begin to Hope reference...

Posted by: lev on April 20, 2007 09:59 AM

And as for "basic claims to bodily autonomy" that sorta falls apart when there are two bodies in question.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 10:02 AM

"two bodies in question"

One a citizen, the other a parasite.

Posted by: David on April 20, 2007 10:11 AM

"Parasite." Impersonal term #3. One hopes you aren't a parent...

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 10:12 AM

So, Bill- some direct questions: Do you support the criminalization of abortion? If so, do you support an outright ban with no exceptions, or do you support exceptions for the life and/or health of the mother?

Posted by: SFO on April 20, 2007 10:24 AM

"impersonal"

A fetus is not a person.

But you knew that.

Posted by: David on April 20, 2007 10:25 AM

And, sadly, this is the state of Movement Conservatism. No clear majority view to work from, just the will to undermine existing laws by executive fiat and judicial complicity.

See: Environmental laws, labor laws, etc.

Posted by: jimmm on April 20, 2007 10:30 AM

SFO:

As implied at the top I do favor abortion to save the life of a mother. I don't do so because I view a fetus as a parasite or rights-less "subject," but because life sometimes involves making tragic choices. As for the "health" of the mother that is a legalese term you could drive a truck through. It would depend, and on what I'm not even sure.

Life's full of things one is "against" but that are still legal. Case by case, one can usually argue that unpleasant thing X should remain legal because society would be worse off if it were illegal. In a perfect world many, many women would not get pregnant in the first place and thus avoid having to kill someone as a way out of a bind. So I'm not some religious nut who's against contraception, too. (Actually I'm an atheist.) But killing is killing. Many forms of killing are legal, and there are many ways to argue that society would be better off if we refused to criminalize killing category X of people. I'm sure the civilized world is better off with only safe, legal abortions as opposed to only unsafe, illegal ones. That doesn't in my mind amount to a perfect, or even a good, solution, nor should it in anyone else's I hope. As someone who successfully oversaw the progression of a fetus into a baby whom I inexplicably love more than anything, overseeing instead his destruction would I believe have haunted me to the end of my days, regardless of whatever convenient excuse I might have advanced for doing so. That is the benefit of hindsight in my case.

So for all I know we're currently "better off" with legal abortions. That has to be, in my opinion, because of our imperfections as a society, and not because we are serving some illusory liberal ideal about "bodily autonomy" and free choice.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 10:42 AM

A fetus is not a person.

But you knew that.

Thanks for clearing that up, Yahweh.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 10:43 AM

Interestingly enough, I used to be fairly strongly pro-life until my wife got pregnant. It has been the one position that I've been really holding onto from my conservative days in my youth, I suppose.

Then I read everything I could find about what can go wrong with the process, with the fetus, and with my wife's health during the whole birthing process. I've also read a lot more on fetal development than I ever had before.

In the end, its turned me completely pro-choice. Anything that the doctor and my wife decide on that will protect her life AND health first regardless of what happens to the fetus is principal in my mind. The idea that a bunch of assclowns in Congress and in the Supreme Court know what medical decision to make better than my wife's doctor or herself chaps my hide. Nanny state indeed. We are specifically not going to a Catholic hospital for any of this because we know that they won't be looking out for my wife's health first since a bunch of old dudes who have never even been married get to set their reproductive policies.

Does that make me a cold heartless bastard? Maybe. I can live with that. I guess the last vestiges of my Catholic upbringing may be shedding.

Posted by: NonyNony on April 20, 2007 11:50 AM

NonyNony:

I for one don't think that makes you a cold heartless bastard, provided you're talking about serious threats to your wife's health. But the fact is doctors and pregnant women can agree to an abortion procedure absent any such considerations. So the Catholic priests aren't unjustified in having an opinion on that aspect of the controversy. Many women have abortions because they don't want to deal with a child. I think that justifies placing some legal restrictions on the procedure (and many states have done that).

You refer obliquely to what might go wrong with the fetus itself. I'm personally less persuaded than ever that discovery of a, shall we say, imperfect fetus justifies killing it off. It just strikes me as deeply morally wrong. Everyone will have their own arbitrary line on this matter I guess.

Posted by: Bill on April 20, 2007 12:06 PM

"Thanks for clearing that up, Yahweh."

Said the prohibitionist who will rob woman of her judgment and free will for his personal sense of ickiness.

Posted by: David on April 20, 2007 04:06 PM

Wait, what was Bill's original point? That we should be happy nobody nominated him to the Supreme Court?

Posted by: tps12 on April 20, 2007 08:24 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet