Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT editorial: Denying the Right to Choose

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 11:44 PM
Original message
NYT editorial: Denying the Right to Choose
Denying the Right to Choose
Published: April 19, 2007

Among the major flaws in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman’s right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty.

Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion — written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings.

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health.

As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.

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 woman’s 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.... The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rubberducky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. All men. Guess we need to push for more women on SCOTUS.
Who was it who said, "if men had to have babies, abortion would be a sacrament" ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Justice Kennedy.
That stinking condescending sexist treasonous son of a bitch.

It's amusing that the NYT starts from the premise that this court had any credibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. SCOTUS = Whores
I have *no* respect for those closet queens in black robes. They have crapped on our Constitution, twisted the law and make the judicial system a joke. Pretty soon we will all have to impeach their asses and let some fresh air into the superior courthouse because they've turned it into an outhouse. Beginning from when they put that piece of shit frat boy drug addict idiot we call the president in the White House.

But then what can I say, all I have ever seen in the courthouse is a bunch of theater. the whole thing is full of a bunch of pretenders, it is a dog and pony show pretending they are "civilized" when in reality they are a bunch of thieves and liars.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Talk about activist judges
That's what these fuckers are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. why not make rush limbo and shawn hannitee justices!!
couldn't be any worse than those bozos!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. Justice Kennedy actually reasoned ...
you got to effing kidding me!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. a.m. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. kick & shout
A new dark age is dawning; our children and grandchildren, all young women will bear the brunt of this ruling and it's up to us who fought this fight long ago to never permit such backward steps to go unnoticed.

I am amazed by the lack of response here but I can only hope that it's because women of conscience are out in the streets, mad as hell.

Demos all over this afternoon...find one and show this government that they will not put us "in our place"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Damn judicial activists!
When are we going to rid ourselves of these activist judges who ignore precedent and do whatever the hell they want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is what happens when there is no separation of church and state
Edited on Thu Apr-19-07 02:05 PM by ooglymoogly
providing the cover for just about any idiot to force his way into power and appoint stupid self righteous troglodyte zealots to run the justice dept and supreme court...swing vote my ass...these zealots are our murkin taliban and this misguided pronouncement was a faqua to control the people of this country and thats a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC