Supreme Court To Reconsider Banning Late-Term Abortion
And the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will consider reinstating a federal ban on late-term abortion. Recent President Bush appointee Samuel Alito could hold the tie-breaking vote when the court hears the case. The court last ruled on the issue in the year 2000, when Judge Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote to strike down a state law banning the procedure. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said: "Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger."
the above is from today's democracy now and let me say, no, i'm not surprised by the court's decision. i am surprised that nancy keenan really thinks any 1 cares what she thinks.
maybe some people do? i'll note this from planned parenthood:
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) called on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect women's health and safety after the court announced it will hear Gonzales v. Carhart, a case challenging the federal abortion ban. The ban, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, would outlaw abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and the best to protect women's health. "The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety. Despite 33 years of Supreme Court precedent that women's health matters, the court has decided it will once again take up this issue," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. "Health care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians. Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives."
Every court that has examined the federal abortion ban has struck it down because, among other things, the ban does not protect women's health. Just six years ago, the Supreme Court itself struck down an abortion ban passed by the state of Nebraska because it did not have a health exception, and Justice O'Connor's was the critical vote that upheld protections for women's health and safety. Of course, Justice O'Connor has retired and been replaced on the court by Justice Alito.
"Today's actions by the court are a shining example of why elections matter. When judges far outside the mainstream are nominated and confirmed to public office by anti-choice politicians, women's health and safety are put in danger," added Richards.
it's a battle. some people don't want to fight it. the right wing wants to fight it. some of us on the left are prepared to fight but you've got that soft, squishy democratic muddle that just wants to roll over time and again.
dianne feinstein only realized that she should get behind the filibuster when cindy sheehan was talking about running for the senate.
so what do we do? linda berg puts it pretty clear at now:
From the votes on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, it couldn't be clearer that we have to elect more feminists to the U.S. Senate. We must challenge those whose seats are up in 2006 and whose votes have eroded women's rights. On the other hand, we must make sure that our allies, like Senator Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, defeat their well-funded right wing opponents. To add to our electoral challenges, Senators Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) are retiring and we must ensure that they are replaced with feminist allies--not right-wing zealots.
i'd add that we need to realize that the democrats have a few right-wing zealots who need to be shown the door.
make a point to check out the daily jot, wally will make you laugh and we all need laughter these days. and, if you can handle it, check out c.i.'s 'other items.' guantanamo is an important issue and i agree with elaine and c.i., 'detainees' is the wrong term for these people, locked away, violated . . .
