Justice Blackmun's Warning as to the demise of Roe v. Wade — Page 4

Excellent, excellent article from slate.com:
Father Knows Best

---

Seriously guys, read the article I posted.

---

Beyond my comprehension how it's ever medically safer . . .

Just out of curiosity, are you a doctor? If not, what qualifies you to decide what is and isn't medically safer? The problem with this decision is much bigger than the particular procedure at issue - it's the fact that legislators have effectively been given carte blanche to substitute their own judgment for that of medical professionals, and to do whatever they want whenever there is "medical uncertainty" about a particular procedure. This principle has implications that are much broader than late term abortion, or even abortion in general.

No, actually, I don't - and I don't pretend to know more than the qualified medical professionals who provided extensive testimony at the trial level to the effect that there are instances where the procedure is safer than the alternatives for the health of the woman. Unlike in the Congressional hearings, which were very skewed and involved the testimony of people with only tangentially relevant experience and expertise, the federal courts actually developed a substantial record of expert testimony. Read the district court decision and the federal appellate court decision that upheld it, as well as the dissent in the Supreme Court decision. As a lawyer, I am qualified to read and understand court decisions; but as a non-doctor, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to second guess doctors and medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

I do not dispute the gruesomeness of the procedure, and I would never want anyone I know to have it performed unless it really were medically necessary - but once you set a precedent of ignoring legitimate medical opinion and substituting political judgments of non-qualified people, it's a dangerous path.

It's frankly naive to think that this statute was solely about this specific procedure. It was about setting a legal precedent in a politically sympathetic court, as a foundation for passing future, more restrictive abortion legislation. Just read what antiabortion groups are saying in response to the decision; it's their explicit strategy and they make no secret of it.

Obama will not appoint Justices such as Roberts and Alito.

I hope that all Democrats recognize the real and pressing issues of privacy that affect all men and women when voting this Fall!

Please read:

Justice Blackmun's Warning as to the demise of Roe v. Wade
Posted On: 7/19/05 at 05:21 PM


Sixteen years ago Justice Harry Blackmun warned of the demise of Roe v. Wade. Tonight, I fear that that his warning will become more imminent as Bush nominates the next Supreme Court Justice.

Here is a part of Justice Blackmun’s Dissent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989):

Although today, no less than yesterday, the Constitution and the decisions of this Court prohibit a State from enacting laws that inhibit women from the meaningful exercise of that right, a plurality of this Court implicitly invites every state legislature to enact more and more restrictive abortion regulations in order to provoke more and more test cases, in the hope that, sometime down the line, the Court will return the law of procreative freedom to the severe limitations that generally prevailed in this country before January 22, 1973. Never in my memory has a plurality announced a judgment of this Court that so foments disregard for the law and for our standing decisions.

The plurality opinion is filled with winks, and nods, and knowing glances to those who would do away with Roe explicitly, but turns a stone face to anyone in search of what the plurality conceives as the scope of a woman's right under the Due Process Clause to terminate a pregnancy free from the coercive and brooding influence of the State. The simple truth is that Roe would not survive the plurality's analysis, and that the plurality provides no substitute for Roe's protective umbrella.

I fear for the future. I fear for the liberty and equality of the millions of women who have lived and come of age in the 16 years since Roe was decided. I fear for the integrity of, and public esteem for, this Court.

Updated On: 9/5/08 at 12:20 AM

Last night John McCain belittled and mocked all woman who have had to make difficult choices regarding their own destiny. He should be ashamed and I hope that all voters see that his dismissive attitude is demeaning, sexist and scarey.

What's more frightening are the women who AREN'T alienated by him.

Or Phyllis: