History was made today as our Supreme Court upheld the first ever ban on abortion, specifically partial-birth abortion. The ruling was upheld by a bitterly divided 5-4 decision. As you might have expected, Bush's two appointees were with the majority on this one.
The says:
Today's ruling may signal the court's willingness to uphold additionalrestrictions, such as state laws requiring a woman to be told that herfetus is a human being, and proposed federal legislation finding thatabortion causes pain to fetuses.
Just about everyone has weighed in on this as you might expect.
:
It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warnedagainst when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts andJustice Alito.
:
...this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of theconservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting awoman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between adoctor and patient.
:
The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweepingprohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to thehealth of individual women.
And of course the Republican Presidential candidates are overjoyed by the move. Rather than quote them (they all say the same thing), you can read all about it at (sorry, I know it's a conservative page, but that's where the info is.)
Oops. It looks like Rudolph Giuliani will have an even tougher time getting the '08 Republican nomination (via ):
GIULIANI: "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion."
So much for gaining the respect of Republican voters. I know, I know -- Giuliani is way ahead of McCain and Romney in just about every poll there is. But when you couple this story with the of Giuliani that surfaced, all you have to do is wait until just two months before Iowa when the GOP establishment begins hitting Giuliani with everything they have. Giuliani will be political dead meat.
Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback will be looked at closely by conservatives as fresh alternatives to McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
Yesterday the that would criminalize anyone for assisting a girl across state lines to get an abortion without parental consent:
The 65-34 vote gave the Senate's approval to the bill, which would maketaking a pregnant girl to another state for the purposes of evadingparental notification laws punishable by fines and up to a year in jail.
This comes on the heels of votes on other divisive cultural issues this summer such as flag burning, the estate tax, gun safety locks, the pledge of allegiance, and a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage -- all of which were part of the Karl Rove game plan to rescue and rejuvenate the conservative base this election year. Politically speaking, it is smart for the GOP to do everything they possibly can to divert attention away from Iraq, high gas prices and poverty.
But this vote that restricts safe reproductive rights is more than just an election year ploy. It is legislation that will hurt many younger women across the country that fall victim to male predators -- and those predators sometimes happen to be the girl's father. According to WebMD, each year in America choose abortion after suffering rape or incest. Also, report sexual abuse; 35% of second abortion women report sexual abuse; and 45% of third abortion women report the same thing. A throughout the world -- including the University of Ontario, the London Health and Sciences Centre and the University of Colorado -- also back up the premise that women who get repeat abortions are more likely to be abuse victims.
So what this all comes down to is whether it should be the job of the United States government to criminalize someone for helping an underage female abuse victim flee the state in order to abort what could be a potentially deadly pregnancy?
On the Senate floor, Massachusetts Senator :
"Congress ought to have higher priorities than turning grandparents into criminals," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
But as a on the Senate debate explained, many Republicans believed that forcing child to have a baby would allow the police to know who the abuser is:
...the bill would protect young girls from malepredators who could impregnate them and then arrange a secretabortion to cover up their actions.
So is it good reasoning to force a young girl to have the child, even if she was a victim of sexual abuse, just because it would expose who the daddy is? It's just my guess that most Americans would consider that to be poor reasoning.
Aside from that, there is an even more important point to make about all this. Will criminalizing someone for helping a child cross state lines to get an abortion make any difference in preventing the abortion from taking place? Some of those abusive victims might perform their own abortions. Evidence suggests just that. More than performed in the world each year are done in places where such a procedure is against the law. So while criminalizing might not stop these abortions from happening, they certainly will encourage more dangerous behavior.
As a disclaimer, let me just say that I am personally against abortion. Generally speaking, I don't like abortion because it underscores the breakdown of the American family in today's era, especially when adoption is a great alternative. But as far as the church and state issue go, I don't feel comfortable with my government taking an article of faith and legislating that article of faith onto all its people.
But let's face it: abortion should not be the number one issue right now anyway. 100 civilians are dying each day in Iraq. The U.S. poverty rate is up. Consumers are spending more money on gas, which means less money for the tourism industry and less money for almost all small businesses. We have more important things going on now, especially considering the fact that the number of abortions in the United States declined by 20%.
While you are reading this, I understand completely why you might disagree with me. Being that I am young, I am a little more in-tuned than most political writers about the issues facing our youth today. That does not automatically make me right and you wrong. It's just that so many children are growing up in broken households, and fall prey to abuse.
I wish that we would spend more time protecting children from abuse, and less time trying to appease abortion lobbyists on Capitol Hill. This kind of political stunt is sick and disgusting, and is only addressed in even years, never in the odd ones. We need to get our country back on track, and that starts with the economy, stupid -- not pandering to the radical right-wing on issues that will only tear ourselves apart.
----------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , .
Pardon me in advance for editorializing this blog post. I just cannot help but comment on the ethical inconsistencies regarding Bush's views on states' rights. In comparing his stances on abortion and gay marriage, Bush believes the following:
The issue should be left up to the states
Abortion
The issue is important enough that it be decided federally, not by states.
Essentially, when taking these positions into account, whatBush is saying is that preventing certain people from getting married is more important than preventing the destruction of life.
If he thinks that abortion destroys life, then why not protect every fetus in the country?
Recent Comments