Wednesday, January 25, 2006

What they said

Once again, the peeps at Peace X Peace say it so eloquently

Also hanging in the balance is choice and abortion rights. Thank goodness Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has kids. Otherwise we'd really be looking at making choices about pregnancy, childbirth, choices, and what constitutes "undue burden" based on the experiences of a group of people who've never had a period, much less missed one. But they’re up there on the bench now, and they're making decisions that affect not just American women, but women elsewhere too. Food for thought as activists on both sides of the abortion debate feel that we are closer a "post-Roe era" than one would have dreamed of a decade ago.
Women's News: Roe Anniversary Stirs Coast-to-Coast Activism

Roe supporters know they have been losing ground.
Yahoo! News: Looking Ahead to a Post-Roe World

Among the left, there is now talk of "Roe fatigue," as one blogger put it at the Talking Points Memo Cafe this November. Abortion rights stalwarts like law professor and author Susan Estrich and columnist Katha Pollitt feel obliged to ask, as Pollitt put it in The Nation last August, "Should Roe Go?" "With the resignation of
Sandra Day O'Connor, more people are asking that question. Democratic Party insiders quietly wonder if abandoning abortion rights would win back white Catholics and evangelicals. A chorus of pundits ... argue that Roe's unforeseen consequences exact too high a price: on democracy, on public discourse, even, paradoxically, on abortion rights."

This article left me unsettled perhaps because it's got the most truth in it. It is now well known that the Democrat's have all but abandoned the pro-choice cause, hoping to win over the more moderate supporters who also tends to not be their base (but who have the most money to give).

As the above paragraph reminds us, many long time advocates claim to be suffering from Roe fatigue. They figure, fuck it, we'll just let *them* have Roe then they'll see why we defended it so fiercely to begin with. Yet, that approach could also backfire, causing our society to revert back to pre-Roe days quickly. I wasn't alive during that time, but I can sure as hell don't want to let 'em have it just to prove a point. Why take that risk? Who's to say Roe would be reinstated once chaos breaks loose? Who's to say chaos will break loose?

Gallagher is right. Roe is hardly settled law because, 33 years later, we still can't decide who is right.

The Boston Globe: On Roe v. Wade anniversary, abortion foes buoyed by hope.

must support the confirmation of Judge Alito and other jurists who will support a strict-constructionist view of the law and make it possible once and for all to end Roe v. Wade," Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, a leading House conservative, thundered to the soggy crowd.
You know, every time I see that remark, I want to remind the speaker that there are a lot of rights afforded to us that weren't in the original document so if you support a strict-constructionist view on abortion, they should take the rest away, too. It's similar to fundamentalists who only choose portions of the bible to enforce, rather than having an all or nothing approach.

''We're no longer the right-wing Christian nuts."
So says who exactly?

And how come the "right-wing Christian nuts" don't defend the hungry, neglected and/or abused children as vehemently as they do the *unborn*?

Yahoo! News via Jesse Kornbluth: On Roe v Wade: Pro-Lifers Do Like Women -- Docile Women

They hate abortion, but they don't seem to mind other forms of killing. You sure don't see them, for example, mourning the state-mandated murder of that woman in a Texas hospital not long ago. But then, that woman was not only terminal, she was poor and African; God had abandoned her long ago.
See? Even he thinks like me and further cements my point.

A woman's body is not her own. Once she is "with child," the State rules. Leave the state pregnant and come back skinny? Felony. (I don't know how they'd enforce this. Will women have to show their passports at airports, bus and train stations? Will there be checkpoints at border crossings between states? Or will the State simply insert a chip in its pregnant women that can't be removed until childbirth?)
And he makes an excellent point with regards to state laws that seek to ban abortions outright or that would make it a felony to transport any woman over state lines in order to get one. How would a state enforce that? I like the idea of inserting a chip into pregnant women; let's see a state even try to propose, much less enforce, microchiping. Not to mention, once again, how very Handmaid's Tale that idea seems. Perhaps then the *pro-lifer* women would understand why our freedom to choose is so very important.

Hey, maybe we should give them all copies of Margaret Atwood's book and let them see for themselves.