Friday, May 11, 2007

"Choice" & SCOTUS After 2008

I came across a fascinating editorial in the San Diego City Beat that was written by a pro-partial birth abortion lefty --but that can be useful to both sides of the debate. Here are some excerpts:

"...Now that five men have dramatically shifted the abortion debate, everyone should understand why pro-choice activists make abortion a litmus test for candidates for state and national office. And from this moment forward, CityBeat will never downplay threats to a woman's right to control what happens to her body. The war—it's on.

The procedure banned in the federal law—known to doctors as "intact dilation and extraction"—is uncommon; in fact, Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties doesn't use it. So, the direct impact of the ruling is relatively minor, notwithstanding the importance of those few cases when women need third-trimester abortions for health reasons. But the indirect, slippery-slope impact could be huge, pro-choice activists say.

Forces hostile to women's reproductive freedom, led by the religious right, reacted to the ruling by saying they're energized, which is reason for us pro-choice citizens to become more vigilant and involved. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because Justices Alito and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts declined to sign a concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas and signed by Justice Antonin Scalia saying it's time to overthrow Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a reliable pro-choice vote, is 87. It's likely that the next president, especially if he or she is a two-termer, will choose Stevens' successor. As we get closer to the 2008 election, keep an eye on the polls. If California appears safely in the hands of a pro-choice candidate, find out where the swing states are and send your campaign contributions—whether $10 or $1,000—where they're needed most. But don't forget about the state Legislature. Democrats aren't automatically pro-choice...." (source)

I can have the abortion debate with just about anyone --and unlike some pro-lifers, I have sympathy for the plight of young would-be mothers that don't want to carry some jerk-that-left-them's baby to term. BUT, for me, the introduction of an OTC morning after pill should take 95% of these instances off the table. Also, pro-choice or not...once someone starts arguing for and justifying Partial-Birth Abortion...I shut down. Let's remind ourselves that Planned Parenthood couldn't produce ONE case in which inducing a labor (that could last two days) would save a mother's life.

More importantly, let's understand what is at stake in 2008. More Supreme Court nominations that could shift the balance back to legislating from the bench. Roe should be overturned and the vote should go to the democracy. Reading this editorial and seeing the effort (this early in) that will be put out by groups like PP, NOW and NARAL to retain their money-making machine --who are you comfortable with to appoint the next SCOTUS judge...?

No comments: