LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
December 4, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Troy Jollimore on Karen Armstrong’s 'The Case for God'

Why Obama's Strategy Won't Succeed

The Crushing Legacy of Bush and Cheney

They Don't Check Facts Like They Used To

War and Peace

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Obama on His Own

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
History’s Greatest Heist

History’s Greatest Heist

By Sean McMeekin
$27.36

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Top Court’s Choice Not Pro-Choice

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Apr 18, 2007

In a ruling that supports President Bush’s abortion politics, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortions that Bush pushed and Congress approved in 2003.  The Court’s move struck some pro-choice proponents as the (further) politicization of a woman’s personal, and medical, decision.


New York Times:

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

‘‘I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,’’ said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: ‘‘This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.’‘

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Logician, April 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm #

Re#65143 by John Lowell on 4/19:

Response to your school yard evasion to my two questions was posted in wrong area: Truthdig Podcast: ‘Jesus Rode a Donkey’ Author as 82nd comment, #65265.  Too much traffic, apparently.  However, the challange still stands.

Are you man enough to answer, or will you be the consumate christian and evade? 

Hopefully, should you have the courage to back your yack, wires won’t get crossed and your reply will be posted correctly.  Ah, ain’t modern technology grand?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 20, 2007 at 11:25 am #

Quote: Mad As Hell - “...So she’s partially to blame???? ......Next you’ll tell us that there’s no such thing as rape because…“she was asking for it.”

Really, please, Mad As Hell, if you could stop railing as though you were always “mad as hell”, you would realise that I didn’t actually suggest anything of the sort. I simply said the she would have been ” aware” of what had already happened - not that she would be complicit or that she should be construed to be, either. I think you know what my point really was, though….....

Report this

By Mad As Hell, April 20, 2007 at 7:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Douglas Chalmers on 4/19 at 3:13 pm
(70 comments total)

”...How dare you tell a twelve year child she MUST bear her own father’s child…!”

Really, Logician, stop being so sanctimonious! It wouldn’t be as if she didn’t know what had happened .....and the direct implications for herself. You guys live in such a fantasyland. Instead, you want to “...tell a twelve year child…” that she MUST have an abortion!!!
*********************************

So she’s partially to blame???? That is the MOST morally bankrupt statement short of the Virginia Tech killer’s “manifesto”. Next you’ll tell us that there’s no such thing as rape because…“she was asking for it.”

Nobody is DEMANDING that she be forced to have an abortion—we are demanding she
NOT be forced to have a child while she’s still a child.

If you haven’t adopted one of these unwanted children yourself, if you don’t support funding for orphanages and infant health care, and ALL the support systems needed to bring this child up, then you know what you are:

Nothing more than a hypocrite who expects OTHER people to live by his morality, and OTHER people to pay for it.  And those 5 men on the Supreme Court expect other people to pay for it.

Report this

By John Lowell, April 20, 2007 at 1:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Douglas Chalmers,

In Logician’s world, there are never any natural limits placed upon the human being. Other than our own impulses, there is simply no moral context for our behavior. All such requirements are considered intrusions in such an environment and human relations devolve of necessity into a kind of sociopathology. Now, of course, none of this would be complete without the accompanying outrage. And oy, the outrage! It serves as an ersatz conscience in the absence of a real one. But if your looking for adventure, Logician’s planet is just ideal. Surrounded by the all the imaginings of human power, you can have any sexual identity you might decide upon for the moment or perhaps even bring children into the world with someone of your own sex and no one will ever think you’ve been in consultation with Dr. Mengele. Its really quite extraordinary, Logician’s world, and fun just like the day care center. grin

John Lowell

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 19, 2007 at 7:13 pm #

“...How dare you tell a twelve year child she MUST bear her own father’s child…!”

Really,  Logician, stop being so sanctimonious! It wouldn’t be as if she didn’t know what had happened .....and the direct implications for herself. You guys live in such a fantasyland. Instead, you want to “...tell a twelve year child…” that she MUST have an abortion!!!

Report this

By Logician, April 19, 2007 at 6:40 pm #

Re#65019 by John Lowell on 4/19:

You really need to be on TV.  You can speak for EVERY human female who EVER existed!  That’s some feat, big guy. 

So, it comes out.  You’re in favor of incest.  Daddy has his way with his twelve year old daughter, impregnates her, you will make her have the baby, huh, John? 

How dare you tell a twelve year child she MUST bear her own father’s child!  And John, sorry to burst your sanctimonious bubble, but that happens so much that when your fellow inbreeds in South Dakota wanted to totally ban all abortions and were presented with that actual case from Rapid City, the oh-so-righteous said: “It’s okay! It’s God’s Blessing!”  That’s a quote. 

In your obviously infinite wisdom (hey, you just stated you know EVERY single women’s rationale who EVER LIVED) please explain how incest is god’s blessing.  Or are there things you randy little right winger hate mongers are hiding from everybody else?  Like maybe your own parents are related?  Could that be the reason you won’t deal with the question of incest?

It just never ceases to amaze me that when a MAN makes a blanket statement about ALL women no one takes him to task.  Well, John, you manly man, answer us all now:  is incest the best for you?  Is that why you state that abortion is: “...simply as self-serving no matter what the rationale…”?

Oh, and John?  Also, please explain how inbreeding “benifits” the baby.  I know we’re all just dying to hear that dodge.

Report this

By John Lowell, April 19, 2007 at 4:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Logician,

Sorry, chief, but someone’s consenting to an abortion works out purely and simply as self-serving no matter what the rationale for it or a guilty conscience’s wish to explain this uncomfortable fact away. I mean, really, you’d thought that the baby somehow benefits from the experience? Maybe its just that you’re not quite old enough to post comments here.

John Lowell

Report this

By James Yell, April 19, 2007 at 11:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Another typical judgement by arrogant, overprivileged Republicans. Let’s keep the poor, poorer and of course this proves we are Pro-Life. Now let us send more bullets to kill more Iraqi people in their own homes, own country, never mind that we never had a real reason to invade in the first place, unless it was to steal or control their oil.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are murderers. It is beyond reason to believe they didn’t know the war they launched was unjustified. The attempts by their supporters to exempt them and the people who cooperated with them in the invasion of Iraq is further proof that they knew it was a crime when they did it. And this is Pro-Life?

Report this

By jfior, April 19, 2007 at 8:38 am #

stated differently….adamant pro-lifers’ concern for human life seems to stop at their checkbook….preventing an abortion doesn’t cost them a thing really…but health care and other child services do and that is when they step out of the fray….

Report this

By jfior, April 19, 2007 at 8:31 am #

while a generalization to be sure, unwanted children are likely to be born of parents who do not have the means to provide for them…as an example, adequate health care (what is the number now, 40 million Americans many of which are children), for all of those adamantly against abortion at any term of pregnancy, I think you should be willing to fund programs that provide for adequate health care for children so that the new life has a fighting chance to live a healthy and productive life and I see no current Republican agenda to make this a reality, so it appears that they only have limited concern for human life…respect for human life seems to stop just outside of the womb for these people…“where would it stop!!! people need to take responsibility
at some point” they cry….my thought, why should a child be forced to inherit the problems and hardships of their parents…for the Right, I guess we are all doomed from inception due to some fictitious character named Adam and Eve, so what is another layer of difficulty and hardship….

after delivery I guess they may say that it is god’s will what happens to the child (anyone who reads the old testament knows god has no problem using children as fodder for his chosen people)....by that logic why not let god start making decisions earlier through doctors instead of the government officials….

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 19, 2007 at 7:51 am #

Re #64931 by Logician on 4/19 at 1:55 am:-

Take it easy, Logician, huh. If you are feeling angry, just work on your bio for a while. Both of you are right in your own way…..

Report this

By Logician, April 19, 2007 at 5:55 am #

Re#64802 by John Lowell on 4/18:

How nice.  How self-righteous.  Tell me, John, were you aware that not all abortions are given to “self-absorbed” women?  Were you not aware that a significant portion of abortions were given to rape and incest victims as well as medical emergencies for the mother and/or fetus?  (Google it, oh so sure of women’s choices, you)

Now, big bad John, since you feel you have the right to tell ALL women what they can and cannot do with their very own private wombs, how many of those inbreeds have YOU personally adopted?

What’s that?  How many?  If you haven’t adopted any, then you need to crawl back under that rock and let the adults get on with reality.  Because if YOU will not PERSONALLY take care of what YOU feel YOU have the right to determine for ANOTHER person, then YOU have NO RIGHT to determine ANYTHING for ANYONE.

Capiche, self-righteous one?

Report this

By Ethel, April 19, 2007 at 2:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Some of these women will undoubtedly try to self abort. Will we need to build new prisons to house, control and watch over them until they give birth? If they do self abort while in prison, should we charge them for the crime and keep them in their, and for how many years? If they attempt self abortion and fail, should we take their babies from them? Shouldn’t they be sterilized?

Are the people who want to eliminate sex education in the schools and deprive youth of contraceptives, the same ones who want to end all abortion? Are the ones intent on eliminating social programs that care for children the same ones who think abortion is so hideous? Are the people who see life of the unborn as so supremely precious, the same people who support the massacre of children in other countries, with American taxpayer money?

Report this

By mojo, April 19, 2007 at 1:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

‘is a great victory for those of us who believe in protecting innocent human life at all stages of development. It’s about time our country ends the barbaric practice of . . . ‘

Pro-life ?  What is “Pro-life” about killing innocent civilians (650,000) in the last stages of human development . . . children, teens, adults in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The so-called “pro-lifers” sadisticaly like to watch people suffer and die once they are OUTSIDE of the womb.

What is “pro-life” about Capital punishment.  Decapitating humans on television; that is really civilized !  How many innocent humans have been mistakenly put to death on death row ?  Another great example of the non-barbaric “pro-lifers”. 

And, as long as there are unwanted children being born who don’t have many other options in life; the military will have sufficient numbers to go to war and sacrifice their lives for the whims of war-mongers and profiteers.

What is “pro-life” about destroying the very planet (EARTH) which sustains ALL life.  We are self-destructing.  There is nothing “Pro-life” about that !

Report this

By John Lowell, April 19, 2007 at 12:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Chalmers,

You say:

“Quote: JasonTromm - “...This is a great victory….’

Oh, really? Are you a woman, Jason? As much as the unborn have a right to life and to be free of the abortionist’s scalpel, women are the ones who should be choosing what happens in their own lives.”

Now, now, there you go shoulding all over yourself. grin

This decision is indeed a great victory and for women most especially. Women don’t exist in some kind of free zone that excludes truth, you know. Any human being, male or female, is free to make choices within limits but murder’s a shade outside the pale, I’m afraid. And to cast abortion as a responsible choice when the sexual act carries with it from the very outset the possibility of pregnancy is about as morally cogent as Holocaust denial.

Any movement that claims the welfare of women as its purpose and at same times opposes their interests to those of their own children understands neither women nor children. Time’s come to turn Kate Michelman’s picture to the wall and for all of those terribly ideological “wymin” out there finally to make a start on adulthood, eh?

John Lowell

Report this

By Mad As Hell, April 18, 2007 at 10:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

All of you “Pro-Life"ers stick up your hands.  Now leave them up if you adopted a kid.

WHOA!!! Almost all of them went down!

Now leave ‘em up if you adopted a kid even though you and you spouse aren’t infertile…Wait, are there ANY there?  I don’t see any…ANY of you adopt a kid?  If it was because you couldn’t HAVE kids, put your hand down!

Anyone?  What’s that deathly silent sound???

Wait! Wait! I see a hand!  Oh, that’s a mirror—it’s MY hand….But I’m pro-choice—and we have an adopted kid—our younger. 

Which of you Pro-Lifers can say you did what we did—adopted a kid? Not because of infertility, but just because you wanted to.

If you are pro-life you have an OBLIGATION to adopt an un-wanted child, love ‘em and raise ‘em.  Otherwise you are just a big hypocrite—yet again, like all the right-wingers, loudly pushing for someone ELSE’s morality, not your own.

“Partial Birth Abortion” is an invented sin. It doesn’t exist.  There is a perfectly legal procedure, that under EXTREME circumstance, requires IN THE MIDDLE OF SURGERY, a change.  It is THIS change that the dogmatics on the USSC just made, in their medical “wisdom” illegal.  Schmucks.

Report this

By Frank, April 18, 2007 at 9:21 pm #

I am moderately pro-choice.  I support a womans right to chose during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, regardless of circumstances.  In my opinion, six months (two trimesters) should be plenty of opportunity for any pregnant woman to to consider her options and exercise her right to choose.

After that, in the third trimester,  the line becomes blurred between ‘fetus’ and viable human infant with inherant rights. I choose to err on the side of respecting the life of the infant at that point.

I see this as a compromise which respects the right of a woman to deal with an unexpected or accidental pregnancy and gives her adequate time to make the decision, while drawing a line which respects the life of the fetus as it approaches the point of development where it would possibly be able to live outside of it’s mothers womb if a premature delivery occured.

Instead of remaining polarized over the all or nothing positions the two camps take, we should be willing to accept a compromise like this which will take much of the fire out of the debate , so the issue will lose it’s political value and the country can get on with more important issues.

Report this

By 127001, April 18, 2007 at 8:00 pm #

I’ll be happy to take a coat hangar to the personal orifices of those who oppose Roe v. Wade, and support this decision.

This is not going to stop death; it will cause more deaths.

But then, that’s what you want ... isn’t it?!

Report this

By JohnDWoodSr, April 18, 2007 at 5:52 pm #

I am a very left-wing progressive who also is pro-life, but respect that others are entitled to, and do hold, different views.
I would like to see Roe overturned, but for a pragmatic reason. If Roe is ever reversed, the right-wing would lose it’s bread and butter wedge issue.They’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of it, and would flounder if it disappeared. It might even happen that some of their issues voters would look around at other things and realize how badly they were used. For me, it’d be a win-win.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 18, 2007 at 5:34 pm #

Quote: JasonTromm - “...This is a great victory….’

Oh, really? Are you a woman, Jason? As much as the unborn have a right to life and to be free of the abortionist’s scalpel, women are the ones who should be choosing what happens in their own lives.

Report this

By JasonTromm, April 18, 2007 at 4:40 pm #

This is a great victory for those of us who believe in protecting innocent human life at all all stages of development. It’s about time our country ends the barbaric practice of sucking an unborn child’s brains from it’s skull.

Report this

By Psycheout, April 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a great day for the pro-life movement.  We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 18, 2007 at 4:30 pm #

 
“...In the first case, Gonzales vs. Carhart, four doctors, including Leroy Carhart, challenged the federal law banning partial-birth abortions…..”
 
Aren’t we really talking about a procedure for late term abortion which is basically intended to expand the market for the profit of abortionists? That is, there is a group of medical predators willing to kill for money on any pretext as opposed to surgeons who have to do what is necessary in the case of an emergency?
 
 
“...that the act had no exception for the health of the mother….”
 
Here is a separate problem, though. A late term abortion can’t be carried out for the health of the mother for solely legal (political) reasons. Fair enough that it should be overturned as far as medical emergencies are concerned but then a third scenario creeps in. Medical reasons for the health of the mother regarding abortions have included:-
 
A deteriorating financial situation
A change in relationship with the father
A lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example, the parents of a minor
 
These are all subjective reasons and are NOT genuine health issues as regards surgery and abortion. Still, both the courts and the abortionists and the pro-life groups continue to bundle these separate issues together each in the hope of advancing their own case. The result has been as disastrous as the political imperatives of the courts as regards abortion in the first place.
 
 
“...Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the court’s decision “deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.”............
 
Sadly, as a result of the positions taken by both the litigious parties and the court, the mother has been deprived of both the right to make her own decisions and the chance to have a life-saving procedure in the event of an emergency. How is that in any way progressive?
 
Also, the medical profession has been separated into abortionists and surgeons. One group have usurped their profession to make a business out of it and the other side of the profession have been told that the judiciary knows more about medicine than they do - and are thus placed under legal threat if they act professionally as they should in an emergency.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3052992&page=1

Report this

By Tom Doff, April 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

This may reveal amazing self-awareness on the part of the Supreme Court. Imagine, five abortions ruling against abortion.

Could it be they realize their inadequacies, and are attempting to preclude future editions? But that makes no sense.

Aha, that explains it. It is SCOTUS, after all, which is an affliction for which no cure is yet known. But current extensive research in the psychotropic field may yield results, one can only hope.

Report this

By Aeneas, April 18, 2007 at 3:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Am I the only pro-choicer here who thinks that abortions past 12 weeks is horrible (barring some exceptional cases where the mother’s/child’s health is at risk)? 

I think 12 weeks should be enough time for a woman to realize she’s pregnant, and make the appropriate decision.  This is probably the only legislation to come out of this administration that I agree with, but it absolutely mustn’t go further than this.

Report this

By 127001, April 18, 2007 at 2:59 pm #

I’m snipping my comment while I go puke. Can’t we get a law passed supporting euthanasia of Republicans?

No surprise to those who bothered to watch the Alito hearings.

Report this

By Mad As Hell, April 18, 2007 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

NOW maybe all you Kucinich fans and Hillary-haters can see WHY all Democrats MUST unite behind whoever is the nominee—100%!

THIS is why competition amongst Democrats must not be bloody and damaging!

THIS IS THE RESULT OF FOOLS LIKE RALPH NADER REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DAMAGE HIS EGO AND SELFISHNESS DID!

Had Al Gore been RIGHTFULLY awarded the Presidency (which would have happened w/o Nader) neither Roberts nor Alito would be on the Supreme Court today.

THERE’S Ralph Nader’s “Dime’s worth of difference” for you!

What’s next? The Supreme Court just declared itself the determiner of Good Medicine, which mean science as well. Is the Morning After pill banable? How about ALL birth control? (Reversing Griswold).  Maybe they can outlaw Darwin and enforce “Intelligent Design” as well.

Remember: The Papal Inquisition determined that the planets, especially the Earth, did not revolve around the Sun—and kept Galileo under house arrest, and prevented him from doing research to “prove” it.

That’s what we get with NOT facing reality: Fascists given the job of sitting on the Supreme Court, so they can TAKE AWAY rights!

How much more do you need? Iraq, WMDs, Taxes, the Deficit, MCA, Habeas Corpus, Katrina, and, now, outlawing medical procedures that aren’t blessed by Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and the Pope! You all are as blind as the Fox Noise ditto-heads!

Report this

By John Lowell, April 18, 2007 at 2:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

A tremendous victory for the human race! In the United States, at least, infanticide is no longer countenanced.

It has been for decades now as much commentary on our country that it has been its pleasure to grant legal approval to an unwanted child’s having its skull crushed by some for-profit murder-surgeon with the permission of some utterly self-absorbed mother that it has been willing to launch unjust and unjustifiable wars and torture its enemies. We’ve a long way to go but it won’t be over until were out of the Middle East and have ceased with our baby-killing.

It will always be true that abortion ends a human life as much as bombs dropped in war kill wholly innocent civilians. And an end must be brought to both practices.

John Lowell

Report this

By dale Headley, April 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

This is just one more example of why it is asolutely essential that the next president be a Democrat.  It is a certainty that if right wing ideologues continue to be appointed to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, the Constitution will soon become a bittersweet memory.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.