The LA Times writes about the right-wing plans to test Roe v. Wade if Alito is successfully put on the bench.
Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court — once it has a second new justice — to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.
The bill under consideration in Indiana would ban all abortions, except when continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman’s life or put her physical health in danger of “substantial permanent impairment.” Similar legislation is pending in Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee.
The bills are in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1973 rulings establishing abortion as a constitutional right. Roe vs. Wade and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, asserted that doctors could consider “all factors … relevant to the well-being of the patient,” including emotional and psychological health.
In the years since, states have adopted a variety of laws designed to restrict access to abortion or force women to think through alternatives. Those efforts are expected to continue this year, with states considering proposals to impose new licensing standards on abortion clinics, or to require women seeking abortions to first view ultrasound images of their fetuses and discuss with a counselor the pain a fetus might feel during the procedure.
The addition of two Bushist judges to the court will probably not be enough to overturn Roe. But they might be able to chip away around the edges. And they plan on testing the waters right away.
Republican Rep. Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Indiana Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing it would conflict with Roe vs. Wade.
That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime. “On an issue that’s this personal, it should be decided as local as possible,” he said. “We either want these procedures, or we don’t…. And I don’t.”
Someone should inform Mr. Woodruff that he will never need to have that particular procedure and should therefore relax and stop obsessing over medical matters that should not concern him. The right-wingers are loading up the state challenges to Roe as part of their overall strategy to undermine women’s equality in our society. The LA Times lists some of what they have already accomplished.
Louisiana sets out that “the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception.” The Nebraska Legislature has said that it “expressly deplore[s] the destruction of unborn human lives.” Pennsylvania seeks “to extend to the unborn the equal protection of the laws.” Utah, Missouri and Illinois are among several other states with similar language in their constitutions or statutes.
Such statements are merely philosophical; they don’t have the force of law. But at least a dozen states have criminal laws banning abortion. They can’t be enforced as long as Roe vs. Wade remains binding. In theory, though, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal, subjecting abortion providers to penalties ranging from 12 months’ hard labor in Alabama to 20 years’ imprisonment in Rhode Island.
“What the public doesn’t realize is that the building blocks are already in place to re-criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.
She and other abortion rights activists predict that abortion would remain legal on the East and West coasts and in a few states in between — among them Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. They expect that at least 19 states across the Midwest and South would ban abortion.
I wonder how many women are going support these restrictions and intrusions if they ever succeed in overturning Roe? I think it’ll radicalize a lot of people that have not been on the battlefield and never thought their rights could be taken away until it was too late. If only enough of them were speaking up now we wouldn’t have to worry about Alito being confirmed…they would never dare nominate an anti-choice man to replace the first woman on the court.
I’m meeting one of those women in a couple of hours on the steps of the Capitol.
I can’t speak for Tampopo but I think it’s safe to say that she’s probably never been on that battlefield before. Nor do I think it takes a radicalized woman to understand that she’s needed on those steps to oppose Alito’s nomination, as Tampopo is today.
Peace
Good luck in a couple of hours, Super.
I think Boo is probably right on this. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes the removal of rights to remind people of how important they are. Also, let’s face it, abortion is a sometimes thing. Women over a certain age are not effected by it and women under a certain age have no experience with protecting their own rights.
If it is overturned people will find they do not have options anymore … and then they want them back.
BUT it would be pretty silly if we ever had to go down that road and had to re acquire the rights when we already have them now.
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
If Repug, tell them “No” to Alito; if Democrat: FILIBUSTER!
(If phones have been turned off for the Washington offices of your senators for the weekend, try their local offices, or fax. Email may be ineffective — Senators are overwhelmed by email, it sometimes doesn’t get count and snail mail would be tied up by Homeland Security for two weeks, so a hard copy letter would be the least effective.)
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS (Click here)
Frist is denying Democrats time to speak on the floor. We need to get the word out about why Alito needs to be filibustered:
Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.
Phone, fax, and for the Judiciary Committee.
People for the American Way has collected nearly 65,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition
that so much effort is being put in to restricting peoples’ control of their own body. As I’ve said before I wonder if they would get away with trying to outlaw vasectomies for men?
NOT so far fetched imho. It used to be TABOO to masturbate and waste all that precious sperm, after all.
It still is taboo for these fundies. Seems like I read about some group in Texas that promotes abstinence-that was getting taxpayer money-talking about masturbation being wrong and one of the reasons for it was so ridiculous. Promoting the idea that masturbation is not only wrong but extremely selfish because you will start liking it so much that you will then not go out and want to find a mate and do your christian duty and procreate. No kidding.
The site might have even been state sponsored..can’t really remember.
What happens to their wedge issue that gets their base out to vote?
John Paul Stevens is a healthy man. He turns 86 this year.
with the current state of Constitutional Law (and whether the wingnuts like it or not, Roe IS current law) why don’t we get a few clever ballsy lawyers to file class action federal civil rights suits against the GOP and the state legislatures, RIGHT NOW? Point out that this is a clear attempt to strip away rights which already exist, purely on theological grounds?
Oh. Right. No clever ballsy lawyers. Sorry. When you start getting old the difference between party THEN and party NOW starts to blur.
My best guess is that groups like NARAL and NOW may be picking battles carefully rather than to “fire for effect”. Most advocacy groups have in the past turned to the courts to challenge statutes on constitutional grounds if lobbying fails. Successful awhile back here in CA on the “Parental Consent” statute.
IMHO the ruling in Roe (and Griswold before) establishes the right to medical privacy, a far more substantial wall to breach than a controversial procedure.
Let me share a little story with you-
When I was still a young woman,and the hormones kicked in monthly,my mother would say to me–‘Are you off the roof?” I never understood this reference until many years later-and she never did,because I asked her what it meant and she didn’t know.
As it turned out, this was a reference to women,who,believing themselves to be preg would JUMP OFF ROOFS in order to terminate the pregnancy. Is this what we are going back to?
GOOD GAWD.
I hope no one minds if I go a little off topic here for a moment-
BooMan, I just had a wierd thought about another way to support the site. As an alternative to bumper stickers, how about selling BooBones- Milkbones that go to your pup. At $10 a box both Boos might get a snack.
Just a thought.
Now back to the regularly scheduled abortion chat.
BooBones?
Right now Boo is out of Milkbones and is trying Scooby Snacks for the first time. He is still undecided on the Scooby Snacks.
I just though Booman could tell you his favorite brand and you could call them BooBones on the sales site. I’d love to buy him a monthly box of treats. After all, dogs are always hungry while one bumper sticker does a car.
Not to overlook the cats, how about BooTreats for cats and dogs?
My dogs are Scooby Snackers…they gather around the shelf where we keep them, and gaze longingly at the box.
He has a huge new box of milkbones now, and he is in a MUCH better mood. It isn’t that he didn’t like the Scooby Snacks, but he is an old man and set in his ways.