A whole heap of folks are none too happy about John Roberts because, as Dr. Pepper made clear, he is already known as the “Fry Guy” and … on the less humorous side, since I’m a pro-choice female, I take…

However, I am so, so, so mad that what the administration is using to distract us affects me – and my uterus – so much. I feel tricked! I’m definitely going to write a letter to my reps/senators/etc. (and, actually, Jon, I’m not a huge fan of Feinstein), but where I am I don’t feel like I have much pull.

I think that the only way to turn it over is if more women got together and made a collective call to protect Roe v. Wade. We just have to get louder!

As much as I may want to comment on the nomination of John Roberts, Jr. and what he could do to “help” women’s rights (and more), what I’d rather do is take this opportunity to bring to you, Ain’t I a Woman?, delivered in 1851 by Sojourner Truth…

I would be very upset if that were reversed. And I don’t consider myself extreme feminist fringe or part of the abortion lobby, either. Honestly, late term abortions are much rarer that the anti-choice organizations would have us believe. No woman (at least not any that I know) is going to get to be 6-7 months pregnant and then terminate without a really good reason, i.e. serious defects in the fetus, major health issue for the woman or, in cases of minors in conservative states, being denied access earlier on. Even if she just doesn’t want to be pregnant, that’s her business too, although I still find it hard to believe that in that case it wouldn’t have been taken care of much earlier if it could be.

Whatever the situation, though, anything inside my body falls under my jurisdiction, including and especially if I’m pregnant.

First, I dismiss out-of-hand that any significant body of people outside academia (and even there, really) ever cared about states’ rights qua states’ rights. It has always been “procedural sharpshooting” and “forum shopping” for substantive issues.

Second, the conception of the states as the critical, unsubordinated sovereign died at the foot of Little Roundtop, where the future Governor of Maine stabbed it to death with a bayonette. It was buried at the ratification of the 15th Amendment. The Reconstruction Amendments permanently altered the balance between the federal and state governments. As to that question, the framers’ intent is irrelevant. The original document has been amended.

Finally, the work done so far on the potential consequences of a Roe reversal concludes something like a majority of states outlawing abortion completely, and many more imposing significant restrictions. Add this to access limits and state laws that bar crossing state lines to terminate, and the on-the-ground impact is huge.

I sincerely believe that the framers had a vision of the sovereign states coexisting with significant differences in their respective laws and regulations in the areas not explicitly addressed in the constitution.

That leads naturally to the correlation that has been made here between states’ rights and segregation. Segregation, even in the South, would have had a severely limited lifespan, had SCOTUS not interfered with Plessy v. Ferguson. This allowed the institution of segregation to exist for over a generation, until it the court forcibly abolished the very institution it had previously protected. I realize that one can “what-if” every event in recorded history, but I will always believe that without Plessy, the struggles and violence of the Civil Rights Movement would never have been necessary.

Again, I know that’s a significant digression, but my point is that I feel that the individual states are more equipped to deal with the concerns and problems of their own populace.

The “money” argument made is weakened by the fact that abortions aren’t exactly low-cost now, especially for someone living at or below the poverty level, those who (financially, at least) could significantly benefit from the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy. In other words, the cost alone already prevents many mothers-to-be from terminating their pregnancies, and I don’t see the cost of travel being significant against the cost of the procedure. A round-trip airline ticket to anywhere within the 48 contigious states still costs less than an abortion. And, as a parent of five (including a set of triplets), I know that even if the costs were quadrupled, abortion would still cost less than raising a child.

For one more little sidebar, I would be much happier if the adoption process were refined and streamlined significantly prior to any movement to reduce accessibility to abortion, and I think research towards zygotic transplantation would be beneficial. A pregnant woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant gets her wish, another who does want a baby gets hers, as well, and the woman who would have gotten an abortion doesn’t have to pay for the procedure. I don’t oppose a right to choose, but more choices should be available.

As I said before, I do oppose abortion as a practice. I do not, however, think whether it is legal is within the realm of the federal government’s powers to decide. I also don’t think the government, or the people that constitute that government need to go rushing into a major change without preparing sufficiently for that change.

Yeah, but what issue of law applies to reproductive rights? There’s no relevent statute to interpret. And I’m not talking about States’ rights, I’m talking about Congress passing legislation.

I don’t think that asking a potential Supreme Court justice if he believes in the basic concept of a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy — indeed, asking him if he believes in the law of the land — is a “single-issue litmus test.”

The association of right-to-privacy with reproductive rights is weak at best. The decision itself isn’t particularly rigorous. Wouldn’t it be a much better use of time, effort, and money to fight for legislation than trying to block court nominees?

Theres some pre-auto-defeatism going through the ranks of what passes for the left these days on Bush’s choice for O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme bench. And yeah, Roberts may well be confirmed. But that’s no reason to roll over. The…

The problem is that in the current political climate, no law could be passed protecting reproductive rights, as the religious right is quite exercised at the moment. Moderate America is doing what it always does: it sleeps, and won’t awaken until extremists step on its toes. I don’t believe abortion rights are in danger in the long run, but if Roe is overturned in the near future I see a chaotic transition period. Those who need abortions will fall through the cracks.