Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

73 Responses

  1. Ugly in Pink
    Ugly in Pink April 18, 2007 at 9:44 am |

    Oh god. My first thought on reading this was “Thank God i’m sterile.”

    I’m so sorry for everyone who wants children, and the fear they’re going to have to go through.

  2. randomliberal
    randomliberal April 18, 2007 at 9:45 am |

    According to the NYT (via L,G&M), Kennedy wrote that the opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases.”

    Good to know that as long as we don’t have to follow the Constitution as long as we don’t violate the rights of a “large fraction” of the people.

    Now that i think about it, that has pretty serious implications for the Guantánamo cases as well.

  3. mandy
    mandy April 18, 2007 at 9:53 am |

    fuckkkkkkk

  4. Mikey S
    Mikey S April 18, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    Well, the Democrats control Congress now. Time for Nancy Pelosi to write a law overturning the idiot bill the Republicans passed.

  5. sunburned counsel
    sunburned counsel April 18, 2007 at 9:59 am |

    this is the whole opinion. Sorry I cannot hyperlink in the best of times, and definitely not now.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

  6. evil fizz
    evil fizz April 18, 2007 at 10:06 am | *

    Am I sick and twisted for being kind of grateful that the Virginia Tech disaster is still dominating the front page?

    *sigh*

  7. Mighty Ponygirl
    Mighty Ponygirl April 18, 2007 at 10:18 am |

    Evil Fizz: No, this should be front page news.

    Women need to know that if they become pregnant, and decide to keep the pregnancy, it has become that much more dangerous. Should something go wrong, they now have less chance of surviving. Women need to know this, so that they can decide if it’s really worth it (esp the possibility of widowing their husbands and leaving their children motherless), and get their abortions now.

  8. Myca
    Myca April 18, 2007 at 10:20 am |

    Godammit, godammit, godammit.

  9. nausicaa
    nausicaa April 18, 2007 at 10:23 am |

    Any procedural nerds out there? How in the world can Kennedy justify saying that the possibility of an as-applied challenge in the context of a health emergency does anything to preserve the constitutionality of the ban?

  10. Blog of the Moderate Left » SCOTUS Upholds Partial Birth Ban

    [...] r:Abortion — Jeff Fecke @ 10:29 am

    Not a surprise, but still disappointing.  As I’v [...]

  11. Victory for Pro-Life Movement « Michael P.F. van der Galiën

    [...] orrissey: “Today’s ruling is a victory for moderation and common sense.” Feministe: “Thank you, Anthony Kennedy.&#822 [...]

  12. R. Mildred
    R. Mildred April 18, 2007 at 10:37 am |

    Well, the Democrats control Congress now. Time for Nancy Pelosi to write a law overturning the idiot bill the Republicans passed.

    hte main reason the act was upheld was because a large number of those dems supported bush’s anti-choice SCOTUS candidates and hte rest (especially Obama, who waffled about how you can’t criticise the anti-choice dems because that would make the dems less inclusive, because discriminating against people who are discriminatory is the worst kind of discrimination donchaknow *headdesks*) were afraid of getting their powder not-dry in an attempt to get more moderate appointees to the SCOTUS who’d actually support hte law and the constitution.

    The dems deserve a tithe of the blame for this bullshit, and while I’d love to be pleasantly surprised by the dems doing something effective about this, I’m not gonna hold my breath on it, not while lieberman and the rest of the DINOs are running around making up that “majority”.

    The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman’s health

    Can I just point out that this makes no sense whatsoever – are they really able to just make laws that describe reality as they want it to be to make it possible to pass other laws? How does that even work?

  13. MathInLA
    MathInLA April 18, 2007 at 10:44 am |

    Nnngh. Not entirely unexpected. Just amazingly disappointing. I am… grumpy that Kennedy chose to WordWeasel, though it does raise the prospect that — should the act be challenged under what he thinks are legitimate grounds (anyone else see the bitterness in that, once again, women’s rights rest on when a guy finds it legitimate to challenge restrictions?)– he may vote to strike under the right conditions. >_

  14. Victory for Pro-Life Movement | The Moderate Voice

    [...] orrissey: “Today’s ruling is a victory for moderation and common sense.” Feministe: “Thank you, Anthony Kennedy.&#822 [...]

  15. Caja
    Caja April 18, 2007 at 11:21 am |

    Isn’t this the same kind of tactic abusers use? “You didn’t ask the question the right way, bitch, so your argument has no merits”?

    I feel sick.

  16. Moira
    Moira April 18, 2007 at 12:17 pm |

    Caja: Yes. Yes, it is.

  17. Shawn Hanel
    Shawn Hanel April 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm |

    hte main reason the act was upheld was because a large number of those dems supported bush’s anti-choice SCOTUS candidates

    Yeah. And who voted for those Dems? Once we, as a group, wake up and realize that political activism and voting is control, then maybe we will see real change. Of course, that means raising our daughters to be more interested in current events and citizenship than going to the mall.

  18. sunburned counsel
    sunburned counsel April 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm |

    If anyone is in DC, PPFA is planning a rally at 3pm in front of SCOTUS.
    Please come on out and be angry in public.

  19. DAS
    DAS April 18, 2007 at 12:33 pm |

    Good to know that as long as we don’t have to follow the Constitution as long as we don’t violate the rights of a “large fraction” of the people.

    Now that i think about it, that has pretty serious implications for the Guantánamo cases as well. – randomliberal

    That was my first thought on reading that specific language of this decision as well. Is this what passes for sound legal reasoning nowadays? “the law won’t do that much harm, so let’s let it stand”?

    By that logic, I say we follow Biblical morality and ban blood sausages. Not that many people eat them, so it won’t violate the rights of a large fraction of people, so such a ban must be ok then, nu?

  20. Bailey, yo
    Bailey, yo April 18, 2007 at 12:58 pm |

    This generates an anger of unspeakable depth in me. I have 3 year old twins, and I classify my pregnancy as “invasive.” It was poorly timed, I didn’t have any support systems in place to handle the changes it made necessary, and it was medically high-risk. Which ultimately meant a lot of tests, a lot of doctors, and a lot of stress for me. I handled it, meaning that I just decided that pregnancy is just one of those weird physical conditions to be endured and that I was going to be fine and that I would deliver healthy children. And they are.

    One of the regular procedures I endured was that every five weeks, both of the fetuses would be inspected and imaged using a 4-D sonogram and a fancy baby-in-utero doctor at the hospital. It took between 1-2 hours, and towards the end of my pregnancy, I could hardly stand it. They checked every centimeter of those fetuses, their stomachs, their lungs, their amniotic sacs, their brains, their umbilical cords, their kidneys.

    Two years after my children were born, I had a kidney removed. It had failed due to a defect that occurred in childhood and had been left unchecked my whole life.

    My whole life. Including my pregnancy. While every organ in my fetuses was investigated and tracked with an eagle eye, no one once thought to run that sonogram over my own kidneys. Basically, I was a glorified suitcase for nine months. My health care was extended only to the capacity of supporting those fetuses. And that pisses me off.

  21. Violet G. Beekeeper
    Violet G. Beekeeper April 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm |

    I’m reading the opinion, and it is crazytalk. “Perverting the process of birth?” What the effity? So, this is a bad thing and wrong to the extent it mimics live birth in some (trivial, I’d suggest) aspects? It’s like live birth’s eeeevil twin? That is a) a feebs argument, and b) another fat hint that this is all about regulating birth and other uterine behaviors, not saving widdle snuggly fetuses. CRAZYTALK, and sickmaking.

    Anyway, though, I have a question for medical types – in the opinion, they say that they only prohibit the intact extraction of the living fetus for the purpose of killing it after, and that if intact D&E is, in fact, necessary for a mother’s health, it’s possible to kill the fetus with an injection before the intact extraction. Is this true? Does the injection introduce any additional risks or major inconveniences to the procedure? (Not that that changes the judgment being wrongheaded and an infringement of rights, but I am curious whether women who might need this procedure will, at least for a little while, be able to obtain it modified by this injection.)

  22. Meredith
    Meredith April 18, 2007 at 1:06 pm |

    You know, I have to wonder what role public interest organizations’ hiring criteria play in this.

    It’s really weird going from graduate school and business to law. In business, you clearly identify what precisely you’re looking for, and you hire accordingly. Frequently, you’ll reject a 4.0 from Wharton in favor of a 3.2 from Cornell, simply because the Cornell student is more gregarious — or more creative. In highly competitive graduate school programs, admissions is primarily based on how innovative your research is.

    Yet in law school, admission is based exclusively on GPA and LSAT: two criteria that are not closely tied to innovative thinking. Once you’re actually in law school, grades are essentially regurgitated analysis of the professors’ lectures. (It’s slightly better in my alternative curriculum — but not much. We’re still taught to put original ideas in footnotes.) Law review write-on competitions could be seen rewarding innovation, but may schools focus exclusively on bluebooking skills, with little credit given for creativity. Yet these are the primary criteria legal organizations use in hiring. Rewarding regurgitation leads to the simplistic stare decisis arguments we heard from NARAL in this case. I’m as pro-choice as you get, and even I thought their arguments were a silly and futile approach.

    If you want to win with this Supreme Court, you’re going to have to frame things in such a way that will make the Conservative Five reveal their hypocrisy. The place to start? Form an argument based on the Commerce Clause limits found in Lopez and Morrison.

    If nothing else, it shuts up Federalists really quickly.

  23. Erik
    Erik April 18, 2007 at 1:14 pm |

    @nausicaa

    I have only read the opinion briefly, so take this with a grain of salt.

    I think Kennedy was saying that under the evidence heard so far, there is no reason to suspect that a woman who needs an abortion for health-related reasons would have to use this particular method. The ban doesn’t go after D&E, which the opinion thankfully (if there is a silver lining, this is it) goes to great lengths to say is not covered by the statute.

    So since in the Court’s view any woman who has a health-related reason to have an abortion can do so through another method, whether D&E or killing the fetus before it is delivered, there is no reason to strike this bill down as not having a health exception.

    If, later on down the road, there is a woman who has a health crisis and her doctor performs D&X to abort the pregnancy, she or her doctor, if prosecuted under the statute, can argue that it is unconstitutional as applied to them because her health required D&X and the statute did have a health exception for her situation.

  24. kidlacan
    kidlacan April 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm |

    violet:

    the decision itself left that door open, but there doesn’t seem to be clear medical consensus regarding such injections. one school of thought believes that such injections actually make the procedure easier, and recommended giving them before this goddamn stupid decision. others think it adds unnecessary risk and advise against it.

    sure would be nice if the choice to inject or not to inject could be made on a case-by-case basis by, you know, SOMEONE WITH A MEDICAL DEGREE, but that might pervert Teh Ultimate Wuv of Mother and Baybee, or something.

  25. Dave S.
    Dave S. April 18, 2007 at 1:28 pm |

    This is wonderful news and a first step toward protecting those who cannot yet defend themselves. How terribly sad it is that children should have to be protected from their mothers.

  26. nausicaa
    nausicaa April 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm |

    I think Kennedy was saying that under the evidence heard so far, there is no reason to suspect that a woman who needs an abortion for health-related reasons would have to use this particular method.

    Erik – I actually read to say the opposite – that the uncertainty about health risks allows the regulation! From the syllabus: “Whether the Act creates such risks was, however, a contested factual question below: The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their positions. The Court’s precedents instruct that the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists.”

    I guess I just don’t understand the whole point of disallowing a facial attack, where the potential harm is immediate and irreparable. It seems like the *harm* should be the focus, rather than the degree of certainty that somebody will actually experience the harm.

    in the opinion, they say that they only prohibit the intact extraction of the living fetus for the purpose of killing it after, and that if intact D&E is, in fact, necessary for a mother’s health, it’s possible to kill the fetus with an injection before the intact extraction. Is this true? Does the injection introduce any additional risks or major inconveniences to the procedure? (Not that that changes the judgment being wrongheaded and an infringement of rights, but I am curious whether women who might need this procedure will, at least for a little while, be able to obtain it modified by this injection.)

    If you look at Ginsberg’s dissent, she cites in a footnote to evidence from the lower court saying that such injections are too risky or impossible in some cases.

  27. kidlacan
    kidlacan April 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm |

    erik:

    i still would like to know, also only having read the decision briefly, why the court even bothered. they refuse to explain how the one procedure can be banned, while the other can be permitted, choosing instead to waltz off into a dreamy reverie about the beauty of a mother’s love.

  28. Violet G. Beekeeper
    Violet G. Beekeeper April 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm |

    kidlacan:

    Someone with a medical degree? Like the “abortion doctors” mentioned in the opinion? Seriously, it’s pretty squicky – it’ll be all supra quid consensus undue burden and all of a sudden there’ll be this weird essentialist crazyfundiequiverfull vocabulary thrown in.

    Also, yeah, my impression is that this ruling prevents between zero and three actual abortions from happening, but signals the court’s itchy trigger finger and eagerness to ban gross-sounding procedures, of which there are plenty, including some of the alternatives to intact D&E mentioned in the opinion.

  29. Violet G. Beekeeper
    Violet G. Beekeeper April 18, 2007 at 1:43 pm |

    I totally want to grow up to be Ginsburg.

  30. Erik
    Erik April 18, 2007 at 1:55 pm |

    Erik – I actually read to say the opposite – that the uncertainty about health risks allows the regulation! From the syllabus: “Whether the Act creates such risks was, however, a contested factual question below: The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their positions. The Court’s precedents instruct that the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists.”

    I guess I just don’t understand the whole point of disallowing a facial attack, where the potential harm is immediate and irreparable. It seems like the *harm* should be the focus, rather than the degree of certainty that somebody will actually experience the harm.

    You’re right that the court says the uncertainty allows the regulation. What I was trying to say is that Kennedy’s opinion says that there is no medical consensus on the issue of whether D&X, and without said consensus the Court cannot strike down the law because the legislature, using its judgment, picked one side of the debate over the other. Unless that debate is conclusively settled, the Court says it cannot choose sides for Congress.

    That still leaves open the possibility of a woman or doctor using the lack of a health exception as a defense if they are prosecuted for using the banned abortion procedure.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with your latter point as well — If there actually are health problems, chances are doctors and women will likely forego using D&X because there is no guarantee they will win on their as-applied challenge, especially while there is “uncertainty” in the medical field. That is, to put it mildly, less than desirable when faced with the prospect of immediate and irreparable harm.

  31. Anne
    Anne April 18, 2007 at 1:56 pm |

    As this 2004 story shows, there’s a chilling effect:

    One of the unintended consequences of this new law is that it put people in my position, with a fetus that is already dead, in a technical limbo.

    Legally, a doctor can still surgically take a dead body out of a pregnant woman. But in reality, the years of angry debate that led to the law’s passage, restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations (D&Es) and dilations and extractions (intact D&Es), which involve removing a larger fetus, sometimes in pieces, from the womb.

    At the same time, fewer medical schools are training doctors to do these procedures. After all, why spend time training for a surgery that’s likely to be made illegal?

    At this point, 74 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs do not train all residents in abortion procedures, according to reproductive health researchers at the National Abortion Federation. Those that do usually teach only the more routine dilation and curettage — D&C, the 15-minute uterine scraping used for abortions of fetuses under 13 weeks old.

    Fewer than 7 percent of obstetricians are trained to do D&Es, the procedure used on fetuses from about 13 to 19 weeks. Almost all the doctors doing them are over 50 years old.

  32. Conservatives Finally Get What They Paid For  at  DailyWrit

    [...] his, is likely to see another similar case very soon (in the next decade.) If you’re really pissed, you can go to a rally in NYC!
    [...]

  33. Ace
    Ace April 18, 2007 at 2:43 pm |

    If you don’t want to download the pdf, it is available in full text online.

    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-380.html

  34. Huperborea
    Huperborea April 18, 2007 at 3:17 pm |

    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

    Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure…

  35. Laser Potato
    Laser Potato April 18, 2007 at 3:30 pm |

    “This is wonderful news and a first step toward protecting those who cannot yet defend themselves. How terribly sad it is that children should have to be protected from their mothers. ”
    ……
    ……
    ……
    http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/01/castlevania_sotn.gif

  36. Karinna
    Karinna April 18, 2007 at 3:44 pm |

    I was an intern with NOW when this stupid thing was signed into law–it was such a quick announcement that it was being signed that we couldn’t put out more than a city-wide flash alert that there was a protest going on. I remember feeling helpless and futile, marching in circles, forced to be blocks away from the Dear Leader signing it into law surrounded by old, white men and Catholic school girls.

    A few days before, I’d hesitantly expressed to a colleague that I didn’t support “partial-birth abortion,” and subsequently received a real education about the tragedies of women who have abortions after the first trimester. How screwed up has the “debate” on abortion become when it is only ever viewed through the lens of “irresponsible sluts” instead of “tragic personal circumstances”?

    And the pro-lifers will celebrate their “victory,” and even if a woman dies because of it, it’s all A-OK, ‘cuz it was in defense of the fetus!

  37. bee
    bee April 18, 2007 at 3:48 pm |

    i would love to see a time-line of any legal thing the Administration has done regarding abortion or fetuses since 2000.
    I know a bit, but I suspect I would be horrified to know the true extent and ramifications of our dear, God-fearing leader.

  38. Anne
    Anne April 18, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    And the pro-lifers will celebrate their “victory,” and even if a woman dies because of it, it’s all A-OK, ‘cuz it was in defense of the fetus!

    And in most of these cases, a fetus that’s near death or already dead from birth defects and the like, but hey, who cares! Dave S. doesn’t know OR care. Whee!

  39. twf
    twf April 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm |

    I am so glad I can leave the country and get medical care elsewhere if this embryo turns into a fetus with the kind of serious medical problems addressed by this procedure.

    This is nothing but misogyny. All it does is restrict the range of medical procedures available to women in already tragic situations.

  40. Anne
    Anne April 18, 2007 at 4:43 pm |

    “Huperborea” up there also seems overjoyed at the prospect of women with late-term pregnancy complications having to suffer the additional agony of further medical complications. Champagne all ’round.

  41. micheyd
    micheyd April 18, 2007 at 4:49 pm |

    I really don’t get the overjoyed reactions of “pro-lifers”. Do they think this ban is because there are hordes of mass-aborting strawsluts getting late-term abortions for shits and giggles? Do they even realize the facts about when the later-term procedures are performed and for what reasons? I guess they just don’t care, as long as it fits into their twisted view of demonizing abortion and the women who get it.

  42. LR
    LR April 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm |

    Are you sure this doesn’t make D + E illegal after 12 weeks. That’s what Newsday and the AP make it seem like (emphasis added):

    More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures — the medical term most often used by doctors — were performed in 2000, the latest figures available

  43. LR
    LR April 18, 2007 at 5:09 pm |

    Ok, I just did some reading and learned the difference between dialation and extraction and dialation and evacuation.

  44. lindsay
    lindsay April 18, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    It’s shit like this that makes me so crazy I could absolutely just beat the shit out of someone.

    But, there is a loophole, this doesn’t cover when they behead the child in the womb before pulling it out, so they could always just do that. But still, this fucking pisses me off.

    Is it ture Pelosi can rewrite a law and get rid of this one??? Please say it’s so.

  45. lindsay
    lindsay April 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm |

    *true, sorry, misspelling out of anger.

  46. LR
    LR April 18, 2007 at 6:08 pm |

    I don’t see why not. Contact your congress person and senators and urge them to repeal the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.

  47. rachel
    rachel April 18, 2007 at 6:50 pm |

    not to be a downer, but it won’t happen. there’s too much else going on with the war and the budget to spend the political clout on a bill like that. furthermore, senate dems won’t want it voted on because clinton/obama would have to take a side. finally, bush will veto it and we don’t have enough to overturn a veto.

    we lost. bigtime. and it won’t be fixed for years/decades.

  48. Anatolia
    Anatolia April 18, 2007 at 7:29 pm |

    Does anyone have any details on how to get sterilized? Best options. Permanent.

  49. Jasmine
    Jasmine April 18, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    Man this pisses me off to no end. I was completely blind sided by this and got a text message alert from Planned Parenthood, but didn’t follow get to read the whole story until later. I’m sure the right wing is very pleased with their “non activist” cronies on the court. Hey we all know that “activist” judges are just those whose rulings don’t satisfy the right wing need to be complete fuck wads.

    How soon until we all have a court appointed lackey coming to all our OB/GYN visits? Or is a ban on menstruating next on their list…every month you bleed means a month without a bun in the oven.
    People need to be pissed off about this and MAKE IT KNOWN

  50. MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy  » Blog Archive   » SCOTUS Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

    [...] some of these abortion activists think they “need” partial birth abortions in this nauseating bleat: [...]

  51. lizzie bee
    lizzie bee April 18, 2007 at 9:01 pm |

    well anatolia, i’ve been hearing great things about Essure. and it’s less invasive than tubal ligation, so sometimes you can actually GET one of the condescending Dr. Patriarchs to provide it for you.

    Sometimes.

    Damn, I hate this country.

  52. Maureen
    Maureen April 18, 2007 at 9:17 pm |

    Okay, this is coming from left field, but…

    Who saw the episode of House two weeks ago where the fetus was killing House’s patient? Obviously NOT Justice Kennedy.

  53. Meh
    Meh April 18, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    Ginsburg is part of the problem. Her expansionist reading of the commerce clause has helped paved the way for this ban (see Raich for instance.) Thomas even suggests in his concurrence that this ban may be outside federal control under the commerce power/Federalism.

    For pragmatic reasons it is best to leave abortion to state legislatures because although some states will ban the practice there will be other states that won’t. Under a Federalism scheme women will at least have access to neighboring states.

    To leave this issue at the Federal level risks a nationwide ban. The tides of Federal political change (from democratic to republican) are too chaotic.

  54. Tricia(freya)
    Tricia(freya) April 18, 2007 at 10:34 pm |

    If a candidate had actually used those words, she/he would have my primary vote. ;-)

  55. rachel
    rachel April 18, 2007 at 11:33 pm |

    zuzu, do you have a link? last i heard only edwards had come out against it.

  56. Laurel
    Laurel April 19, 2007 at 4:55 am |

    This is a personal insult to every woman in the US. This country apparently believes women are so evil and capricious that we’d carry a pregnancy almost to term and then–”Oops! Changed my mind.” Such imaginary women must, of course, be punished for their evil natures by being forced to be mommies.

    And that “no exception for the mother’s health thing” really puts us in our place. Women are now less important than the contents of our wombs. Women are now officially incubators.

    Welcome to the Republic of Gilead.

  57. Lya Kahlo
    Lya Kahlo April 19, 2007 at 7:36 am |

    “This is nothing but misogyny. All it does is restrict the range of medical procedures available to women in already tragic situations. ”

    Just another daily reminder that men hate women, or worse – regard them as so lacking in value that a dying or dead fetus is more important to “save” and that regardless of the threats to her own life or health a pregancy may cause – SHE WILL GESTATE.

    This is nothing but misogyny. It is undeniable.

  58. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker
    Hedonistic Pleasureseeker April 19, 2007 at 7:36 am |

    The answer? Tubal Ligation.

    I tried to get my tubes tied a few years ago but my (male) gyn somehow managed to talk me out of it, because what if I marry again and my husband wants kids?

    (wtf?)

    Last night this ruling sparked angriest, most foul rant I’ve ever posted on my blog. I plan to call my doc for biopsy results today and you know what? If my female bits are malignant I’m going to ask for a total hysterectomy. This will solve ALL of my female problems . . . but what about my fourteen year old daughter?

    I am so mad right now.

  59. Dianne
    Dianne April 19, 2007 at 7:42 am |

    My first thought on reading this was “Thank God i’m sterile.”

    Funny, my first thought was “Thank god I’m in Europe.” (Not that some European countries laws on abortion aren’t, um, strange, but the borders are open and I’m not at all far from the Netherlands.) Maybe I’ll stay. At any rate, there go my vaguely considered plans for a second child. Any pregnancies I might contract are going to end in the first eight weeks. No point in taking the risk.

  60. rachel
    rachel April 19, 2007 at 7:58 am |

    ah, thanks zuzu. damn, i thought i knew who i was voting for in the primaries.

  61. rachel
    rachel April 19, 2007 at 8:36 am |

    hedonistic pleasureseeker, it’s telling to me that many anti choicers have told me that if i don’t want to have kids, i should sterilize myself so that i don’t need to worry about it. i *already* don’t need to worry about it. i have condoms, nuvaring, plan b, ru-486, and surgical abortion, all of which will help me not have kids. but the only concession anti choicers grant me is that i should undergo unnecessary traumatic abdominal surgery to eliminate any chance i might get pregnant. the chance that i might go through my life without being hurt or inconvenienced is unacceptable to them.

    but lordy, does sterilization ever look good right now.

    (not that i’m at all accusing you of being anti choice. i’m just sayin’.)

  62. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker
    Hedonistic Pleasureseeker April 19, 2007 at 9:07 am |

    Rachel, you have other choices NOW. Remember, they’re after your birth control, too.

  63. rachel
    rachel April 19, 2007 at 9:29 am |

    that’s my point though. getting sterilized is conceding my right to birth control. i shouldn’t have to undergo surgery when affordable, healthier options exist in the world. that’s saying they’re right. that sure, go ahead and take my nuvaring because if someone doesn’t want kids, they’ll just get sterilized. plus, would i still be as devoted to the cause if i didn’t have the alarm bells going off everytime a law is passed?

    note that i’m not remotely judging you or anyone for wanting to sterilize or anything like that. i just find it really unnerving that my retort to not wanting kids is always followed up with an anti-choicer’s simple answer of getting surgery. it ignores the entire picture.

  64. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker
    Hedonistic Pleasureseeker April 19, 2007 at 9:39 am |

    I guess my self-preservation instinct overrides my politics of how I believe things ought to be.

    I hear you on the condescending attitudes. You know what else cheeses me? That they’re so flip about it. So many folks don’t have insurance. In other words, “Let them eat cake.” Arseholes.

  65. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker
    Hedonistic Pleasureseeker April 19, 2007 at 9:59 am |

    Please read my first post as “MY answer? Tubal ligation. When I can afford to take the time off work. Oh, and the hospital bill.”

  66. rachel
    rachel April 19, 2007 at 10:56 am |

    i know, i’m sorry. your comment sparked mine, that’s all.

  67. sonnet87.com » Maybe I’ll Just Be an Aunt

    [...] than I can: check out Shakesville, Pandagon, Feministing, Bitch, Ph.D. and [...]

  68. lConservativel
    lConservativel April 19, 2007 at 2:50 pm |

    What a tragic situation to have created where pregnant women are contending with their fetus for human rights.

    I’m not sure where else to say this but if you moderators are reading then I wanted to thank you for creating and maintaining such an excellent blog. I really value being able to read your points of view on important relevant issues. Thanks!

    Justin

  69. Maureen
    Maureen April 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm |

    Okay then. The first woman who dies because of this ban, we send Kennedy an invite to the funeral. And the second woman. And the third. And so on until he appears on “60 Minutes” and admits that he should have called the ban unconstitutional because it didn’t have a medical need exemption.

  70. A
    A April 19, 2007 at 7:45 pm |

    A question for the law types here. Why does nobody ever make the argument that restricting abortion rights would be a violation of the 13th amendment (prohibition on involuntary servitude?) It sure seems to fit the bill to me.

  71. Feministe » My latest at HuffPo on the Supreme Court and the “Partial-Birth Abortion” Ban

    [...] d has turned into a storm. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly upheld the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act i [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.