You are here: Home / Archives / 2009 / June / 09 / Because I have very little patience today

Because I have very little patience today

By Jill on 6.9.2009

Please, someone else tell Ross Douhat what’s what.

Posted in ,

Author: Jill has written 4631 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

14 Responses

  1. 1
    Cara 6.9.2009 at 9:42 am |

    Wait, did that article just conclude with the argument that if only pro-choicers were more reasonable, Dr. Tiller would still be alive????

    *RAGE*

  2. 2
    Jill 6.9.2009 at 9:48 am | *

    Yes, yes he did. I was too irritated and angry to even begin.

  3. 3
    Cara 6.9.2009 at 9:51 am |

    And why do we still respect the NY Times as a reputable news source when this is the kind of thing they print? I’ve read a lot of irresponsible “commentary” since Tiller’s murder, but goddamn. No words for that shit.

  4. 4
    FashionablyEvil 6.9.2009 at 10:28 am |

    He links to Kansans for Life, as though they’re a reliable source of data.

    Also, this:

    The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women’s lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

    Actually, I would posit that the argument for unregulated abortion is based on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and right to make decisions for herself. I guess Ross doesn’t think that’s actually possible.

  5. 5
    William 6.9.2009 at 10:28 am |

    Aside from the obviously offensive conclusions and the rhetoric about compromise (“hey, I’d like to hit you in the face with a bottle ten times, you’d like to not get hit in the face with a bottle, lets compromise…”) Douhat makes a common mistake that many populists and low-level authoritarians make: that we live in a democracy and that the democratic process is something to be values. He makes this mistake because, like many people, he doesn’t know what a democracy is. We live in a constitutional republic, we do not vote directly on all or even most issues, and there are supposed to be (though in practice people like Douhat are always threatening the existence of) certain lines that the mob (or it’s representatives) simply cannot cross.

    The issue is not that the pro-choice movement is composed of hardliners who refuse to give an inch, the issue is that the forced birth lobby is fighting for a direct abridgment of constitutional rights and a major change in common law (for most of modern western jurisprudence a fetus wasn’t considered a person, legally); they’re doing this with their only real justification being a religious belief. There isn’t room for compromise and this is not a country that is supposed to bow to mob rule. The forced birth lobby should be happy that property rights in this country have eroded to the point that they can’t be shot every time they commit criminal trespass, as theres sure as shit enough history for any doctor or clinic employee to argue that they were afraid for their safety.

  6. 6
    Ross Douthat: blame the “baby-killers” and their silly demand for rights « Natalia Antonova 6.9.2009 at 10:55 am |

    [...] Ross Douthat: blame the “baby-killers” and their silly demand for rights Here you go, Jill. [...]

  7. 7
    Aftercancer 6.9.2009 at 10:59 am |

    Here’s the response I added:

    “If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. ”

    Yes the landscape would return to one of women dying of botched abortions and infertility. There have been abortions since the dawn of time whether done by herbs or coat hangers. Abortion has been legal for long enough that most people don’t know about or remember what it was like “before”.

    Women need to retain the right to make these decisions with the counsel of medical professionals. Simple concept you don’t seem to grasp.

    — Aftercancer, Wilmington, NC

  8. 8
    Nicholas 6.9.2009 at 12:02 pm |

    Poor Mr. Douthat:

    I understand what he’s trying to say. He means to say that since we’ve failed to have a public legislative debate on abortion, battle lines are entrenched and arguments are fossilized, and he believes America would be better off if we overturned Roe and then engaged in some civic discourse.

    But of course, the implicit part of his argument goes unstated and is something along the lines of: “Fuck you, women. You get to go back to dying from septic infections from unsterile abortions while we have our enlightened debate to create an America where assholes who blow up buildings and murder people going to and from work or their house of worship get to have their point of view fully aired.”

    As Aftercancer rightly noted above, the disconnect between the world Mr. Douthat wishes for, and the reality of what the landscape of America would look like were we to implement his “legislative process” proposal is so staggeringly obvious that my only guess is that he has not put himself in the shoes of the very people–women–who would be most impacted by it.

  9. 9
    Superla 6.9.2009 at 12:20 pm |

    He isn’t the first person I’ve heard say that abortion needs to be “regulated,” and I still don’t understand what that means. I work in health care. What -beyond the clinician’s accountability to state and national credentialing boards, the documentation in medical records on why the procedure is indicated and in the best interest of the patient, the collecting of informed consent, the required HIPAA training every three years, the routine inspection of facilities by governmental and industrial oversight agencies, the solicitation and documentation of opinions from other disciplines (genetics, maternal-fetal health, disease-specific specialties, etc) for riskier procedures- beyond all this, what, exactly, would regulation even look like?

    So, okay. Let’s say there are restrictions. What then? Is there a hotline the medical assistant must call to get permission before a procedure? Is there a government official in every clinic that says Yay or Nay to each patient who walks in the door? Does a woman or girl claiming to be a victim of rape or incest have to press charges? I mean, it’s not like we can take her word for it. And clearly the clinician’s professional opinion isn’t enough for the Ross Douhats of the world. So what would be? What possible piece of evidence could be collected and presented to Ross and Co to convince them that this abortion is necessary? And who would oversee the Permission to Abort Office to make sure they’re acting in compliance with the law?

    Or maybe we open each case up to the Democratic Process and vote a la American Idol. Yes, yes. I see no reason why that shouldn’t work.

  10. 10
    chava 6.9.2009 at 12:41 pm |

    This is the second column Douhat’s written that pissed me off. Not only is it offensive, but the arguments he’s put forth don’t make any sense. Couldn’t they find a conservative with the ability to construct an arguement other than “gee, people are mad about only being able to regulate 3rd trim. abortions. So let’s make 2nd trim. ones open to regulation as well! That’ll fix it!”

  11. 11
    GallingGalla 6.9.2009 at 2:43 pm |

    funny how it’s almost always (cis) men who write this tripe about “can’t we compromise”. it’s no fucking skin off their backs. they won’t be the one losing control of their bodies.

  12. 12
    William 6.9.2009 at 3:10 pm |

    Is there a hotline the medical assistant must call to get permission before a procedure?

    Probably. Actually, I’m thinking there would likely be two systems: one to obtain permission (probably staffed by political appointees or poorly educated bureaucrats) and one to report “illegal” abortions (turn around time averaging around six to twelve months). My guess is that the second system they’d use would look like the horrendous mandated reporting system we have today: if you suspect something has/is/will/might happen you need to call it in under threat of jail time. That call will then be taken by some snotty civil service worker and go down the memory hole until public outcry demands a few lambs be trotted out for sacrifice.

  13. 13
    abby jean 6.9.2009 at 5:37 pm |

    i saw an interesting post at the legal blog Lawyers Guns & Money that took issue with douhat’s assertion that “Under current law, post-viability procedures are the only kind you’re allowed to even regulate.” here’s what they said:

    I note, once again, that an alleged conservative intellectual is either lying about the current law or lacks an even minimal knowledge of what he’s talking about. Unless by “regulate” he means “ban entirely” — which in context would be a another form of dishonesty — this is straightforwardly false. Both states and the federal government are not only permitted under Casey to regulate pre-viability abortions in all kinds of ways, but are permitted to ban some pre-viability procedures altogether. How many times to his editors intend to let him keep saying things about abortion law that are simply false?

    i guess it’s easier for douhat to try to make his points if he can make up facts.

  14. 14
    sarah m 6.10.2009 at 11:12 am |

    one of the links he cited as evidence of Dr. Tiller performing unecessary abortions included the case of a 10 year old girl who was 20-something weeks pregnant. Either he doesn’t actually read what he links to, or has sick idea that a pro-choicers need to force 10 year olds to carry to term.

Comments are closed.