Religionists on Supreme Court Damage Rights of WomenPosted: December 28, 2010
It’s obvious the real legacy of Dubya Bush will be his assault on the fundamental secular nature of the United States through court appointments. Republicans–and their appointees–appease people with such extreme religious views that we will need to remain vigilant for some time. These people murder doctors in their churches and harass women at health clinics day-in-and-day-out. They’ve done these things obsessively and zealously for over 45 years.
I think I’ve told you that I was stalked, slandered, and made generally miserable by the omnipresent fascist elements of the anti-choice movement just under 20 years ago as a young mother and economist running for state legislature. The only group to not only oppose me–but go out of their way to ensure nothing truthful about me or my positions was put out there–were religionists.
It doesn’t surprise me that the continuing hotbed of theocratic insanity in the entire area continues to be Nebraska. This is a state whose hallmark of fame right now is its continual brain drain and DINO Senator Ben Nelson who blackmailed the entire country for his vote on health care. Another big mistake made by the state was to put term limits on all its unicameral members ensuring they have a perpetual revolving door of hit and run policies. No wonder people leave that state in droves. Your entire life is in the hands of religious fanatics and the amateurs they bring to office.
The right’s continual obsession with letting women die or suffer to bring nonviable pregnancies to term is nothing but torture-based public policy laced with the sanctimonious mythology of “Eve made us all deserve to die in childbirth” . Here’s the latest craziness from Nebraska that will undoubtedly be given attention by even crazier people like Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia; the Republican version of the Spanish Inquisition. No science or medical facts here folks, just religious dogma from the dark ages please!
Gonzales v. Carhart was the 2007 court decision that values religious dogma over science, medicine, reason, and facts. It’s set the perpetual Nebraska industry of manufacturing laws to test Roe v. Wade in action. Millions of tax dollars will now go into defending a distinctly warped view of medicine. This one is based in the absolute lie of ‘fetal pain’ in early term pregnancies set up by Justice Kennedy. Kennedy also basically wrote that women were too stupid to realize they might come out of an abortion traumatized. He’s just one more adherent of that 3rd century mythology that needs to go away.
A long line of Supreme Court precedents seemed to stand in his way. But Flood believes that a 2007 decision offers hope for him and other state legislators looking for ways to restrict abortion.
Using that decision as a road map, this spring Flood wrote and won passage of legislation that bans abortions after 20 weeks. Introducing into law the concept of “fetal pain,” it marked the first time that a state has outlawed the procedure so early in a pregnancy without an exception for the health of the woman.
The law shut down LeRoy Carhart, the provider who had planned to expand his practice outside Omaha and provide late-term abortions to women across the Midwest.
The importance of Flood’s bill is likely to be felt far beyond Nebraska. Abortion opponents call it model legislation for other states and say it could provide a direct challenge to Supreme Court precedents that restrict government’s ability to prohibit abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb. (It also prompted Carhart to shift his practice east, and he has since opened a late-term practice in Germantown, outside Washington.)
Critics of abortion hail the law as the most prominent and promising outcome of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, in which, coincidentally, Carhart was the lead plaintiff.
The 5 to 4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart turned away Carhart’s challenge to the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion and appeared to mark a significant change in the high court’s balancing of a woman’s right with the government’s interest.
The ruling was a key moment in the emerging identity of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who marked his fifth anniversary on the court this fall.
‘Fetal Pain” has no more basis in reality than virgin births and immaculate conception, yet here it is, threatening the ability of a woman to self determination, privacy, and life. There is also no such thing as ‘partial birth’ abortion. The entire thing is a public relations sham with no basis in anything but the desire of a bunch of crazed religionists to inflict their personal religious dictum on every one else. Since they can’t convert us all, they’ll force the law to recognize their extreme views through reckless Republican court appointments.
Kennedy’s ruling in the case–and his very words–are a warning to people who don’t like the government involved in their most personal and private decisions. It inspired Ruth Bader Ginsberg–a life long champion of women’s rights–to write a response and dismantle Kennedy’s attempt to logically explain a ruling based not on law, precedent, or logic. Kennedy’s rambling diatribe was both intellectually and legally weak. Its main tenets were clearly based in his own rooted need to defend his own narrow patriarchal misogynistic religious view instead of examine evidence and prior rulings.
He noted that the Casey decision affirmed the right to abortion before viability. But he said it also established that “government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
Kennedy’s ruling was shot through with references to government’s interest in protecting the unborn and in making sure women knew the consequences of their actions.
He drew the ire of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others when he discussed the regret a woman might feel about the decision to end her pregnancy.
“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound” when she learns the details of the intact-dilation-and-extraction process, Kennedy wrote.
In a dissent, Ginsburg struck back at the insinuation that a woman has not fully thought through her decision, or should be protected from making such a choice. “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution,” said Ginsburg, which “have long since been discredited.”
Ginsburg noted that, besides being the first court decision not to require a health exception, it as the first to uphold the ban on a specific procedure.
Leave it to Nebraska–a state with lots of land, buffalo and tumbleweed, and very few people that exists on federal funding and taxing people for gas as they drive through the state–to once again bring up an expensive test of our audacity to stand up to theocracy. This has been a tactic of theirs for decades. Nebraska no more represents the country than a penguin in ANWAR could. Nebraska is whiter than than the rest of the country and older than the rest of the country. It has only 22 people per square mile when the entire rest of the country averages 79. It represents a gone bye era in many ways but it still creates trouble despite its basic irrelevance to the country as anything more than a series of interstate stops. The state endlessly manufactures laws that impose a religious view on medical procedures that always require tax payer funding to fight it through courts. What I’m saying is Nebraska’s main export is test laws for Roe v. Wade. What a shameful legacy!
From little, irrelevant states like Nebraska,we get laws like those that force ‘biased consent’. That would be laws that force physicians to give state lectures rather than advice on medical procedures. But, this isn’t because of the state’s overwhelming concern for the health of pregnant women or fetuses or babies. Witness this little law that now plagues my ob/gyn doctor daughter doing residency in that hell realm right now. Many of her patients typically come in obese. She was telling me over the weekend that a BMI of 40 was not atypical. This puts a lot of her young patients into the automatic high risk/C-Sec category. Does any of this bother Nebraska? Hell, no!
Charities, hospitals and other nonprofit groups are scrambling to fill the void left by the state’s decision to end state Medicaid funding for prenatal services for low-income women, including many illegal immigrants.
In nearly two dozen interviews, Nebraska providers said that while they may be able to absorb the costs for women now pregnant, the long-term outlook for providing an estimated $10 million a year in health care services without reimbursement is bleak.
Hospitals are bracing to provide more “charity care” and expecting an increase in emergency-room visits from women who experience pregnancy complications due to the lack of prenatal care.
A couple of emergency fundraising events have been scheduled, and private donors and the United Way are being asked to dig deeper.
Clinics that focus on the poor and uninsured are shifting resources away from other areas, such as mental health and diabetes care, to cover the loss of funds for services that can head off expensive birth defects and premature births.
“We only have so many resources. If we start pouring more money into uninsured pregnant women, that will take away from what health care we can offer in other areas,” said Dr. Kristine McVea, medical director at the OneWorld Community Health Center in south Omaha.
The issue of whether hospitals, health clinics that focus on the uninsured and private physicians can shoulder the load for such low-income women without government help is now front-and-center in the controversy.
The debate intensified last week after a Schuyler, Neb., doctor said one of his patients opted to have an abortion because she couldn’t afford the cost of prenatal care on her own. At least seven other women in Omaha and Schuyler have told clinicians they plan to seek abortions.
Gov. Dave Heineman, who opposes government aid for illegal immigrants, has said he expects charities, church groups and others to pick up what the government cut off.
See that. They already caused at least ONE needless abortion. Of course, that law primarily impacts babies that infertile white couples don’t want to buy from the baby market, so the religionists are less concerned about that.
It’s about state control of women and children. It’s about the state making decisions that belong to individuals and doing so based on religious views alone. It’s about the improper role of religious belief in our country as written in The Constitution. Young women in this country better get a grip on what’s happening and pretty quickly. That’s because these same folks are after all forms of birth control and if they continue on with the same tenacity of lunacy, the pill will also be banned or hard to get. This is especially important because President Barrack Obama has left open many vacancies on courts and if he is a one term president, or a two term president with a senate that goes Republican, we can only look forward to more.