Religionists on Supreme Court Damage Rights of Women

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.

78 Comments on “Religionists on Supreme Court Damage Rights of Women”

  1. B Kilpatrick says:

    And heaven forbid that teenagers ever get their hands on wicked devices like birth control or insidious “safe sex” propaganda! Their minds might be filled with horrible lustful thoughts!

    In all seriousness though, what’s with all of these people who think that teaching kids how not to get knocked up is going to make them want to do it? Have they ever … met any teenagers? And why don’t they insist that firearms safety classes will make them want to shoot stuff?

    • dakinikat says:

      It’s still hooked into the angry sky gods from the early civilization days. (sigh) Why rely on science and reason when the angry sky god cults could control us all?

      • B Kilpatrick says:

        Not even that. Most of the people pulling these stunts are thoroughly middle-class. If their precious little angel gets knocked up, it was never a problem getting that fixed, so it’s no skin off their a– to deny the rednecks and ghetto types meaningful access to birth control.

        • dakinikat says:

          One of the abortion providers in Nebraska told me the story of how he had to go in to his clinic really late at night to do an abortion on the daughter of one of the state’s anti-abortion movement leaders. They both were back out on the picket lines screaming the very next day.

          • B Kilpatrick says:

            Happens all the time. The more someone goes on about god this and god that and god the other thing too, the more likely he (or she) has something to hide.

      • cwaltz says:

        The God I pray to isn’t angry. He’s benevolent and forgiving. He/She apparently got placed on a prozac regiment or whatnot somewhere between the Old Testament and the New one.

        The part of the Bible that resonated with me was

        “Beloved, let us love one another. For everyone who loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He who loveth not, knoweth not God for God is Love.”

        1st John 4:7/8

        • dakinikat says:

          There’s a lot of churches with active social justice committees and movements. Unfortunately, their losing the conversation in many places. I put that video of Chris Hedges up and one of the things he sees as being gone–as the son of a preacher–is the ‘liberal’ church. That would be like the Quakers, Unitarians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc. of old that used to take up social justice issues as part of their teachings.

          It’s been replaced by big barn fire and brim stone preachers that also give seminars on getting rich and build entertainment complexes to hawk their books and videos.

        • B Kilpatrick says:

          It isn’t difficult to understand Marcion’s “heresy.”

          Of course, you can also file this under the list of things that “The bible said it, I believe it, that settles it” types might have trouble dealing with:

      • Branjor says:

        It’s still hooked into the angry sky gods from the early civilization days. (sigh) Why rely on science and reason when the angry sky god cults could control us all?

        Male jealousy. They can’t give birth, so they want to control it. Since science and reason don’t support the case for male control of birth, they make up angry sky gods to do it.

        • B Kilpatrick says:

          And scientists have a poorer handle on fluid mechanics than on solid-state mechanics because most scientists are men and men don’t menstruate, a la Irigaray, right?

        • B Kilpatrick says:

          Prove it.

          • dakinikat says:

            You’ve learned well grasshopper. Show me the data!!!

          • Branjor says:

            Prove it’s not true.

            See Dak, I’ve learned too.

          • Branjor says:

            There’s tons of material on male envy and jealousy of women’s ability to give birth. Just read Mary Daly. The angry sky gods were invented by men to take the credit for creation of human life away from women who gave birth and give it to some imaginary male in the sky. And if men have no particular negative feelings in that regard, why are the sky gods they invented so angry?

          • dakinikat says:

            Sorry, never really found Mary Daly’s stuff to be very compelling. I’m sure BB can speak to it. Daly seemed as biased one way as the targets of her complaints were the other. She got removed from a cushy job following more than just one proven complaint of sexism, I believe.

            I wound up with one of her students for a feminist philosophy class who basically gave me the worst grade I ever had because she said I could never pass simply because I was married to the enemy. She’s teaching in some university in Illinois now. She also chased the one poor guy out of the class by accusing him he was only in it to get laid. There’s proof, and then there’s diatribes. What you’re quoting is simply another form of religion. You can’t hold people’s philosophical writings up as proof. You can’t just hold up your opinions as proof either. If you’re going to say something that controversial, then people are going to ask for proof and I can hardly blame them at all.

          • Someone says:


            I’d like to extend an invitation to you to take an introductory logic class at your local university. Among other things you’ll learn is that it is the responsibility of a person advancing a claim to … prove that claim. Now, I might believe that men envy women’s ability to give birth if, for instance, you could produce a survey indicating that 89.9 or whatever percent of men have indicated that they do, in fact, envy that ability. Until then, such speculation is as silly and unfounded as Freud’s speculation that all women secretly want penises and that all men are secretly afraid of vaginas that come equipped with teeth.

            Now, I might also believe you if you could produce, for instance, the Lost Diaries of Moses where he indicates that he planned to invent YHVH to get back at his wife, and all women by extension, for leaving him for a younger, handsomer prophet.

            Now, I consider all of this rather unlikely, and so I’m perfectly content to leave it in the big pile of massive, unfounded, and now-discarded generalizations and untrue notions that humanity has so far heaped up.

            Amateur psychoanalysis of not only HALF THE HUMAN RACE, but also HALF THE HUMAN RACE AS IT WAS THREE-THOUSAND YEARS AGO is not only generally fruitless, but also likely to be quite misleading.

          • Someone says:

            Mary Daly: Not Only Biased But Also Probably Completely Kooky-Wa-Wa


            Check out her views on transexuals for some choice remarks!

          • Branjor says:

            I think she’s brilliant. I had some terrible experiences years ago which for the life of me I couldn’t understand. How I was treated made no sense to me at all, and I am intelligent. Mary Daly described *exactly*, not approximately, my experience in the mental health system and made perfect sense out of it in a way which saved my sanity. Her insights into men and their motivations are amazing, and she did not even personally have the experiences which I had.

            And I would like to see the data proving that male envy and jealousy has no role in the atrocious ways men treat women in their religions.

          • dakinikat says:

            That’s an argument based on anecdote. That’s not proof, it’s a logical fallacy. It’s not my role to disprove what you say. It’s your role to prove what you say. All I’m saying is if you make some personally biased statement, you better back it up with more than anecdote and more biased writings. She’s a feminist theorist and theologian and I have to say, one that simply hated men.

          • Branjor says:

            Look, “Someone”, I am perfectly aware of how many men feel about Mary Daly and I even understand why, but I don’t happen to agree with them. I also agree with her view of transsexuals.
            As to introductory logic, I’ve already taken it and got 4.0 in it, thank you.

          • bostonboomer says:


            Please don’t be rude and condescending to other commenters. We like to keep the discussions courteous here.

            Mary Daly was not a kook. She was a theological scholar and philosopher. Her books are interesting, although they don’t “prove” anything in a scientific way–nor are they intended to do so.

            Of course Daly was biased. She was fighting back against centuries of bias against women. On the other hand, she can’t be cited as if her work were based on the scientific method.

          • bostonboomer says:


            I don’t believe that Mary Daly hated men. What’s the evidence for that?

            She wanted to change the language and views of history from being totally male-centered, which was quite appropriate at the time she was writing.

            She was a political radical, and while some of her stuff was too far out for me, I believe we need radicals like her involved in the public conversation. Radicals help pull the mainstream to the left. We need them.

            Noam Chomsky is also a radical and has a bias, a point of view. Where would we be without radical scholars like Daly and Chomsky?


          • dakinikat says:

            Agree with every thing BB said … back off the pejorative labels please …

            I don’t disagree that she was a pioneering writer in feminist theory, philosophy or theology and as such has as much of place in a conversation as say St. Augustine or any other radical thinker. That being said, a lot of what she wrote goes beyond deconstructing patriarchal biases, frames and power structures. Also, her writings were somewhat specific to her experience of religion in her church. But, there’s much in her writing and actions that go beyond just decrying patriarchy. She wouldn’t let male students her classes, for example. I don’t think saying that detracts from her body of work as much as it explains a lot of it. I really found her approach to transsexualism to be beyond the pale.

            But I don’t argue for or against the type of stuff she does very often for the same reason I don’t read St Augustine or any of that any more. It’s all mind games and mind inventions.

          • Branjor says:

            Look, Dak, that’s one of Daly’s students you’re talking about, not Daly herself. I don’t agree with what that student did to you and I wouldn’t have done the same thing. I am not responsible for how another one of Daly’s students acted. I think Daly herself has had married and het students and never gave one a bad grade or said anything to them like what was said to you because of that. Many of them have praised her as a teacher. The student you had teaching you seems unable to put what she knows of Daly’s work to use in an intelligent way. As to throwing the guy out of class, Mary Daly never refused to teach a qualified male student, no matter what lies you may have heard on that subject.

          • Branjor says:

            BB, thank you.

          • Branjor says:

            Dak and Someone – like Mary Daly, I cannot prove what I said in a scientific way. But that is my opinion, and I thought we were allowed to state our opinions here if they were stated in a civilized and courteous way. That’s apparently so as long as they don’t make men *really mad.*
            Anyway, this reminds me a bit of what happened when Dak left the Confluence. One of the commenters there took Dak to task because she did not *prove* her assertions in a way that would have stood up in a court of law.

          • Branjor says:

            Dak – Mary Daly *did* teach male students who were qualified in terms of the prerequisites required for her class and who were duly registered. Many of them have also praised her as a teacher. She taught the males in a separate section from the females due to pedagogical considerations for the females, which is what got her in trouble. The male student who got a right wing law firm to sue for his right to enter the female class didn’t even bother to take the prerequisite course for that class, which was one women’s studies class prior to entering Feminist Ethics. She wouldn’t even have admitted a *female* student to the class under those conditions, but she was expected to admit him. As Daly herself once said, since many more women than men usually registered for her classes, her arrangement meant that the latter got more attention.

          • dakinikat says:

            Branjor, Look, there’s opinions and then there’s biases like sexism, racism, ageism, etc. I’m fine with your opinions but these blanket statements about men and boys go way beyond simple opinions. And other people can correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve had to pull back one of your statements before dealing with little boys. It’s beyond a simple opinion to me.

          • dakinikat says:

            and i’ll apologize for the ‘hated men’. I’ll say I feel she had her own biases against men then. But again, I was never steeped and shattered by theology. I’ve always felt there are male victims of that oppressive system too; especially GT men which of course, was never her focus anyway. She did, at Boston College, ban men from attending her lectures in advanced and introductory women’s studies.

            and at that, I’m done with the topic. The entire conversation is at the point where I’ve entered the why I hate theology/philosophy zone. It’s like talking about the aesthetics of smoke patterns when the forest is on fire.

          • Branjor says:

            By her lectures, do you mean the female section of her class? If so, yes she did. There were reasons for that. Males and females have been segregated in other classes too, such as PE. Also, on sports teams. And the college Daly taught at was a jesuit run institution which didn’t admit women to their priesthood.

          • Branjor says:

            Wow, Mary Daly was “uppity”. How awful. An uppity woman.
            According to the guy who wrote the article at your link, Dak, even ST. PAUL was a feminist. Enough said.

          • Someone says:

            It was never my intention to be either rude or condescending. Having said that, certain claims simply don’t deserve serious consideration. My response reflected the level of consideration that is due to any attempt to psychoanalyse people who lived two and three thousand years ago, whether it would be a claim that fits my presuppositions or not. Philosophy is the art of making well-founded claims which are backed up with well-formulated arguments, not making unsupported claims and then challenging others to refute them. Such a method deserves the response I gave. If it is offensive to some, then I apologize. I was not trying to be condescending.

          • bostonboomer says:


            Did you even look beyond the headline? It was an obituary of Daly that praised her highly. The term “uppity” was used in a positive way.

          • Branjor says:

            Yeah, BB, I read it, but fast. I registered some of the praise of Daly in it, also the part about “feminist juice” in christianity and in St. Paul, of all people. I didn’t register “uppity” as positive because the link came from Dak and I was too upset with her by that time to read a link of hers with 100% accuracy. Also, she apparently just posted it to prove her point that Daly excluded men from her lectures. Really, big fat deal. So she excluded men from a few lectures while they excluded women from just about everything for 5000 years. I will reread it so I can get a more accurate appreciation of what the guy was saying.

        • Branjor says:

          Someone: I stopped reading what you had to say after “completely kooky wa wa.”

  2. cwaltz says:

    On the upside I noticed Planned Parenthood is in pushback mode. It’s nice to read that they are standardizing their practice and part of standardization is offering abortion services. Oh and give your daughter a big ol hug from me. While I have never had an abortion or been placed within a situation where I needed to make a decsion to terminate, it makes me happy that there are women out there like her that understand that bringing life into the world comes with big consequences and are there to help mitigate those consequences rather than bear judgment. Ultimately every woman should have the right to determine their destiny and should not be REQUIRED to take on the risk and consequences of childbirth to soothe the consciences of hypocrites who never got to the part of the Bible discussing forgiveness or judging others.

    Frankly the Christians come off poorly in this debate. Being a Christian means believing in life everlasting. That means a real Christian is not going to believe that the soul of an innocent baby dies anyway. If you truly believe in life everlasting then that soul would go right back to be with the Creator. So all the sturm and angst is just more hypocrisy. If anything, the only thing that gets lost is POTENTIAL, and I trust the Lord to see that as “punishment” enough. Frankly, I find it disgusting that so many are looking for splinters rather than working on their own beams.

    • dakinikat says:

      My daughter was giving a C sec on christmas eve to a woman that was a midwife patient that had been leaking amniotic fluid for like three days and was septic. Her poor little girl came out floppy and gray and was sent and saved in the Neonic. Why would a state want to defund ob/gyn sevices? I don’t understand why they just can’t leave it to doctors. She says that she wants a major part of her practice to always be to give care to the poor. She intends to fund it by providing fertility services to the rich. She deserves big hugs.

      • bostonboomer says:

        She does deserve hugs, Dak. Unfortunately, nothing is really left to doctors anymore. They have to spend more time dealing with insurance co’s than patients. I’m sure that will get worse under the new law.

        • B Kilpatrick says:

          But their incomes have been going UP UP UP! Doctor incomes took off in the US sometime in the 1970s, and they now make far, far more than do their counterparts in other western countries or in other occupations requiring a similiar amount of education.

          • dakinikat says:

            Depends on where they practice and WHAT they practice. Specialists make huge amounts of money. Especially if they live in large cities. Especially, plastic surgeons and dermatologists which are professions that rely on cash and not insurance. Family practice doctors in rural areas don’t make money at all. Ob/Gyns and some specializations have high malpractice insurance rates too depending on the state. Doctors that take Medicaid or Medicare patients loose big. Completely depends on what you want to be up to …

          • Minkoff Minx says:

            Yeah, Dak I agree about the specific practice area of doctors…and the amount of money they make. It all depends on area you practice and where you practice. I have seen the figures and earnings of family doctors in my rural area…and they are not rolling in the big bucks.

          • Someone says:

            Well, pediatricians and general practitioners are the outliers. Everyone else is making bank. Especially radiologists.

  3. cwaltz says:

    The birth control issue really resonates with alot of GOP women. They are very unaware that there is a war being waged for their reproductive rights. I spent alot of time educating GOP women that per the conscience clause BCPs were classified an abortifactant and not required to be stocked or dispensed if someone objected to their usage. It’s a great place to hit back.

  4. dakinikat says:

    Nice one from Digby on this:

    I just want to thank all the Democrats who were so desperate to find “common ground” with the anti-abortion fanatics that they signed on to “partial birth abortion” ban demagoguery and lies, giving it a bipartisan sheen for the court to rely upon in their ruling and moving the goalposts even further down the field. It’s worked out very well for the anti-choice zealots who, like all social conservatives, will take a mile if you give an inch and rightly saw it as an opening for further restrictions

    There is a real price to be paid for sacrificing fundamental human rights in the name of compromise. Unfortunately, the price is rarely paid by those who are doing the compromising.

  5. dakinikat says:

    More information on other states antics at Right Wing Watch.

    Energized by gains made by Republicans not only in congressional elections but also in gubernatorial and legislative races, anti-choice organizations are gearing up plans to push new laws restricting women’s right to choose. Already, anti-choice groups hope for more states to replicate Oklahoma’s new law, which compels women seeking to terminate their pregnancies to watch an ultrasound monitor and have a doctor read a state-specified script about the fetus. Slate’s Emily Bazelon writes that Oklahoma’s law stands “at the top of the heap of paternalism that Justice Anthony Kennedy started climbing two years ago, in his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart,” which upheld the federal ban on late-term abortion. Kennedy “injected into that case the constitutionally novel idea that because some women come to regret their abortions, the court could substitute its judgment for their doctors’ by sparing them from a procedure that women would reject as too gruesome if they only knew the details.”

  6. Pat Johnson says:

    I am probably opening myself up to get slammed for saying this, but all this publicity surrounding Bristol Palin and how she is rearing a child as a single parent, dancing in tv, making money in the bargain, while making PDAs urging abstinence, is not being done for nothing, IMHO. There is a definite agenda behind this and it is coming from the cultural conservatives who will be expected to promote her mother when the time comes.

    Young teens see this adulation and attention being paid to another young woman only gives rise to those pro choice organizations that will point to her as a signal of “success”.

    I don’t expect Bristol, or any young woman who has found herself in the same position to feel “shamed” over this situation, but most young women are not in the same situation that she finds herself in by exploiting the issue. Young girls may look to this as a means to an end which it is anything but.

    The pro choice life groups have managed to insert themselves into the political dialogue through elected officials who bring their own brand of “religious piety” to the table and overlook the challenges, misfortune, and ongoing consequences in displaying unwanted pregnancies in a glamorous light. It is far from it.

    The young women of this nation need to take heed as their right to privacy may soon become a thing of the past if these rightwing nutjobs have their say. And it pretty much looks like they have been making headway all along, state by state, by state.

    • dakinikat says:

      A lot of young women take things for granted that they really shouldn’t take for granted. Their actions chip away at it so slowly, that it’s not perceivable some times to those that aren’t looking. The problem is when they need it, it will be gone.

  7. Pat Johnson says:

    Opps, meant to say “pro life” not pro choice.

  8. dakinikat says:

    Raise your hand if you believe this guy.

    and all from the nice little town where I was born …

    Arthur Sedille was up-front with police: He would often put a gun to his wife’s head during fantasy sex play at their Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, home.

    But Sedille said he didn’t know the gun was loaded when he pressed it to his wife’s head and pulled the handgun’s slide back during sex on the night of December 21.

    Now Sedille, 23, is facing the possibility of a murder charge in Canadian County, Oklahoma, in the death of his wife, 50-year-old Rebecca Sedille — who died when the handgun went off in their bedroom.

    • B Kilpatrick says:

      Handguns HAVE TO BE LOADED in order for you to be able to move the slide back. If the magazine is out, the slide cannot be pulled forward. And even assuming he put an empty clip in, the weight of a handgun is noticeable. For instance, a Springfield m1911 weighs about 2.4 lbs unloaded. Loaded, it weighs 2.8 lbs. That might not sound like much, but it is noticeable.

      Regardless, even if this guy is being 100% honest, HE’S STILL AN ABSOLUTE MORON. The first rule of gun safety is to always assume that a gun is loaded, and the second is to never point it at something that you don’t intend to kill.

    • bostonboomer says:

      I wonder how much life insurance the much older wife had?

    • paper doll says:

      I’m suppose to believe the 23 year old toy boy accidentally shot the 50 year old wife?? He is facing the possibility of a murder charge??? Lord

  9. bostonboomer says:

    Excellent post, Dak. The lack of attention to scientific evidence by our government is another sign that we are sinking into third world status. We really are a banana republic.

    • dakinikat says:

      Some 35 year old pissant speaker of the unicameral is going to tell me what to do with MY uterus and Ovaries? I died twice by his age and still didn’t know enough to get out of a dead end situation. Great. Reminds me of Sonia Johnson telling me how she always felt humiliated calling 18 year old boys ‘Elder’.

      And I still can’t believe the Nerve of Justice Kennedy completely making things out of thin air like fetal pain and women not knowing what will stress them. Just friggin’ pathetic!!

  10. Seriously says:

    Great post, dak. Coincidentally, I was just watching “16 and pregnant” on MTV. It’s a really sad show because these girls are so smart, and then they struggle so hard to even finish high school once they have the kid, but anyway, one of the previous mothers got pregnant again and decided to have an abortion, and they brought her and some other girls who’d had abortions on to talk about their experiences, and it’s like–abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on women, 1 in 3 will have an abortion, and yet you almost never see a discussion like that. And these girls are putting themselves at risk from these crazy people by putting themselves out there, and everyone associated with MTV is putting him or herself at risk–it’s like we all have to be in this cone of silence denying reality while a small minority are in control of our laws and our doctors and even how we’re allowed to feel about our own experiences.

    • dakinikat says:

      I can verify they are absolutely crazy. Any one that would call a young mother and tell her what her children have done for the day, then go into a rage about what an abortion procedure would look like if performed on them … basically a 3 year old and a 10 year old is nuts. The sheriff’s office tried to find the caller… Phone booths of course and basically said these types never follow through with anything and to try to ignore it.

      • Seriously says:

        God, that’s horrible. Culture of life!

        • dakinikat says:

          I ran against a nutjob like Michelle Bachman and they shipped them in from as far as Kansas and Missouri to walk around my neighborhoods and tell untruths about me. I knocked on one door about 6 blocks from my home, the guy opened it up and said I know exactly what SHE stands for and slammed the door in my face. Didn’t even realize it was ME he was talking about. Mumbled something about his priest telling him all about it on Sunday.

          • Seriously says:

            Yeah, I’ve been in Church and the substitute priest cussed out our State Rep, without even realizing he was sitting right there! Which was probably good, because if he had realized, he probably would’ve got right up in his face and turned the situation even uglier. The guy actually is a Friend to Fetii, his crime was not being sufficiently juiced up to persecute gays. Gotta love the tax exempt status. Sorry that happened to you. 😦

          • dakinikat says:

            let me tell you, i had bizarre dreams for weeks after that … like every historical situation where a persecutor came for you … I had dreams I was Jewish and Nazis were coming after me, or I dreamed we were a black family and folks were burning crosses in our yard … I had like two solid weeks of dreams where they were trying to try me as a witch, you name the horrible situation and I had a dream as the object of hate. I was afraid to walk in the neighborhood any more.

        • Seriously says:

          It was really brave of you to run. It’s ugly out there and the climate of intimidation feeels like it’s getting worse.

  11. TheRock says:

    Dak, run for something again. I’ll move there just to vote for you. I went to Creighton for my undergrad, and everything that you said is spot on. The culture there is just bass akwards. The same is true for Kansas, and its about to get worse. The state is as blood red now from the Governor (Brownback, who is using it as a stepping stone to the White House) down to the city dog catcher. Remember, Kansas is the state where Dr. Tiller was felled by an assassin’s bullet. Nobody will perform LEGAL abortions in Kansas out of fear. Maybe this will be the tipping point that women across America will band together and vote these idiots out of office.

    Hillary 2012

    OT – Did anybody see this? I will post it again during the morning reads, but this is the sign that Armageddon is upon us. Well maybe not THAT bad, but we are truly circling the drain.


    Hillary 2012

    • Seriously says:

      I mean, I don’t disagree as Rahm is Satan and Carol Mosely Braun is 27 different kinds of awesome, but the hell? There are better ways to get one’s message across. This is why, were I Big Dawg, I’d retire my Rodney Dangerfield role and let the entire freakin’ party go to hell. Well, actually, I’d be like, “Eff you, Danny. I’m with Carol and not just because you’re an ass. How you like them apples?” But, whatever. The Clintons are gluttons for punishment.

    • paper doll says:

      Seems to me Davis is warning the White House, via whipping boy Bill….Davis can’t say : Obama Inc stay out…so he says: Bill stay out…I hope Bill can…let the idjit Dem party twist in the windy city …or will he have to face baseless . “raci*t ” charges AGAIN?? Hillary being SOS is costly to her…but also to Bill . imo that’s why he does so much for Mr.Obama …in support of Hillary

    • dakinikat says:

      I’m NEVER EVER going back to Nebraska. I avoid it completely. The kids go there to visit their dad and if I need anything I tell them to go look for it and bring it here. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t get elected state wide in Louisiana … they’re just as bad. The neighborhood I’m basically probably from wouldn’t elect me either because most of the folks I know believe that it would be a vote for white hegemony even though they say it’s not me per se. Believe me, we’ve had discussions about that a lot because we’ve had some really great gay candidates run and it doesn’t really work out and it’s not because of their stands on the issues. A good example is that Bill Jefferson beat hispanic Helena Moreno for the congressional seat too. There’s a real fear of offices going back to white people because of history. It’s a long time to parinirvana! I understand the concerns on an emotional level, but intellectually it just frosts my cupcakes.

      • B Kilpatrick says:

        And the bad thing is that black politicians screw their constituents just as badly as any white politician ever did. I guess it’s less bad when someone with the initials CR uses community development block grants to buy a new watch bevel if he looks like you. Absolutely stupid.

        • dakinikat says:

          Absolutely why I wouldn’t vote for him and I’m completely ignoring all the invites from him for parties, get togethers and fundraisers. I don’t want to be around to tell this folks the I told you sos when Jim Letten finally can convene a grand jury on it and we see he’s yet another Bill Jefferson.

      • Someone says:

        And a lot of it isn’t avoiding white hegemony – it’s racism simple and plain. White people DO NOT have a monopoly on racism.

  12. Minkoff Minx says:

    MTV's Abortion Special Didn't Disappoint

    Something that I found, just thought I would link it up here…

    MTV is said not to have sought advertisers for the commercial-free 30-minute special, which aired at 11:30pm last night.

    • Minkoff Minx says:

      Halliburton's "Policy Against Procreation"?

      Former Halliburton employee Lynda Darden is suing the company for sex discrimination and wrongful termination. Court filings allege that she was fired because “she apparently violated the company’s policy against procreation.”
      Darden, an administrative associate, was 27 weeks pregnant when she was fired from her job, having notified her supervisor about three months before. Her lawyer, Todd Kelly, represents several women who’ve brought lawsuits against the company, including Jamie Leigh Jones (the Halliburton employee who, after being gangraped by fellow employees, was locked in a shipping container by the company.)