A number of Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups are brawling with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson for praising the Supreme Court's Federal Abortion Ban. Some are even accusing Dobson and other anti-choice leaders of building a "pro-life industry" of misleading information and "relentless fundraising."
Dobson has been declaring the ban a victory while other anti-choice groups are saying it's more of a disappointment, claiming it serves merely as a "manual" of late-term abortions and condones them "as long as you follow its guidelines." A group even released a letter in a full-page ad to Dobson saying that he's giving inaccurate information to other anti-choicers and should be called out for it. In response, Focus on the Family's Vice President Tom Minnery commented that they celebrated the ban "because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we're not going to win a total victory all at once. We're going to win piece by piece."
Oh, so you're the sophisticated pro-lifers, huh? Where does that leave the rest of y'all? You're just going to let them call you classless like that? Fight! Fight! Fight!
Between the fact that a quarter of a billion dollars has been raised towards the ban and Dobson's perpetual shmoozing with SCOTUS judges makes it apparent that the "true" pro-life agenda may not necessarily be Dobson's priority anymore (or never was, for that matter). And it's not like this is anything new for right-wing politics, but the difference now is that the anti-choice masses are catching on; some say it could be the biggest split in the anti-choice movement in over a decade. And we like this.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-Choicers Beefing over SCOTUS decision..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5376
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Don't get too excited. It is a pro-life victory, and the only people who don't understand that are the ones who don't seem to get the fact that Roe prevents legislation that restricts abortion. This decision was the first in over 30 years to allow substantive restrictions on the abortion procedure.
CJ Roberts, during oral arguments, asked if there was a constitutional right to the safest possible abortion procedure. He asked if it would be legal to deliver the baby entirely and then kill it, if that happened to be the safest procedure for the woman - despite the fact that the baby in question would be viable.
The big question is whether or not Justice Stevens will retire within the next year and a half. If he does, he'll be replaced with a conservative, and Roe will be overturned 5-4 or 6-3 (depending on Kennedy's position). Actually, from the Carhart decision, it appears as if Roe will be gutted, not overturned.
There is a split in the heard; let's pick off the weak ones.
It's always great when someone other than the Left is in-fighting. About fucking time.
There's a church near my house that used to have a sign up saying "Abortion stps a human heart from beating." Some months ago they replaced it with a sign pushing their fundraising drive.
[CJ Roberts] asked if it would be legal to deliver the baby entirely and then kill it, if that happened to be the safest procedure for the woman - despite the fact that the baby in question would be viable. - oenophile
That's a silly question -- if that were the safest possible procedure, of course, it would be wrong to have an abortion post-viability, because you could always hand off such a baby for adoption (of course, there would be the societal consequences for that ...).
And that is exactly the anti-abortion spin on post-viability abortions -- why can't the woman just deliver the baby and then give up the baby for adoption? Of course, the anti-abortion lobby, in asserting this is asserting something very evil about women who have post-viability abortions (or when called on making such an assertion, they change their tune to something Manichean -- "the evil doctors are pushing wimins to have abortions in order to raise an army for Satan" or something along those lines), which makes me wonder why they want such women to raise kids ... but that is their argument.
But of course, it's silly. Are these people that ignorant of childbirth? Don't they understand that it's rather difficult to get something the size of a pomelo out of a hole the size of a lime? But if you remove all the innards from the pomelo (D&X) or dismantle the pomelo (D&C), it's gonna be a lot easier?
I wonder on what planet some of these so-called pro-lifers are living -- delivery of a live baby is almost always going to be more physically traumatic than an abortion. What do these people not understand about the process?
DAS -- In addition, it's damn near impossible to get a doctor in any state to give you a thrid-trimester abortion (that's why the trimester designation was set up in the first place) unless the fetus is extremely malformed or there's a serious health risk to the woman. If the fetus is malformed, carrying to term means going through the pregnancy knowing your baby will die nearly immediately. If there's a serious health risk to the woman, she's not likely going to want to carry to term (of course!). To reiterate: what do these people not understand about the process?
Don't forget this quote from the Washington Post article:
"...Doctors adopted the late-term procedure 'out of convenience,' Minnery added. 'The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.'..."
So now trying to minimize your wounding and blood loss is mere convenience? O_O
"But of course, it's silly. Are these people that ignorant of childbirth? Don't they understand that it's rather difficult to get something the size of a pomelo out of a hole the size of a lime? But if you remove all the innards from the pomelo (D&X) or dismantle the pomelo (D&C), it's gonna be a lot easier?"
I bet they do understand that, but just don't care.
I wouldn't be surprised if some even feel "Don't they understand that it's rather difficult to get something the size of a pomelo out of a hole the size of a lime? But if you snip away extras in order to make the hole a lot bigger than a lime..."
I wonder on what planet some of these so-called pro-lifers are living -- delivery of a live baby is almost always going to be more physically traumatic than an abortion. What do these people not understand about the process?
Um, DAS, what do you not understand about the word "if?" It was a hypothetical, designed to test the rationale of the argument.
It was a hypothetical, designed to test the rationale of the argument. - oenophile
I thought that lawyers never had to answer hypothetical questions -- that's what GOP judicial nominees have told us
Seriously, I do get that as a kind of hypothetical as to where the pro-choice argument gets limitted, but as a hypothetical it verges into the same strawwoman "baby killer" argument you typically hear from anti-choicers.
In fact, it is not at all a reasonable hypothetical unless you believe something rather evil about women (who abort), their doctors or you simply have no clue about how delivery works.
From a purely logical point of view, one asks the question "is 'if X, then Y' a true statement?" Well, if X is never true, then Y can have any truth value you like and the statement's true. So while it makes, pace GOP judicial nominees, sense to ask hypothetical questions, the hypothetical must be feasible for the answer to be meaningful.
But what Roberts asked was such a meaningless question that what's the point in asking it? Even for it to be a reductio ad absurdem, one needs to accept a good part of the anti-choice view of why women abort (or why their doctors get them to abort) or a rather bizarre view of delivery.
DAS,
To state the obvious, which you missed: the issue was about the protections of the Constitution. Specifically, the issue was about whether or not the Constitution always protects the safest method of abortion (of course, notice that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with abortion!). Roberts' question was entirely relevant.
Under your theory, a judge couldn't rule on the validity of a LAW without first having gotten himself a MD with a specialty in obstetrics.
Think of it this way: the Constitution EXPLICITLY protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. ("Search and seizure" is a term found in the document; "abortion" is not.) Yet, there is NO right under the Constitution to have the police use the least invasive of methods.
Further: in our lifetimes, the age of viability will undoubtedly be moved very far back. The Constitution is meant to endure forever.
Finally: you don't get it. You said that judges aren't supposed to deal with hypotheticals. NOT TRUE AT ALL. They are not supposed to, during confirmation hearings, speculate as to how they would rule on hypothetical cases. They are, however, supposed to determine how far legislation can reach before it encroaches on constitutional rights. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ask about hypoetheticals before ruling on a case - they want to know how their ruling will be applied in the future. For example, a ruling about the reach of a DEA regulation could be applied to outlaw poppyseed bagels. (http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0206-03.htm) Any decent jurist will understand that the law should not be so construed.
You don't get it.
Specifically, the issue was about whether or not the Constitution always protects the safest method of abortion (of course, notice that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with abortion!). Roberts' question was entirely relevant.
No, it's not. If the "safest method of abortion" was giving birth, then it's not an abortion anymore. Abortion terminates pregnancy. If the woman has given birth, then she can't abort anymore, because she's no longer pregnant.