Katha makes a case that Kennedy may be softening on abortion which, to me, seems like kinda a stretch. To me, reading his dissent, he still seems broadly in support of Casey; his references to the Casey standards don't read like someone ready to junk a precident he (co)-wrote himself. He's inconsistant because he's disgusted by the so-called "partial birth" abortion; but since his problem seems to be with the one proceedure, I don't see much reason to believe that he's ready to go back on all his previously-stated beliefs regarding cases that don't involve that proceedure.
I agree that there's reason to be frightened of a Bush presidency, but it can be taken too far - and I think imparting a false feeling of hopelessness onto supporters is going to far. I watched an intelligent young woman from the local NARAL chapter giving a speech in which she was in tears about the "millions of women who will beyond any doubt die in back-alley abortions if Bush is elected." At least on my campus, her all-hope-ends-if-Bush-is-sworn-in beliefs seem commonplace among NARAL's student contingent; isn't this more likely to create a feeling of hopelessness than resistance if Bush is elected?
I'm also getting tired of the divisive "if you support Nader then you don't care about a woman's right to choose" drift of much of the anti-Nader NARAL drive; but I live in Portland, Oregon, so probably I've gotten more of it than Katha has in New York.
Finally, Katha says that "your correspondant seems to think it's okay for a women to be injured by being denied the procedure that her doctor thinks is the best one for her." Say what? I said that the Clinton/Gore proposal was "slightly saner" than the law Carhart struck down because Clinton/Gore would include a health provision, and I also called Kennedy's dissent "wrongheaded." How on Earth did Katha read into this that I agreed with Kennedy's opinion?
To clarify, I don't think it's okay for a woman to be denied choice if she wants or needs one, PERIOD. I think it's a BIT saner to take the Clinton/Gore approach of only having the government-enforced childbirth (which is what all anti-abortion laws are) if it won't hurt the health of the mother - but, frankly, I think government-enforced childbirth is insane regardless.
--BD
: Stenberg v Carhart was the "partial birth abortion" ban case which
: originated in Nebraska and was decided by SC last June (?). Justice
: Kennedy, hitherto a reliable pro-choice vote, sided with the 3 anti-Roe
: justices Rehnquist,Scalia and thomas. He said he thought partial birth
: abortion was horrible and couldn't understand why it would be wrong to
: ban it, etc.
: Why do pro-choice mavens think this means Kennedy might vote to
: overturn Roe? Well, in the first place he bought a very weak case--
: partial birth abortion wasn't even explicitly defined in the Nebraska
: bill, a fact which was brought out in oral argument. Second, the bans
: clearly DO violate Roe, by permitting the criminalization of a procedure
: performed during the second trimester, when such bans are explicitly
: forbidden by Roe, and by disregarding women's health which Roe
: explicitly says must come first at EVERY STAGE of pregnancy. In essence,
: Kennedy said -- I don't care if this mysterious ill-defined procedure is
: the only method that would preserve a woman's fertility, or avoid
: injuring her -- it's too upsetting, and so states can say, too bad for
: her. This was the first time he voted to explicitly disregard women's
: health in favor of the fetus , or rather, the aesthetic objections of
: anti-choicers. Pro-choicers are right to worry that he may be moving
: away from the pro-choice side. Of course, no one can say what he would
: do if given the chance to overturn Roe, but certainly one is entitled to
: worry.
: It is true that Gore and Clinton have both said they would sign
: partial-birth bans that included a health exception. The lack of a
: health exception is the sticking point and it is not a trivial detail
: (that is, unless you are a man who will never need this particular
: procedure). Your correspondent seems to think it's okay for a women to
: be injured by being denied the procedure that her doctor thinks is the
: best one for her. I wonder how he'd feel if his doctor couldn't give
: him the form of prostate surgery that would best preserve his fertility,
: say, because some religious fanatics and rightwingers found it
: "offensive"? It is quite shocking that Kennedy disregarded the question
: of women's health. That is where this case differs from Casey, which
: said undue burdens--that is, legal requirements that didn't
: significantly interfere with a woman's ability to have an abortion --
: were okay. The dissenters in Carhart said, here's a case in which the
: interest of the fetus ought to take precedence over women's health.
: That is different!
: I know lots of people who have been involved with abortion at the
: ground level for years -- providers, lawyers, advocates, researchers. I
: haven't found one who agrees with Ralph Nader, that noted gynecologist,
: on the question of abortion rights and the upcoming elections. You
: cannot imagine how angry pro-choice women are about his pooh-poohing of
: the danger to abortion.
:
: Katha
:
:
:
: Doug Henwood wrote:
: >
: > [Katha - any idea on what this is all about? - Doug]
: >
: > X-From_: owner-lbo-talk at dont.panix.com Sun Nov 5 17:14:39 2000
: > X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.187]
: > From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
: > To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
: > Subject: Re: Sarah Jessica Parker pressed into service
: > Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:12:32 GMT
: > Mime-Version: 1.0
: > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2000 22:12:33.0036 (UTC)
: > FILETIME=[7ECB1CC0:01C04775]
: > Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
: > Precedence: bulk
: > Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
: >
: > I guess you must be right. I thought briefly about Stenberg, but
: > concluded that it couldn't be what they meant for all the reasons you
: > give here, and decidedf that "this year" was a mistake, --jks
: >
: > >
: > >Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was a 1992 decision, not one "this year,"
so
: > >can't be what they're referring to.
: > >
: > >NARAL must mean Stenberg v. Carhart, the 5-4 decision saying that
: >laws banning
: > >so-called "partial birth" abortions are (at least, as commonly written)
: > >unconstitutional. There's info about the Carhart case at
: > >http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html .
: > >
: > >NARAL's claim is both hypocritical and inaccurate. Justice Kennedy, who
was
: > >one of the four dissenting votes in Carhart, voted with the
: >majority in Casey,
: > >and it doesn't appear his opinion has changed. Kennedy's dissent in
Carhart
: > >still seems to support Casey's "undue burden" standard, he just doesn't
feel
: > >that banning the "partial birth" proceedure but keeping other
proceedures
: > >available constitutes an undue burden.
: > >
: > >I think Kennedy's opinion is wrongheaded in many ways; but there's no
reason
: > >to think he'd vote to overturn Roe entirely, as NARAL knows very
: >well. But if
: > >they admitted that, they'd have to admit that Roe has a 6-3 majority,
and is
: > >more secure now than it was in either of the last two elections.
: > >
: > >I say the claim is hypocritical because the candidate they support
: >has pledged
: > >to sign legislation banning late-term abortions - legislation pretty
similar
: > >to what the court struck down in Carhart (although a little bit
: >saner because
: > >Gore would make an exception to protect the mother's health, whereas the
law
: > >in Carhart only had an exception to protect the mother's life).
: > >
: > >--BD
: > >
: > >----- Original Message -----
: > >From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
: > >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
: > >Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 9:18 PM
: > >Subject: Re: Sarah Jessica Parker pressed into service
: > >
: > >
: > >:
: > >: The case referred to is probably Planned Parenthood v. Casey,
: >which replced
: > >: the Roe trimester structure with the O'Connor "undue burden" standard
for
: > >: what a state can't do to limit a woman's right to choose. An
: >"undue burden"
: > >: is one that tees off Justice O'Connor. --jks
: > >:
: > >: >
: > >: >
: > >: > > The [NARAL] ad asks viewers to "please consider" the fact that a
5-4
: > >: > > Supreme Court decision this year "narrowly protected" Roe v. Wade,
: > >: > > noting, "A single vote saved a woman's right to choose."
: > >: >
: > >: >Does anyone know what decision that are referring to and where I
could
: > >: >find a summary?
: > >: >
: > >: >Michael
: > >: >
: > >:
>__________________________________________________________________________
: > >: >Michael Pollak................New York
: >City..............mpollak at panix.com
: > >: >
: > >:
: > >:
_________________________________________________________________________
: > >: Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
: > >:
: > >: Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
: > >: http://profiles.msn.com.
: > >:
: > >
: >
: > _________________________________________________________________________
: > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
: >
: > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
: > http://profiles.msn.com.
: