Can We Have Harriet Miers Back?

Village Voice reminds us that there is - potentially - an extraordinarily clear motivation - brilliant even - behind making the announcement today that Samuel Alito is the nominee for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: It allows the President to

divert attention (as he does so masterfully) from the gathering storm concerning Libby's alleged leaks to the media. What do we know from Iraq though - not our area here on bioethics blog except when it comes to the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu G. The critical issue that has us terrified is the hard right turn from Harriet to Samuel.

Alito has written some interesting rulings that are, um, important in the evolution of the new conservative approach to abortion - to grant states the right to whittle away at abortion rights. Most notably he joined the majority in the Casey decision that imposed numerous restrictions on women in Pennsylvania including mandatory notifications of alternatives to abortion and a 24 hour mandatory waiting period prior to abortion. Parental notification was also made mandatory in Pennsylvania under their ruling.

Washington Post writes of a particularly frightening writing from Alito in the matter of Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

"In addition," he wrote, "the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 [the spousal provision] would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband's interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. . . . The Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it "unwise" or worse. "

O'Connor, writing for the court in the matter when it reached SCOTUS, was the Justice most involved in rejecting Alito's view on that matter. The notion that Alito would be replacing O'Connor is in that respect particularly instructive.

The great fear here is that Democrats will have a very hard time 1) pushing back against a concerted effort by the conservative Republicans on this matter, and 2) fighting a battle on this matter and their desire to see a Congressional investigation in re: Karl Rove et al. We've been Borked.

posted Oct 31, 2005 | link | jump to the comments (10)

comments

How is giving people a waiting period on an abortion unethical? Many people in this country believe that a waiting period on purchasing a gun is a good idea. There's a waiting period to get credit cards. Why not this issue? The ruling in PA did not take away the woman's ability to get an abortion, it only gives a formal wait of one day for the woman to think about what it is she is about to do.
Ending the life of the unborn baby, or fetus, without consulting with it is far more unethical than mandating the mother wait a day to have the operation performed.

- by Warren on Oct 31, 2005 at 5:12 PM | link

"Ending the life of the unborn baby, or fetus, without consulting with it is far more unethical than mandating the mother wait a day to have the operation performed."
A lump of cells deserves a right to be consulted? So if it doesn't say anything is that an implicit no or yes? The right to life crowd is really a right to birth crowd. Once you're born - you're on your own.

- by grandmaster on Oct 31, 2005 at 5:21 PM | link

The editors, once again, make an overblown political statement. Not surprising considering the fact that they are patently supportive of "progressives."
Dear Editors: this is how representative democracy works, when it works. You are witnessing history: 32 years of effort to re-establish the balance of powers between the 3 branches of government, and return law-making to the legislative branch and the Constitutional process of amendments vs. penumbra.
Grandmaster, whatever you are now, you were once that same "lump of cells" that you dismiss so easily. As a matter of fact, we're all still mere "lump(s) of cells."
I would imagine that your idea of the right to life for lumps is closer to mine than to Ted Bundy's. I believe that we have more common ground than you recognize.
The rest of your statement is false. Please familiarize yourself with the education, policy and charity efforts of the "right to life crowd."

- by Beverly on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:10 PM | link

Balogna. I know all about the right to life crowd. Make abortion illegal. Cut funding for programs such as headstart that would help young disenfranchised youth. Wait for them to commit a crime. Have the state put them to death. Pleasant people all around.
By the way, you never even attempted to prove the unborn mass of cells was sentient. It's the human brain that seperates us from celery, Beverly. That's a mass of cells too.

- by grandmaster on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:49 PM | link

grandmaster, it's my brain that separates me from you, and thank god for that. I don't know how I'd go on if I were as incapable of rational argumentation as you are. But, as I'm a generous man, I'd hesitate to condemn you to death for being such an idiot.

- by Thomas on Nov 2, 2005 at 12:51 AM | link

Now boys and girls - let's not be fresh.

- by eds on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:02 AM | link

gm, it's "baloney"(or "salami"?) when used as a colloquialism.
(Just being pleasantly brainey. In spite of never having had kindergarten, much less headstart, when I was a young youth, before I was old enough to be disenfranchised.)

- by Beverly on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:53 AM | link

Beverly, whatever the merits of your other claims may be, your by-the-way assertion that this administration is interested in balancing the three branches of government is completely false. On the contrary, this administration has done virtually everything within its power to draw all powers into the executive branch. Interpreting US law to allow "harsh interrogation" (that's torture to the rest of us), abrogating the right to trial, etc. isn't consistent with maintaining a system of checks and balances. Just one person's opinion, of course. . . .

- by Sue on Nov 2, 2005 at 12:37 PM | link

Did any of you see this?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=33495
A guy like that in the Supreme Court will come in handy when the bird flu hits ...