This law seems like a minor tipping of the scales. Taken in isolation, I think it is probably not an entirely unreasonable restriction. If it is used as a shoehorn to change other laws, then maybe it's a bigger problem than I understand it to be. I'm pretty hardcore pro-choice. I'm OK with it. Am I missing something serious?
Seems to me that you hit the nail squarely on the head.
There's good discussion today on this decision. Greenhouse at the NY Times and Lithwick at Slate are among the standouts. New Republic has something too but I'll wager my daughter's virginity that a man wrote it.
be used as a shoehorn to further restrict access to abortion. That seem pretty clearly to be the strategic function of it in inception. It seems equally clear that such is precisely the hope of the justices in the majority.
Sounds a awful lot like the NRA's arguments on gun controls. You always poo-poo the "slippery slope" arguments there.
Ginsberg suggests that, as this decision is profoundly out of step with court precedent (remember all those confirmation hearing questions to Alito and Roberts on how they might weight precedent against personal beliefs) it isn't likely to stand in the future. We'll see. America is, under the present power structure, moving towards an authoritarian model of governance and that may well continue. The next appointment to the court could be critical. Events could be determinative. In either case, I really wish men would just shut the phuck up on this matter.
"Profoundly out of step"??? No. I've read her dissent and the one and only sticking point she had is the "heatlh" issue. And yes, I agree with her that this ruling is a departure from previous abortion rulings. The question is, is that departure justified?
The law in question makes no provision for the "health of the mother" to be a consideration in the decision of whether or not the procedure can be used (Note: The "Life of the mother" still can be used).
Congress held their hearings and teh professionals that appeared to tesify were evenly split on whether any situation could ever arise where the mother's health would be in jeapordy and there was no other procedure that could be used.
The majority of the court decided that, given the even split in the opinions of the medical profession, the Legislature had the authority to decide the matter. Ginsberg's dissent argues that the court should over-rule the Legislature in favor of past Court precedent.
This ruling has little practical effect. Both sides conceed that this procedure is used in very few abortions to begin with. Yes, it is a political football and I'm in full argreement with you that the anti-abortion crowd will try to use it as a shoehorn. I disagree with your slippery slope argument though. I don't see much else going anywhere.