States Step Up Fight on Abortion

Alito isn’t even on the Court yet and the Los Angeles Times has a report showing that the fight is already underway. The article begins:

Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court — once it has a second new justice — to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.

The bill under consideration in Indiana would ban all abortions, except when continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman’s life or put her physical health in danger of “substantial permanent impairment.” Similar legislation is pending in Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee.

Today is the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

3 thoughts on “States Step Up Fight on Abortion”

  1. I recently read the biography of Justice Blackmun, the real architect of the Roe v. Wade decision, written by Linda Greenhouse. It’s a pretty interesting, straight-forward discussion of what transpired at the Supreme Court when that decision came down. Especially interesting reading in light of what’s currently going on at the Court. Just thought I’d mention it…

  2. I notice that rape and incest are not considered “just cause” for termination of pregnancy in the states listed above (as well as in other states). Yet, as a society, we Americans somehow manage to hold ourselves morally above cultures in the Middle East and beyond, where victims of rape are often killed, beaten, or at the least scorned by all, for something they had no control over to begin with. Can anyone explain the difference to me?

    As I see it, this movement is just another way to punish poor women, because everyone else will be able to travel somewhere that it’s legal, just like they did before Roe v Wade. Yoko Ono hit the nail on the head decades ago when she said, “Woman is the nigger of the earth.” (I would normally never use that ugly word, but it is a direct and, in this case I feel, accurate, quote.)

    Incidentally, you can bet your bottom dollar that those same state and federal politicians aren’t going to want to help all the poor women [who would be forced to give birth to children they may not want or can’t afford] to raise their children in a suitable lifestyle with adequate health insurance and a decent education. They’ll be all too happy to build prisons to house them years down the road, though. Or provide minimum wages service jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.

  3. I think perhaps I wasn’t clear in the first paragraph of my comment above about what I see as the moral hypocrisy between “us” and “them” in this issue. I am asking how anyone considers that forcing a girl (or woman) who is the victim of rape/incest to have a baby from that act can be considered to be morally acceptable. She is already a victim, so next we’re going to force her to carry the child resulting from this horror to full term, and then raise it, or give it away, to be further haunted by the experience for the rest of her life? All this knowing that she may have to drop out of school or quit her job, and possibly ruin her life, or at least bear the stigma and scorn of society’s judgment. Or that she may have to sacrifice her youth to motherhood (or at least 9 months of turmoil) under such traumatic circumstances. Not to mention what it does to many of the children borne of such an experience when they are raised by a mother who didn’t want them, possibly hates/resents them, or else they grow up knowing they were abandoned and probably feeling unloved and inferior. How does this make us better than the other cultures who torture their female victims?

Comments are closed.