"What hubris of this administration (and the SCOTUS majority) to think they alone have the ability to draw such bright ethical lines on matters that are inherently fuzzy and hence why they lead to such impassioned ethical debates."
Strange you should say that, because it comes very close to the reasoning of Scalia and the conservatives on the court. Scalia would say that it would be hubris on the part of the Supreme Court, which is not democratically accountable, to draw these lines on "inherently fuzy matters," and that these decisions are better left to the legislatures, which are democratically accountable. If the people disagree with this federal law they can vote differently during the next election. With Congress, the people have a means of redress, something that is not the case with the Supreme Court where the justices hold life terms.
You can still disagree with that reasoning, but be sure to not confuse what the decision means - the Supreme Court did not make this procedure illegal, it allowed Congress to make it illegal. That is an important distinction that no one in the abortion debate seems willing to talk about.
"a bright line between abortion and infanticide"=taking the authority women have over their own experience of pregnancy and child-bearing and giving it to men. Man, they couldn't be more obvious. What if we leave the creation of the person up to the person creating it? BUT THAT'S A WOMAN! And we all know that women are too stupid to breathe, much less be trusted with grasping the enormity of pregnancy and childbirth.
BKriplur--
You can still disagree with that reasoning, but be sure to not confuse what the decision means - the Supreme Court did not make this procedure illegal, it allowed Congress to make it illegal. That is an important distinction that no one in the abortion debate seems willing to talk about.
Yes, you are correct and it is good that you put that out there for the readers. But, in this case the ban was a Federal Ban on D and X procedures. So, upholding the ban was, in effect, making the decision for the whole country.
But, more importantly, I think Amanda is right that what really galls me, that Ginsburg's dissent addresses, is that they took away the power to make that moral decision from the woman who would need this procedure because her health was at issue. The court rejected the worth of women's autonomy and right to make that decision in order to ban a procedure.
Let's not also forget how wholly political this was. It's not like droves of women are actually using this procedure; it's not like its an epidemic. But, the lawmakers tried to make it seem this way. This was one of a few options that women in later terms have, and in some cases the safest option to the woman. The pro-life lawmakers who set this in motion knew how gruesome the description of this procedure would sound to the public, hence why they picked it.
The ban on this procedure now sets precedent to banning other procedures even if there is an undue burden on the woman.
Women LOST today.
Commenting by HaloScan
