now — while the case was wrongly decided,
consider ed kilgore’s take on what it means
in the longer view [cross-posted to jane’s
thread on NARAL donations boycotting]:

. . .the highly convoluted majority opinion, as reflected in the remarkably clear concurring and dissenting opinions, may make a broader attack on abortion rights harder in the long run, making the next appointment or two to the Court even more critical.

To make a long story short, the majority opinion (as brilliantly exposed in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent) went to inordinate and irrational lengths to reconcile the decision with the Court’s precedents, most obviously Stenberg (which struck down state “partial-birth” bans), Casey (which solidified a “health exception” to any permittable abortion restrictions), and Roe itself. Clearly the replacement of O’Conner by Alito made this result possible. But the failure of Alito and Roberts to join the concurring opinion by Thomas and Scalia calling for a reversal of all these precedents means that a further change in the Court will probably be necessary to produce a more fundamental shift in the constitutional law of abortion rights. And that’s one of many reasons why Democrats need to win the presidency in 2008. . .

An actual doctor will tell you that this procedure is used to save the life of a woman who will die unless the malformed fetus within is surgically removed, or to remove an already dead fetus where the womb is dying, or in other grotesque and horrible and RARE circumstances. It is an emergency procedure, period, end of story.

In other words, this is a fake issue, and the judges had no more business having opinions on this than Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo by videotape. Less, in fact, he’s actually a doctor.

Those who argue this on the ick factor (egregious, that’s you) are missing the point, and falling into the anti-abortion trap and letting fanatics frame the issue.
Cutting someone’s skull open while they are awake sounds horrific, right? But brain surgery to remove a tumor, saving the life of the patient–not so horrific.

Leave this sort of procedure where it belongs–between a desperate woman, trying to save her own life, and the doctors who know what they are doing and can save her.

The courts and anyone else should butt out.

Hey Nolo, if I sounded shrill it wasn’t intentional; no problem with you on my end- we’re just talking here, right? I don’t know what other options are available for 2nd trimester abortions but I know D&E is the most common, which makes me think it is the safest and simplest way. Peace indeed; we’ll save any anger for the “other side”.

sorry for the slow response,
i was off-the-grid most of the
day. . . like i said before, i am
in agreement that it is wrongly-
decided. . . yet, i believe we will
keep the right to choose. . . even
under this very conservative court.

thanks for writing back — be well.

Second, in Januray 2009, progressive Democrats will expand their leads in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, including making the Senate filibuster proof. Plus, DINO-DLC’er Blue Dog Democrats will have a choice: side with progressive Democrats or support the theocratic terrorists in our midst who endanger the lives of our nation’s women. Any DINO-DLC Blue Dog Democrats who choose the latter should be challenged and removed from office.

Thus, in January 2009, Democrats can pass a filibuster-proof law overturning this hardcore, theocratic terrorist Republican law that tells doctors and women that they no longer have a say in a woman’s health decisions.

Of course, a legal challenge will ensue which will go before the Supreme Court, and which will make the five men on the court who support religious terrorism squirm as they try to assert that the Democratic-passed law is unconstitutional while claiming they aren’t judicial activists doing the bidding of our own homegrown religious terrorists.

BTW, between now and 2009, I just wonder how many fundamentalist women suffering from a medical emergency late in a pregnancy will either die or experience extensive medical problems because their doctor cannot treat them to save their life or mitigate their suffering? Because from what I can tell, these late-term emergencies don’t discriminate. In other words, these five male SCOTUS assholes just signed the death warrant for any number of American women.

Here’s my fundamental question: If we don’t have a right to privacy, what good are all the other alleged rights?

Bush and his ilk don’t think we need those either. Except, of course, for the sacred right to bear arms.

I think you need to take a closer look. They only care about the “sacred right to bear arms” because it gets them votes. If they are able to establish their permanent majority, that too will fall.

oldtree @ 219

our supreme court has seen several people confirmed that are worthy of impeachment. they have said and done things that make them out of touch with the people. they must be removed

This has worried me for years. But how do we get rid of supreme court justices?

The Supreme Court can be overruled by Congress. Ask one your attorneys for specifics though, this is from what I remember a while back.

our supreme court has seen several people confirmed that are worthy of impeachment. they have said and done things that make them out of touch with the people. they must be removed

This has worried me for years. But how do we get rid of supreme court justices?