Comments on: The US Supreme Court’s ruling on Gonzales v. Carhart http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/ Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:29:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-366974 tigtog Sat, 12 May 2007 22:39:50 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-366974 <strong>You do <em>not</em> have a friend who gave birth to a 16 weeks fetus which is now a healthy child.</strong> If you did the whole world would know about that child, because that is at least 5 weeks earlier than the earliest known surviving premature infant (who is a sickly mentally and physically disabled child, not a healthy child). Intact D&Es are only ever undertaken when (a) the foetus is not viable (thus those arguments of yours are invalid) or (b) the mother needs to stop being pregnant urgently in order to deal with a life-threatening medical condition, in which cases intact D&E is the quickest way to evacuate the womb so that maternal-lifesaving treatment can begin (as well as protecting her future fertility). You care so little about the health, lives and future fertility of women that you are willing to lie. You do not have a friend who gave birth to a 16 weeks fetus which is now a healthy child. If you did the whole world would know about that child, because that is at least 5 weeks earlier than the earliest known surviving premature infant (who is a sickly mentally and physically disabled child, not a healthy child).

Intact D&Es are only ever undertaken when (a) the foetus is not viable (thus those arguments of yours are invalid) or (b) the mother needs to stop being pregnant urgently in order to deal with a life-threatening medical condition, in which cases intact D&E is the quickest way to evacuate the womb so that maternal-lifesaving treatment can begin (as well as protecting her future fertility).

You care so little about the health, lives and future fertility of women that you are willing to lie.

]]> By: ohplease http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-366959 ohplease Sat, 12 May 2007 18:36:13 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-366959 You have to be kidding me if you think that intact d&e is acceptable. There are many other ways in which to abort a viable fetus. To entertain this idea that in the rare cases intact d&e is the the best choice is murder. For those who want the fetus early deliveries are available. I was born premature and have friends that have given birth to fetus' at 16 weeks and the fetus is now a healthy child. For those who at the outset did not intend to keep the fetus, she should have had the abortion early on. Kennedy was right to analyze the issue with the as-applied standard. The fact of the matter is still, where is the line drawn between an abortion and infantcide? You have to be kidding me if you think that intact d&e is acceptable. There are many other ways in which to abort a viable fetus. To entertain this idea that in the rare cases intact d&e is the the best choice is murder. For those who want the fetus early deliveries are available. I was born premature and have friends that have given birth to fetus’ at 16 weeks and the fetus is now a healthy child. For those who at the outset did not intend to keep the fetus, she should have had the abortion early on. Kennedy was right to analyze the issue with the as-applied standard. The fact of the matter is still, where is the line drawn between an abortion and infantcide?

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362669 Mark Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:27:40 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362669 Pictures, a thousand words, etc: http://feministing.com/archives/006902.html Pictures, a thousand words, etc:

http://feministing.com/archives/006902.html

]]> By: Donatello http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362657 Donatello Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:58:59 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362657 h…th cnsrshp cwrds hv rrd thr gly hds. Gld t s tht frdm f spch s lv nd wll…s lng s y’r lbrl. TgDg, wht th CG clls prfrbl, th M clls “bd mdcn� nd “bsclly rplsv.� S pck yr brd (bvsly y lrdy hv). h…th cnsrshp cwrds hv rrd thr gly hds. Gld t s tht frdm f spch s lv nd wll…s lng s y’r lbrl.
TgDg, wht th CG clls prfrbl, th M clls “bd mdcn� nd “bsclly rplsv.� S pck yr brd (bvsly y lrdy hv).

]]> By: Christine Keeler http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362603 Christine Keeler Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:01:13 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362603 <blockquote>I appreciate that the die-hards have a larger agenda.</blockquote> To make the uterus unconstitutional.

I appreciate that the die-hards have a larger agenda.

To make the uterus unconstitutional.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362529 tigtog Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:21:54 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362529 Excellent reading at <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/big-news-about-gonzales-v-carhart.html" rel="nofollow">Balkinization</a> on the informed consent issues. Post updated to link. Excellent reading at Balkinization on the informed consent issues. Post updated to link.

]]> By: Paul Norton http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362481 Paul Norton Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:31:08 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362481 <blockquote>Please also do not confuse “anti-abortion� with “right-wing�, as “Mnemosyne� has done. Much of the left, at least historically, has also been strongly opposed to abortion. As with many questions of the freedom of the individual against the interference of the state, there is considerable confusion between positions of the “Left� and those of the “Right�.</blockquote> A fair point historically, and still true today in parts of Latin America and possibly other parts of the world, and true in Australia if you include socially and religiously conservative social democrats in your definition of the left. Having said that I have not come across anyone with anti-abortion views (as distinct from squeamishness about the issue) in my time in the ALP Left and the Greens, and such positions would be unheard-of in the contemporary far left.

Please also do not confuse “anti-abortion� with “right-wing�, as “Mnemosyne� has done. Much of the left, at least historically, has also been strongly opposed to abortion. As with many questions of the freedom of the individual against the interference of the state, there is considerable confusion between positions of the “Left� and those of the “Right�.

A fair point historically, and still true today in parts of Latin America and possibly other parts of the world, and true in Australia if you include socially and religiously conservative social democrats in your definition of the left. Having said that I have not come across anyone with anti-abortion views (as distinct from squeamishness about the issue) in my time in the ALP Left and the Greens, and such positions would be unheard-of in the contemporary far left.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362479 tigtog Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:16:14 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362479 So you know something that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't? So you know something that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn’t?

]]> By: [Trolling as] Hilary Clinton http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362478 [Trolling as] Hilary Clinton Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:06 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362478 <em>[typical slutshaming not relevant to this post deleted and moniker edited - moderator]</em> Point all you want to the "wanted" pregnancies gone horribly wrong that might require abortion in late term, the medical facts don't bear out the need for partial-birth abortion (or IDX or ID&E or however you want to classify it). [typical slutshaming not relevant to this post deleted and moniker edited - moderator]

Point all you want to the “wanted” pregnancies gone horribly wrong that might require abortion in late term, the medical facts don’t bear out the need for partial-birth abortion (or IDX or ID&E or however you want to classify it).

]]> By: John McNair http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362474 John McNair Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:51:08 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362474 The end game of Gonzales and his “mates� (Bush etc) is increasing the number of abortions, not decreasing it. He couldn’t care less about human rights. What more can one expect from this corrupt individual? Just look at one of the many schemes he’s involved in like this one: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861 The end game of Gonzales and his “mates� (Bush etc) is increasing the number of abortions, not decreasing it. He couldn’t care less about human rights. What more can one expect from this corrupt individual? Just look at one of the many schemes he’s involved in like this one:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861

]]> By: philip travers http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362470 philip travers Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:40:08 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362470 The Reynolds number has defined all the Left and all the right in a new way,that I cannot quite understand why,as to relevance,factual or by any other means. The Reynolds number has defined all the Left and all the right in a new way,that I cannot quite understand why,as to relevance,factual or by any other means.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362466 tigtog Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:27 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362466 Andrew, I appreciate that the die-hards have a larger agenda. The point reached in the Pandagon thread at that point was that they'd managed to sway the 'soft middle' of the electorate largely through emotive descriptions of the IDX procedure that amounted to "ewww, gross". SL, It appears that the wedge part of the decision is the justification for dropping the health exception, leaving only the life exception. It's on page 37 of the 39 page majority <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.html" rel="nofollow">decision</a> written by Justice Kennedy: <blockquote> This is the proper manner to protect the health of the woman if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used. In an as-applied challenge the nature of the medical risk can be better quantified and balanced than in a facial attack. […] As the previous sections of this opinion explain, respondents have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases. Casey, supra, at 895 (opinion of the Court). We note that the statute here applies to all instances in which the doctor proposes to use the prohibited procedure, not merely those in which the woman suffers from medical complications. It is neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role to resolve questions of constitutionality with respect to each potential situation that might develop.</blockquote> It means women will have to show case by case that their particular termination should be granted a health exception because the ban shouldn't apply in their particular instance, and when/if they win that exception won't appply to any other woman who doesn't have the exact same health threat. And how are women going to run such cases in the throes of a pregnancy health crisis? Kennedy doesn't expect them to: <blockquote>It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions.</blockquote> The increase in stillbirth and early infant mortality figures as these babies are delivered obviously doesn't concern him nor the distress (and increased physical danger) of women forced to carry for weeks or months and deliver a foetus they know is not going to survive (for the minority of cases where the foetus is not alread dead and requiring immediate removal to prevent uterine infection). Justice Ginsburg's <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html" rel="nofollow">dissent</a> skewers Kennedy on this and most of his other rationalisations. How I wish she wasn't 75. Andrew,

I appreciate that the die-hards have a larger agenda. The point reached in the Pandagon thread at that point was that they’d managed to sway the ’soft middle’ of the electorate largely through emotive descriptions of the IDX procedure that amounted to “ewww, gross”.

SL,

It appears that the wedge part of the decision is the justification for dropping the health exception, leaving only the life exception. It’s on page 37 of the 39 page majority decision written by Justice Kennedy:

This is the proper manner to protect the health of the woman if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used. In an as-applied challenge the nature of the medical risk can be better quantified and balanced than in a facial attack. […]

As the previous sections of this opinion explain, respondents have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases. Casey, supra, at 895 (opinion of the Court). We note that the statute here applies to all instances in which the doctor proposes to use the prohibited procedure, not merely those in which the woman suffers from medical complications. It is neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role to resolve questions of constitutionality with respect to each potential situation that might develop.

It means women will have to show case by case that their particular termination should be granted a health exception because the ban shouldn’t apply in their particular instance, and when/if they win that exception won’t appply to any other woman who doesn’t have the exact same health threat.

And how are women going to run such cases in the throes of a pregnancy health crisis? Kennedy doesn’t expect them to:

It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions.

The increase in stillbirth and early infant mortality figures as these babies are delivered obviously doesn’t concern him nor the distress (and increased physical danger) of women forced to carry for weeks or months and deliver a foetus they know is not going to survive (for the minority of cases where the foetus is not alread dead and requiring immediate removal to prevent uterine infection).

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent skewers Kennedy on this and most of his other rationalisations. How I wish she wasn’t 75.

]]> By: professor rat http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362464 professor rat Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:59:39 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362464 Th lnr rghtwngnts stcked th crt. Ths s Drd Sctt tm gn. ts Gld n mrkkk. Mn Kmpf ws cnsdrbly wrttn/dtd by Cthlc prst. Htlr ws rsd s cthlc. H drmt f bng n bbt whn h ws yng. Htlr ws frvr stdyng th hrrchy f th Jst rgnstn. Hmmlr, hd f th SS, ws cthlc. Th SS ws st p n th Jst mdl. Gbbls ws cthlc. Hss, th cmp cmmndnt of Aschwtz, ws cthlc. Frnk,‘the btchr f Plnd’, ws cthlic. Mssln ws cthlc. Frnc ws cthlc. Slzr ws cthlc. Th wrst dcttrshps nd grtst scl inqults n Sth mrc r ndr cthlc dmnstrtns. <em>[disemvoweled by moderator and link removed]</em> Th lnr rghtwngnts stcked th crt. Ths s Drd Sctt tm gn.
ts Gld n mrkkk.
Mn Kmpf ws cnsdrbly wrttn/dtd by Cthlc prst.
Htlr ws rsd s cthlc. H drmt f bng n bbt whn h ws yng.
Htlr ws frvr stdyng th hrrchy f th Jst rgnstn.

Hmmlr, hd f th SS, ws cthlc. Th SS ws st p n th Jst mdl.
Gbbls ws cthlc.
Hss, th cmp cmmndnt of Aschwtz, ws cthlc.
Frnk,‘the btchr f Plnd’, ws cthlic.

Mssln ws cthlc. Frnc ws cthlc. Slzr ws cthlc. Th wrst dcttrshps nd grtst scl inqults n Sth mrc r ndr cthlc dmnstrtns.

[disemvoweled by moderator and link removed]

]]> By: skepticlawyer http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362458 skepticlawyer Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:52:44 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362458 What Andrew said. I do think the anti-abortion munsters are after the whole shebang. I don't think they'll get it, mind you (Roberts is too respectful of judicial authority for that to happen). But they'll take any small scraps on offer, if only so they can get their jollies through state interference in personal moral choices. What Andrew said. I do think the anti-abortion munsters are after the whole shebang. I don’t think they’ll get it, mind you (Roberts is too respectful of judicial authority for that to happen). But they’ll take any small scraps on offer, if only so they can get their jollies through state interference in personal moral choices.

]]> By: Andrew Reynolds http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362455 Andrew Reynolds Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:39:34 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/19/the-us-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gonzales-v-carhart/#comment-362455 tigtog, The point the US anti-abortion campaigners are making here is not "eww, gross", it is a part of a continuing campaign to try to get abortion itself banned through a death of 1,000 cuts. They realise that trying to take out Roe vs. Wade in one jump will not succeed, despite the recent changes to the court, so taking action one step at a time is the next best thing. Please also do not confuse "anti-abortion" with "right-wing", as "Mnemosyne" has done. Much of the left, at least historically, has also been strongly opposed to abortion. As with many questions of the freedom of the individual against the interference of the state, there is considerable confusion between positions of the "Left" and those of the "Right". tigtog,
The point the US anti-abortion campaigners are making here is not “eww, gross”, it is a part of a continuing campaign to try to get abortion itself banned through a death of 1,000 cuts. They realise that trying to take out Roe vs. Wade in one jump will not succeed, despite the recent changes to the court, so taking action one step at a time is the next best thing.
Please also do not confuse “anti-abortion” with “right-wing”, as “Mnemosyne” has done. Much of the left, at least historically, has also been strongly opposed to abortion. As with many questions of the freedom of the individual against the interference of the state, there is considerable confusion between positions of the “Left” and those of the “Right”.

]]>