Courts • Supreme Court

Supremes, Roe and Women, the sequel

April 23, 2007
by Celeste Fremon
7 Comments


A few more interesting takes on the recent Supreme Court decision, Gonzales vs. Carhart, regarding partial birth abortions.

This one from David Bryne of the Chicago Trib explains why he doesn’t think the sky is really falling as a result of the new decision, despite the fact, he says, that Barak Obama and the LA Times say otherwise.

US News and World Report also has a thoughtful essay in its upcoming April 30 issue that suggests either the decision is a kind of middle ground that, as Bryne says, reflects the compromise much of the country wants. Or it’s really bad, and, as such, is going to be a monster wedge issue that may well bring a lot of angry democrats roaring to the polls in ’08.

7 Comments

  • The first comment on Obama’s blog (quoted below) seems to personify what the majority of centrist democrats and liberal republicans feel about abortion. Partial birth abortion is opposed by 70% of the electorate and 57% oppose abortion to end an UNWANTED pregnancy, while 88 support abortion to save a woman’s life. – http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

    It appears that you cannot be sensible about this issue and still be a democrat.

    I thought that Mr. Obama was a bit more of a centrist – a third way, Clintonian-type of Democrat and I (and many others I know here in the centrist state of Ohio) was pretty excited about that.

    However, his response to the Supreme Court verdict was as strident as NARAL’s. That’s sad. He needs to know that he is carrying the banner of many who long to find a Democrat to support who are not in favor of “pro-choice” talk. Moving to the left will not help in what, let’s face it, is a fairly conservative general electorate.

    Further, I find support for abortion to be inconsistent with opposition to the war – killing is killing and I’m against it in all cases.

    One has to enjoy historical quotes that seem so current when the subject is replaced:

    Douglas, the Democrat, took the pro-choice position. He said that each state should decide for itself whether or not it wanted slavery. Douglas denied that he was pro-slavery. In fact, at one time he professed to be “personally opposed” to it. At the same time, Douglas was reluctant to impose his moral views on the new territories. Douglas affirmed the right of each state to choose. He invoked the great principle of freedom of choice.

    Lincoln, the Republican, disagreed. Lincoln argued that choice cannot be exercised without reference to the content of the choice. How can it make sense to permit a person to choose to enslave another human being? How can self-determination be invoked to deny others self-determination? How can choice be used to negate choice? At its deepest level, Lincoln is saying that the legitimacy of freedom as a political principle is itself dependent on a doctrine of natural rights that arises out of a specific understanding of human nature and human dignity.

    If Negroes are like hogs, Lincoln said, then the pro-choice position is right, and there is no problem with choosing to own them. Of course they may be governed without their consent. But if Negroes are human beings, then it is grotesquely evil to treat them like hogs, to buy and sell them as objects of merchandise.

  • Those who ike to compare the anti-choice people to the civil rights crusaders or anti-slavery forces forget one thing. People like Wendall Phillips and Thad Stevens had plans to help the new freedmen after emancipation – Phillips favored full equality including voting rights.
    From what I have seen of the anti-choice types, all interest in the babies dies with their entry into this world. Then the mothers become “Coyotes” or “Wild Wolves” (said by one GOP Congressman during the “Welfare Reform” debate) and treated as such. Quoting Big Daddy again: “There’s a powerful odor of Mendacity here!”

  • rlc, then you haven’t seen much, and you should call the pro-life movement by their preferred name or let’s just refer to abortionists as “baby killers.” Pro-life oranizations counsel women on raising their children and in providing adoptions for those who can’t. “From what I have seen of the ‘anti-life’ types, all interest in the babies dies with their ‘murder.'” At least the pro-life people give them a chance.

  • Gadzooks, when I post about this issue it does bring out the worst behavior in everyone.

    RLC, I’m for quoting the fabulous and amazing Mr. Williams in whatever context, whenever possible.

    And the quote from Big Daddy in “Cat” is often a handy one.

    Remind me to tell you my one and only Tennessee Williams story, told to me by, of all people, Truman Capote, in my one and only conversation with him.

  • Maybe you can tell it to Gore Vidal this weekend at the LAT Book Fest. There’s a trifecta!

Leave a Comment