Quick hits
Via Daily KOS, signs of growing opposition to the "automatic" confirmation of Samuel Alito to the top court. Dissension in the ranks?
An interesting take on the unpopularity of violent, radical Islamicist messages in the mainstream Arab press, courtesy of BBC News. Seems like the U.S. isn't the only thing despised by the majority of Islamic nations.
And Jaye Ramsey Sutter writes at BlondeSense about the true implications of the Supreme Court's refusal to confirm a federal appeals court decision on the unconstitutionality of the New Hampshire Parental Notification Act. Time to pay attention, ladies - those mandatory burqas are just around the corner.
An interesting take on the unpopularity of violent, radical Islamicist messages in the mainstream Arab press, courtesy of BBC News. Seems like the U.S. isn't the only thing despised by the majority of Islamic nations.
And Jaye Ramsey Sutter writes at BlondeSense about the true implications of the Supreme Court's refusal to confirm a federal appeals court decision on the unconstitutionality of the New Hampshire Parental Notification Act. Time to pay attention, ladies - those mandatory burqas are just around the corner.
posted by Bob P @ 3:17 PM
2 Comments:
Sorry, but I must disagree with your interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, and I disagree (again) with the premise put forth by Jaye Sutter that "any" regulation on abortion is an affront to women's rights and means the demise of Roe.
Especially when the "restriction" we're talking about is parental notification of a minor child. Roe does NOT provide ultimate authority that abortion rights take precedence over all other rights, including parental rights over there minor children.
Roe spoke to the right to privacy, and the freedom from prosecution for a woman - a woman of majority status. And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this case dealt with parental "notification" only, not parental "approval."
The Court rejected (rightfully) the premise of the law because there is no provision for the health of the minor child in an emergency situation.
"Legal" abortion does not mean "unrestricted" abortion. I'm growing tired of hearing that the two are one in the same. There's a reason a "minor" is still considered a "minor" and parents have responsibility for them, and their actions.
A doctor can't perform any procedure on my child without my approval (much less my knowledge) unless it's in an emergency. Why should abortion be any different?
As you know, n.j., in a very broad sense I respect your views on parental notification, though we're not in agreement. In far too many cases, the idea of parental "notification" most certainly is aimed at parental "approval."
Or, more accurately, disapproval.
I still feel that Sutter's overall criticism of the Court is a nuanced one. I, too, wonder why the Supremes would cite a previous ruling as their reason for not overruling the lower court, but at the same time not officially affirm that lower court ruling.
To me, this could be the first sign of a calculated shift in the Supreme Court's direction on this hot-button issue. At the very least, their "non-decision" leaves a lot of wiggle room for abortion opponents to rewrite legislation that will chip away at women's reproductive rights, if worded cleverly enough.
Naturally, as a parent myself, it's hard to argue with your statement that, "There's a reason a 'minor' is still considered a 'minor' and parents have responsibility for them, and their actions." But a sexually active young adult is already making decisions outside the purview of her parents. And in the case of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape by an uncle, let's say, or incest in an abusive home, or even consensual sex with an "unapproved" boyfriend, parental notification is not a mandate that will solve a damn thing - and in many cases will only make a difficult situation worse.
I have a belief that in homes where there is honest and open communication between parent and child, that notification will evolve on its own as a continuation of the "circle of trust" already established in such a family. But we both know that there are plenty of homes where required notification of, shall we say, less than ideal parents will lead to physical punishment, or social banishment, or the young woman in question being forced against her will to carry a child to term because of the religious, cultural, or political leanings of those parents.
Accidental pregnancy is not a crime, nor is it heart surgery, both of which I would agree necessitate parental involvement. But if parents are blissfully ignorant of the fact that their child is engaging in activities of an "adult" nature, their 11th-hour participation in a consequence of that behavior at the insistance of the State is simply unnecessary - and a little too late.
These statutes have one purpose in mind, and that is to deny as many pregnancy terminations as possible, regardless of the effect that may have on the life of the young woman most directly involved. And mandated notification of parents is simply not something I can support, in theory or practice.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home