Powered by Blogger

Who links to me?

Monday, January 23, 2006

33 Years of Choice

Unable to find a doctor willing to expose himself to criminal charges, a young girl's quest to avoid teenage motherhood takes a disturbing turn. She turns to the black market, composed primarily of drug dealers and weapons peddlers, to find someone willing to terminate her pregnancy. In the worst part of town, a dirty table in a musty room provides the girl with her only hope of choice.

All alone, the girl lays down on the cold table. She hands over a wad of cash. A man, lacking any medical experience, "sanitizes" his instrument by running it under hot water for a few moments. He then unravels his instrument, a rusty coat hanger, and plunges it inside the girl. The horrific tearing of her interior sends the girl into horrific pain. Blood gushes everywhere and the man starts to panic. Within minutes, the girl is no more. Her cold, emotionless, dead body is all that remains.

This story happened every day before Roe v. Wade guaranteed women the right to choose. Today is the 33 year anniversary of this landmark Supreme Court decision. The Court correctly forced states to follow the Constitution and uphold a woman's private right to make her own decisions regarding her medical care. Every poll indicates that a super-majority of Americans favor choice and oppose governmental restrictions on valid medical procedures.

But across a sea of red states, groups inspired by religion alone seek to enforce their beliefs and others. These radicals seek to change the law via a novel Constitutional theory. Under so-called "originalism," precedent means nothing and the only Constitutional interpretation that matters is that of the majority of the current Supreme Court. 33 years of established jurisprudence are irrelevant in the eyes of these madmen.

President Bush is the leader of this group. Today Bush publicly showed his flagrant disrespect for the rule of the law and the Supreme Court in general. Bush declared the anniversary of Roe v. Wade "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." Not only does this day contradict the law of the United States, it actively mixes religion with law:

When we seek to advance science and improve our lives, we must always preserve human dignity and remember that human life is a gift from our Creator. We must not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it.

What if you don't "remember that human life is a gift from our Creator" because you don't believe that? In Bush's version of America, you don't count. The Constitution itself doesn't count, only the religious beliefs of the minority in America who seek to replace the law with the King James Bible.

In his declaration, Bush brags about all the work he has done to weaken Roe and steal women's Constitutional rights:

America is making great strides in our efforts to protect human life. One of my first actions as President was to sign an order banning the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. Over the past 5 years, I also have been proud to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and a ban on partial-birth abortion.

America is making great strides in Bush's efforts to steal women's rights in favor of flagrant violations of the separation between church and state. It's fundamentally un-American to use religion as the sole justification for undermining the settled law of the Supreme Court. Today is an important holiday and Bush's disgraceful proclamation is yet another reason why you can be certain that both Roberts and Alito will vote to overturn Roe.

Comments on ""


Blogger Snave said ... (3:41 PM) : 

This is a very good blog, well-written, well-researched. I admire you for your completeness. I tend to go from the gut, which lays me open to be filleted from time to time, but what the heck (see my comments/response on your excellent Martin Luther King post below). Cheers!


Blogger Kevin W. said ... (4:58 PM) : 

Roe v. Wade was not a well decided case. The basis for the so-called right to an abortion is based on this idea that Americans have a guaranteed right to privacy. Now sure, we'd like to think that is the case, and I'm sure the Founding Fathers would think the same, but, unfortunately, they forgot to actually write in the Constitution. The best the wrote down was the 4th Amendment, illegalizing an illegal search and seizure. Not exactly guaranteed privacy. The right to an abortion is on shaky grounds. It is not a matter of convienence or practicality; that abortion is somehow to the benefit of those who are aborted. It is an issue of Constitutional law. Roe v. Wade was a poor decision. The Constitutional is not clearly pro-life nor is it clearly pro-abortion, therefore, it is an issue for each state to decide on its own. To label it an issue of women's rights is to poorly understand the issue.


Anonymous tom said ... (12:24 AM) : 

Here are some statistics which may surprise some people. If these statistics are to be believed it puts those who morally oppose abortion in a difficult situation when deciding whether abortion should be legal.

"Although abortion is outlawed in Brazil except in rare circumstances, the country has one of the highest abortion rates in the developing world. The Health Ministry estimates that 31 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. That works out to about 1.4 million abortions a year, mostly clandestine.

In the United States, where abortion was legalized in 1973, about 25 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. In the Netherlands, a country with some of the world's most liberal abortion laws, the ratio is closer to 10 percent."


Blogger Tran said ... (12:44 PM) : 

I think many people often overlook this simple truth: someone may believe in a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would choose to have an abortion.

For instance, I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms, but I don't own a gun and have no plan to purchase one in the near future. No one would willingly give up their right to vote; yet, less than 1/2 the nation votes. The mere wish to retain one's rights, alone, simply does not guarantee that one will exercise them. Similarly, the incidence of abortion in any country is likely attributable (in part) to a variety of factors having nothing to do with whether it is legal or not, such as moral perceptions, financial status, and other social pressures not taken into account in simple statistics.


Blogger Michael Alexander said ... (3:14 PM) : 

Kevin W. never read the 9th amendment. It states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Using natural law and the previously recognized right to privacy inherent in substantive due process, a woman's right to choose her own course of medical procedures is protected by our Constitution.

Kevin W is using the kind of ultra-super-duper originalist line of thought that is perverting the law into a farce and threatening our collective freedoms. They ignore what the Constitution says, ignore precedent and then rewrite the law to do whatever conservatives want in the name of "the framers' intentions," regardless of whether or not the framers actually thought that way.


Anonymous Tom said ... (1:42 PM) : 

I thought Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th amendment?


Blogger Michael Alexander said ... (6:42 PM) : 

Roe v. Wade is based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment, but I was just refuting Kevin's argument that "all enumerated rights are in the Constitution." The 9th amendment negates that line of argument.


post a comment