Actually, as someone emphatically Pro-Choice, this makes me worry about her less. Mostly because you -want- someone who is going to rule on a matter of law and not activism.
The trouble with Roe v. Wade (which I am all for, by the way) is that as it was explained to me as a matter of law it has some problems. Ie. that it circumvents states rights and some other things I'm not totally clear on. Which is what makes it a controversial decision even beyond the abortion aspect. And I believe it's why it's always been a bit on shaky ground, even without the "moral" debate part.
Now, when it comes to things like this, I am not pro states rights in the sense that I don't think you should have different rights depending on where you live. Like civil rights (such as the marriage discussion), the ability to choose what's best for you reproductively shouldn't change from state to state. And even though we do have Roe v. Wade it doesn't stop the states from severely limiting that ability.
An awful lot of law is built on precedence on interpretation. So a lot of things will stem from the particulars of a case. We do need to be vigilant about abortion rights, though, as I don't see that ever being an issue that won't be hotly contested.
@tiredfairy: I worked with an OBGYN who used to provide abortions before Roe in NY. There was this time period where you could get abortions in NY and CA, and apparently women would bus in from all over the country to get abortions.
Under Roe, we have the right to seek an abortion, but not a right to access. The result of this is that there are no abortion providers in many areas of the country. When I worked at an abortion clinic in CA, we often had women coming from out of state to get second trimester abortions. We also had women coming from other states because the one provider in their area was booked for a month or more.
While I think Roe needs to be preserved, I can't help but be frustrated by the success of the anti-choice movement in closing down access to women in poor and rural areas. I wish sometimes that the media focus on Roe would also include some discussion of the issue of access. So many people are unaware that there are places where it is impossible to get an abortion unless you have the time and money to travel far.
I have to give a shout out to ACCESS, a group in California that helps women get funding and housing for abortion services.
"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
There, she's only the messenger. Once she's on the highest bench, though, she can rewrite the message.
When even Elisabeth Hasselbeck is saying "I think this is a great pick, she follows the law. she voted for abortion people and against them" then I think we had all just better calm down. Sotomayor ought to breeze through confirmation.
And while Filipovic has a good point about us not needing to do the right wingers' work for them, it's worth noting that being upset about a few of her decisions is not exactly the same as saying she's a member of the Latino KKK.
"the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
If she's saying that elected officials are free to act based on the viewpoints of their constituents, then yes, of course. And if that means acting against abortion rights, I follow that. And I suppose she's making an objective observation of precedent, not giving her viewpoint.
But since abortion is still legal, it should be treated as such, right? How can the government take public funds to act against something still legal? I suppose by chipping away at the right through backdoor arrangements. I wish I understood more about the law.
It terrifies me that abortion remains so hotly contested. I can't imagine what it would be to lose that right. And I think if more women realized that this could be a real possibility, we'd see more action.
I think there's another reason, beyond legal opinions, that people are afraid that she's not pro-choice, and it's less P.C. She's Catholic, and while many Catholics are pro-choice, many are not. When she is seated, as I'm hoping she is, the Court will have a majority of Catholic Justices and I think that scares people in the pro-choice camp.
She's not the most activist pro-choice judge I've ever seen, I'll give them that. But she's done what an appellate level judge is supposed to do: stick to precedent.
And the China asylum case doesn't worry me one bit. Choice is about choosing whether or not to have a child. By granting asylum, we enabled that woman to make her choice.
@Trulymadlyme: but why would we talk about something difficult like actual opinions? that would require reading and other hard things. We can tell her race and gender just by looking at her. Form your opinions from this information.
@Lin-Z [linguist on duty]: Yeah. The piece was one of the few reasoned articles I've read about her jurisprudence. Most of it is character stuff. She'll get confirmed. Easily. I just don't know whether that's a good thing from the standpoint of the criminal, the woman, the illegal immigrant, the disabled person alleging discrimination, etc. From what I've read, she's a left(ish) leaning moderate.
The people on Politico are nuts. I cannot believe some of those people. Some of them seem to be willing to absolve the federal government of any wrongdoing during Hurricane Katrina. One or two are saying that it was only the fault of the local and state governments. Alright guys, if that's so then during the next hurricane season the federal government will simply stay out of it. If you think the federal government doesn't have anything to do during those kind of crises, then you can handle them on your own and see how you do.
As to Hillary's confirmation being held up, it's just more partisan Republican dim-wittery. This is their way of punishing Bill Clinton more, nothing more, nothing less. They wanted to throw him out on his ear, couldn't, so now they'll make Hillary's life (and by side effect, Obama's life) miserable. Time for the ass-hattery to end -- it's this kind of garbage that got this country into it's current woes, and it's time for it to end so we can get to work. The ground has indeed shifted.
@NefariousNewt: What I don't get is don't they realize how sad and petty it makes them seem? Clinton left office nearly a decade ago, and he is still their go-to bogeyman that helps them scare up fundraising dollars. You'd think they'd see how pathetic it is and, I don't know, maybe focus on doing something positive for their base to rally around? (Not that I want that; their idea of "positive" seems to be forcing poor women to have babies they can't afford and forcing gay people to pretend they are happily hetero.)
Well, I guess an extended period of bliss is just not in the cards for me. Because whilst awesome amounts of happy, hopey, PATRIOTIC Obama-admirers swarmed D.C. (and other gathering places across the country) to support and welcome our new president, the other half of this nation's inhabitants are still their bitter, bigoted, selfish selves. Back to misanthropy.
The comments for the politico article about the bush swipes on obama's new website - they make me stab. Yes, calling out the previous administration so sharply might offend some people, but if I read/hear one more person call him Hussein and consider that an insult or a policy criticism, I'm going to hunt these people down and pull all the hair from their bodies with tweezers. I'll start with arm hairs, then legs, then chest/belly, head, and end off with pubes. That's how that goes.
Also, someone sent out a text saying "the monkey got out of the cage" yesterday using the University of Florida's emergency alert texting system yesterday. Seriously. Every student and employee at UF rang in the new administration with a monkey text.
Upon reflection, I'm very glad that I received my bad medical news yesterday before Obama was sworn in. I'll just look at it as the final "Fuck You And Everything You Love, MorningGloria" of the Bush years. America and my uterus will begin anew.
05/29/09
The trouble with Roe v. Wade (which I am all for, by the way) is that as it was explained to me as a matter of law it has some problems. Ie. that it circumvents states rights and some other things I'm not totally clear on. Which is what makes it a controversial decision even beyond the abortion aspect. And I believe it's why it's always been a bit on shaky ground, even without the "moral" debate part.
Now, when it comes to things like this, I am not pro states rights in the sense that I don't think you should have different rights depending on where you live. Like civil rights (such as the marriage discussion), the ability to choose what's best for you reproductively shouldn't change from state to state. And even though we do have Roe v. Wade it doesn't stop the states from severely limiting that ability.
An awful lot of law is built on precedence on interpretation. So a lot of things will stem from the particulars of a case. We do need to be vigilant about abortion rights, though, as I don't see that ever being an issue that won't be hotly contested.
05/29/09
Under Roe, we have the right to seek an abortion, but not a right to access. The result of this is that there are no abortion providers in many areas of the country. When I worked at an abortion clinic in CA, we often had women coming from out of state to get second trimester abortions. We also had women coming from other states because the one provider in their area was booked for a month or more.
While I think Roe needs to be preserved, I can't help but be frustrated by the success of the anti-choice movement in closing down access to women in poor and rural areas. I wish sometimes that the media focus on Roe would also include some discussion of the issue of access. So many people are unaware that there are places where it is impossible to get an abortion unless you have the time and money to travel far.
I have to give a shout out to ACCESS, a group in California that helps women get funding and housing for abortion services.
[whrc-access.org]
05/29/09
There, she's only the messenger. Once she's on the highest bench, though, she can rewrite the message.
05/29/09
Downcast, but silent and strong looking hero with a plucky spirited looking heroine. It's not just me thinking this is it?
05/29/09
05/29/09
And while Filipovic has a good point about us not needing to do the right wingers' work for them, it's worth noting that being upset about a few of her decisions is not exactly the same as saying she's a member of the Latino KKK.
05/29/09
If she's saying that elected officials are free to act based on the viewpoints of their constituents, then yes, of course. And if that means acting against abortion rights, I follow that. And I suppose she's making an objective observation of precedent, not giving her viewpoint.
But since abortion is still legal, it should be treated as such, right? How can the government take public funds to act against something still legal? I suppose by chipping away at the right through backdoor arrangements. I wish I understood more about the law.
It terrifies me that abortion remains so hotly contested. I can't imagine what it would be to lose that right. And I think if more women realized that this could be a real possibility, we'd see more action.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
Thanks Megan.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
And the China asylum case doesn't worry me one bit. Choice is about choosing whether or not to have a child. By granting asylum, we enabled that woman to make her choice.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
[www.slate.com]
This decision makes me think she might not be as liberal as republicans fear and democrats hope.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
Also, someone sent out a text saying "the monkey got out of the cage" yesterday using the University of Florida's emergency alert texting system yesterday. Seriously. Every student and employee at UF rang in the new administration with a monkey text.
01/21/09
How were they able to use the system like that? I say find the person and beat the stupid out.
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
That's the most poetic thing I've ever read.