1/22/07

Blog for Choice




Blog for Choice Day - January 22, 2007


Blog for Choice:
Last year during the Alito confirmations we started a campaign over a BooTrib, leading up to Christmas time, called the "12 Days of Justice". I am going to share with you the flyer that I made up for that campaign because it goes to the heart of arguments and views that many ANTI-WOMEN right-wingnut groups have chosen to support:
--------------------------
--------------------------

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.


Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.


T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:


If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.



This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.





What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?


In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)


Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:


"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."


(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)


Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.


In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."


Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.



Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.


Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.


I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.


--------------------------
--------------------------


The simple fact that Alito was confirmed in the end demonstrates how much more vigilant we need to be in protecting basic rights for women, and personal choices over what happens to their personal bodies is about as basic a right as you can get.

To demonstrate just how sexist this view of legislating personal choice is, has anyone EVER heard of any serious legislation proposed to stop men from getting vasectomies?


A side note: I am sick as a dog and tired as hell because I didn't sleep at all last night... But I had to make this post because it is an important issue. If I am lucky I will be back to regular posting in a day or two, but for now I am taking it easy.

2 comments:

Stopp Planned Parenthood of Connecticut said...

Dear Blogger,
I would like to reffer you to a wonderful website:
www.ALL.org/stopp
The Stopp stands for Stopp Planned Parenthoood International.
I'm the Stopp Planned Parenthood Representative of Connecticut. I pray and picket PPC clinics to save souls and shut them down. You might want to also check out www.rockforlife.org for sober people your age.
I would first 'dont drink, dont think and go to meetings and that web site would be found doing a search for Connecticut Alcoholic's Anonimous.
You might also want to go to One More Soul and get the pamphlet on the side effects of male sterilization which is one of the most commom forms of birth control and the truth about this and other personal mutilation procedures that are the problem and not the solution.
But 'first things first' and put God first in your life and go to a meeting. You go a meeting to save your life and you go to church to save your soul. So keep an open mind and something might fall in and bring the body and the mind will follow.

Connecticut Man 1 said...

Hello "stopp"

I am sorry but you are completly and totally misguided in your reccomendations.

Planned Parenthood does great service for the state of CT. Those that try and stop people from making personal choices are about as misguided as they come and do a great diservice to this nation.

I will not let my belief in God be a reasoning for forcing my personal religious and moral beliefs on others. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to try and force your personal beliefs and morals on others. Take a look at Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church concerning the "Wall of Seperation" built by the founding fathers. If all you are doing is PEACEFULLY picketing than you are well within your rights to express those misguided opinions, BUT if you support legislation that imposes those misguided beliefs (Or if you are a clinic bomber?) than your opinion on this matter is about as UN-American as you can get.

As for AA... They are a great orginization for alcoholics. Too bad Mr. Bush never went through the program. As for Drinking Liberally (a POLITICAL orginization, not a way of life), some people choose to do so in a responsible manner. But that truth wouldn't support your "pious" attempts at fraud in attacking the messanger. I would remind you that Jesus was noted to have enjoyed wine, women and song. Would you tell him to go to AA? Should everyone that partakes in "communion" be running to enroll in AA as well?

But first things first... Put a little reality in your life. Grab yourself a picket sign and go protest someone like Ted Haggard or James Dobson for their obvious hypocrisies. Or, maybe even, get out there and protest the war in Iraq, or the death of prisoners that were tortured in Mr. Bushies' gulags if you are so committed to saving lives.

And since, judging by your comment, you are so quick to label me in slanderous ways based upon my political opinions and the title of this Blog, I would like to tell you why I made this harsh comment in response:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

If I wanted to take an eye for an eye I would just say that you are women's-rights-hating FAAAR-right-religious-anti-American-wingnut that has barely evolved beyond a sigle cell organism... I could suggest that you grab a sign that says "The more I learn, the dumber I look!" and go protest yourself for evolving that one step beyond the real beginings of life...

But I wouldn't want to "pre-judge" you, just to further my rightous political opinions, as you did me. So, instead of making things up about you, I will just tell you to go have a beer and get layed! Don't worry if you get (or get someone else) pregnant because there are just the right laws on the books to allow you to chose to have the baby, or to have the abortion if need be. It is your PERSONAL CHOICE, BUT Planned Parenthood will always be there to help you in making those decisions if you are truely as deluded as your comment suggests you are. (Sorry about your delusions, but I do have the right to be a little judgmental given the facts...)