"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
- Senator Clinton (link here)
I have a lot more faith that Roberts and Alito will protect the rights of all Americans than I have faith that Clinton and her cronies will.
1 comment:
If we could have a little honesty it would help this matter. Abortion proponents always insist on framing it as a women's "health" issue, as if abortion opponents are against women's health.
While I am an abortion opponent, and not very compromising, I would live with a compromise position that banned all abortions except those where proceeding with the birth endangered a women's life, or maybe even her physical well being.
But, the word "health" is used as a code word, which in turn means anything including emotional health, or feelings, or regret, or guilt, or whatever. So since the other side insists on playing word games, then a "health" exception means that anything goes.
Admitting that would be a step toward compromise, but until then, I favor going forward toward no exceptions.
Too bad, because a reasonable compromise on abortion would go a long way to uniting America. We have too many external enemies to fight among ourselves forever on this.
Post a Comment