The perception in most circles is that the Supreme Court’s Roe precedent is the front line to reproductive rights. The perception is that, until Roe is overturned — which many expect will eventually happen, thanks to the dogmatic misogyny of Supreme Court ideologues and sympathetic characters — women’s reproductive rights are safe. The perception is that if and when Roe is overturned, that is when the battle begins.
But the war is already well underway. And battles are already being lost. The perceptions that the war has yet to start are wrong.
Today marks the onset of hearings to fill the Supreme Court. As I write this, the hearings have started, with the obligatory “thank yous” and self-inflation that mark such occasions. And then the games will begin.
And women’s lives will be on the line.
We’ve already been given notice that the purportedly pro-choice committee chair will not go against his party and ask Judge John Roberts about Roe. Will the Democrats? And will they go beyond questions and actually back up their concerns with their vote?
We’re accustomed to a lot of firm talk from Democrats lately. Sadly, we’re also accustomed to a lot of knuckling under after the speechifying is over. Will this be any different?
Will it matter?
Like the Maginot Line of WW2 that was supposed to defend France from German aggression, Roe has served as an image of defense of reproductive rights, an image of the front lines. But the enemy has flown over Roe and engaged battle state by state, and women are losing.
Women caught in TRAP laws
For years, the anti-abortion movement has pressed its case with noisy demonstrations that blocked clinics, with high-profile legislation that directly challenged the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and in some cases with violence, including the assassination of physicians. But 28 years after Roe, with public support of abortion rights running high, the movement has adopted what might be called a stealth strategy: to chip away at abortion rights, slowly and discreetly, with low-profile legislation and lawsuits that stop short of trying to outlaw the procedure.
The new tactic is to bombard providers with a barrage of costly rules. In addition to the civil-liability law, Louisiana has tried to slap abortion providers with extra-stringent building codes that regulate everything from the width of hallways in clinics to the angles and jet types for drinking fountains. Abortion opponents want to create small, expensive obstacles that cumulatively make it harder for clinics to offer services–or, in the words of one right-to-life leader, to create an environment “where abortion may indeed be perfectly legal, but no one can get one.” Not only does the tactic have the benefit of generating little public attention, but it also allows anti-abortion activists to couch the issue in terms of a woman’s welfare–for example, the right of a patient to sue her physician for unlimited sums.
States all over are passing TRAP laws. Louisiana has had one since 2001. A US District Court just upheld a 1998 Ohio trap law.
The new law requires that at least one parent give his or her consent to the abortion. Girls are still free to go to court to ask a judge for an
order to bypass that consent requirement, but the abuse defense can no
longer be used.
And how has it escaped people’s notice that Texas passed a law allowing execution of doctors who abort a pregnancy? The Operation Rescue agenda of executing doctors is now legally sanctioned.
These are not unique instances. TRAP laws are being enacted in many states.
And now House Democrats — DEMOCRATS! (who, by the way, dropped the ERA from their platform) — are about to introduce HR 748, which, among other things, prevents anyone, even a parent, from transporting a minor across state lines to have an abortion. Forget parental rights. Forget legal guardianship. When it comes to breeding, this bill gives the state sovereignty over the womb.
All the courts, not just the Supreme Court
Circuit courts and state courts are affecting people’s lives every day. For example:
In fact, abortion opponents have found that the courts are as powerful a tool as the state legislatures. In the past few years, clinics and doctors have been hit with a spate of lawsuits claiming that women didn’t give proper consent for an abortion or suffered psychological damage afterward. “A case will be brought against a provider that will most likely be thrown out,” says Mueller of the National Abortion Federation. “However, the physician still has to go through a lengthy court battle, and endure costs and publicity throughout the case.” Even the most far-fetched claims can hurt clinics. Anti-abortion lawyer John Kindley recently wrote a 21,000-word article in the Wisconsin Law Review suggesting that malpractice suits against abortion doctors “may serve an important role in raising public awareness” of the alleged abortion-breast cancer link. Kindley put that theory into practice in 1999, suing a Fargo, North Dakota, clinic for disputing the breast-cancer theory in a brochure. Even before the case has gone to trial, the Red River Women’s Clinic has been forced to pay $5,000 in legal fees. “Part of their strategy is to drag this out as much as possible,” says clinic administrator Jane Bovard. “They do everything they can to make us incur more expenses. I think their goal is to nickel away at us, to make it too expensive to provide services.”
This points up the importance of having judges who respect human rights on all courts, not just the Supreme Court. (Do you know how many Democrats of the Gang of 14 who compromised with Republicans to avoid a fillibuster showdown are “pro-life”? Does that shed any light, perhaps, on why they felt someone like Janice Rogers Brown would be okay?)
This is what happens when women’s reproductive rights are not considered “important shit.” This is what happens when women are sold up the river in the name of “party unity.” This is what happens when party politics trump morality.
Now is the time to take a stand
We’re hearing a lot of strong rhetoric from Democratic Senators today. They say they are showing their colors. They are talking a good game. But will they walk the walk?
Now is the time for all of us who care about gender equality and liberty to stand up for what we believe. Either that, or we can welcome coat hangers back into women’s healthcare, and I don’t believe anyone but the most rabid misogynist wants that.
[Distilled and expanded from a post on mediagirl.org.]
…a disaster in a whole bunch of arenas, not just when it comes to reproductive freedom. But he probably won’t be any worse than Rehnquist. Which is good, because I doubt there is any chance we’ll get more than 25 votes against him. The nominee who replaces O’Connor will be the problem.
By the way, of the Democrats in the Gang of 14:
Pro-Choice: Salazar, Inouye, Lieberman
Fence-Straddlers: Byrd, Landrieu
Anti-choice: Nelson, Pryor
By the way, HR 748 deserves its own screaming Diary. 😉
He’s Catholic. He’s from Colorado. And his brother, Rep. John Salazar, is featured on the list of shame. Salazar has gone Republican more than once this year vote-wise. I would not count him in the pro-equal rights column just yet.
But you’re right, Roberts may be mysterious on specifics, but he seems to have a very pro-corporate, pro-governmental power, anti-individual, anti-minority rights predisposition.
…from NARAL. That’s not great, and he’s not a sure bet, but I still count him as a fence-straddler until he proves otherwise.
…what was I thinking? Salazar claims to be pro-choice, and his voting record isn’t clear yet. Sorry.
Referring to the latest SUSA poll, Louisiana comes in as the second most unfriendly state:
Pro-Life: 57%
Pro-Choice: 36%
with the most support for choice probably coming from southern LA, i.e., New Orleans, ugh.
and all the other great women working on this issue! we need to hold these dems accountable!
I second that and hub thirds it.
You can bet that Roberts is going to be approved by all the misogynist Democrats, despite the damage he’s sure to do to the rest of the Democratic agenda. These asshole fanatics and their Kindred Of Soul in the blogsphere don’t care about anything other than stuffing women back in the box and tying chains around it so they can’t get out again.
Anyone who does not wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose, and right to have her choice honoured, does not deserve to be elected. Period. No misogynist candidate should get any money or other support from progressives, no matter how much the DFL’s pet blogsphere Kindred Of Soul scream about “single issues”.
We do have a single issue, and it’s called “equal rights”.
As an aside, the next time some asshole tries the “right to life” morality argument, ask him how he feels about war and pollution. I’ve yet to meet someone who articulates a “right to life” argument and really believes it, even on this site. Eventually, they all reveal that they’re really all about controlling women. The “life” they’re protecting is worth no more to them than a poker chip.
Is that’s what’s going on in the blogosphere at the “semi-free republic”? Bleh. Glad I moved to a classier neighborhood.
There’s gotta be a way to exploit the cognative dissonance. Republicans are voting to regulate an industry they don’t like — to death.
Wonder if we couldn’t do the same thing on “private” industries that focus almost entirely on war reconstruction…
I refuse to believe people honestly support the goals or the methods of the anti-abortion crowd. But the media and our politicians give the bastards the title of “moral”. Fuck that. Wannabe slaveholders is a more honest assessment. They want the women’s reproductive control crowd to be called Christian? Seems to me Christ was all about “You, don’t sin. And don’t worry about your brother/sister’s sin — deal with your own”. Bout the only people he didn’t get along with were the Theocrats — he even got along well enough with the politicians compared to his righteous anger over the theocrats.
But we sit idly by, letting the Right use our taxes to bribe their hypocrites.
Screw it
The Republicans have enough votes to run the country into the ground with the help of the deal-making asses (politicians or bloggers).
Maybe if the Dems start “playing politics” with politics, the press will be forced to report on all the one-sided legislation, and maybe even explain why, and worse what is being done by those Conservatives of the Utmost Respect for Original Intent (but only for financial/industrial/commercial industries, certainly not for medical facilities — those need to be regulated worse than the anything the NRA fears, naturally).
Ugh. Evil
That would be it in a nutshell. You know why so many religious leaders object to the term “civil rights” being applied to women and gays? Because it casts their own prejudices – and the implications of them – into sharp relief.
Most good polls I’ve seen on the issues show that the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice. But because of people like the Kindred Of Spirit, we’ve sat back and let the Republicans demonize the pro-choice position as being evil and despicable, so these people self-id as pro-life, even though they hold no actual pro-life beliefs.
The morality of the situation is anything but clear-cut. Even if you accept the premise that a foetus is human, it doesn’t necessarily follow that an abortion is wrong or should be illegal. Even leaving aside war and executions, there are all sorts of legal and moral ways to end a human life. Which is why pro-choice is the only sensible position.
Frat of Fools:
The GOP has dumped their fake “Values Debate” that the Democrats so eagarly participated in… Now who are they going to look towards for directions…
saying to Roberts (paraphrasing) “If I KNEW that you were DEFINITELY going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm you.”
Sounded like some serious weasel words to me–like she was trying to sound pro-choice, but was really saying “Just don’t tell me that’s what you’re going to do, so it’ll be safe for me to vote for you and I have deniability later.”
I don’t have a lot of hope about this, as even Democrats keep trying to have it both ways.