A while back, I attended the Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy's annual symposium. It was, in a word, FABULOUS. If you're ever down here in lovely North Carolina for this conference, you absolutely MUST go (registration is free).
The speakers for the day touched on a lot of things: HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, infanticide...you get the picture. But the topic I'd like to devote this post to was Maya Manian's discussion of Gonzalez v. Carhart, a hugely important court case, and the most recent Supreme Court decision on abortion.
Gonzalez upheld Bush's Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (never mind that "partial birth" isn't a medical term, so to a doctor there's no such thing as a "partial birth" abortion). Part of the reason Gonzalez spurred such a furor had to do with its health exception, or lack thereof. Ever since Roe v. Wade, abortion restrictions have had health exceptions--provisions that allow a restricted procedure to be performed if the woman's life is in danger, with the understanding that if the mother dies the fetus probably will also. This is the case with third trimester abortions (at which point a fetus is often considered "vaible" with today's medical technology). However, the PBAA doesn't have any such provision, and Gonzalez doesn't require that it does. So now, in the eyes of the law, the life of the unborn fetus is superior to that of the living mother. Gonzalez moves us one step closer to Brazil, where women are kept on dialisis and other life-support machines for months until their fetuses are viable outside of the womb and can be removed--at which point the women are left to die.
But there's another reason to be pissed about Gonzalez. Justice Kennedy's opinion doesn't so much cite facts for the reasons behind upholding the ban (although it does list many medial terms and explanations). In fact, he notes that the court is ruling in spite of a dearth of research supporting its claims.
"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."
The court takes a woman-protective stance, claiming to help prevent women's regrets, but aren't adult women capable of making this decision for themselves? As Manian demonstrates, many men feel regret after invasive surgery for prostate cancer (which may or may not have been life-threatening), but Congress has not responded by banning prostate removal. Yet, Congress feels well-within its rights to make decisions for all women based on the "regrets" it feels (but cannot prove) that some women must have. Life's a pisser, ain't it?
Muchas, muchas gracias a Maya Manian...if you want to check out her article,
74.125.47.132/search
or Justice Kennedy's opinion from Gonzalez (the portion discussed is towards the end).
You post was a bit confusing because you didn't explain who Gonzalez or Justice Kennedy are.
But, its so dangerous when fetuses are legally valued above pregnant women. It takes away the woman's right as a patient and a person. The medical decision making then tends to fall on the state or medical professionals, two entities that it seems rarely have a person's best interest at heart.
We need to affirm a woman's right to bodily integrity. And I fervently believe this country has to stop its intrusive obsessiveness with fetuses and start valuing the born.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts