Now that the dust has finally settled on the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, Feminists are understandably upset and conservative groups are cautiously elated. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of opinions from around the blogosphere have come down with decidedly partisan terms. Feministing got mad at ‘anti-choicers’ while RedState called out ‘advocates of infanticide.’

Catholics have long been concerned about the metaphysical well-being of fetuses (babies?) that are killed before they have the opportunity to be baptized. (I cannot understate the hilarity of the previous link.) The Catholic church for some time has subtly suggested that these fetuses (babies?) are destined to stay in limbo for eternity. Catholics (I categorize all Catholic teaching here, but only out of necessity) believe that man is born in a state of sin and only “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” can provide for entrance into Jesus’s crib. Even though the concept of infants going to limbo as a result of original sin alone has long been considered backwards and an unofficial part of Catholic doctrine, certain factions of Catholicism still subscribe to that belief. The Catholic Führer has finally officially decided that these fetuses (babies?) go to either some version of heaven or hell. The recent decision doesn’t really clear up the debate, but even though it sounds a lot like an amusement park altering its height requirement for a roller coaster, this decision could have consequences for the Court (as well as the rest of us who have yet to be baptized.) For the first time in its history, the Court has five Catholic members and not surprisingly, they were the five that comprised the majority in the Carhart decision.

Unlike fetuses that are the victims of infanticide, the long-term implications of the Court’s ruling are still in limbo. If you look at the Carhart decision textually, it only rules that intact D&E can be legitimately banned. The Court reaffirms its ruling in Roe, holding that “before viability, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy” and in Casey, holding that the state may not impose an ‘undue burden’ on the women before viability.

In short, the Court held that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is not ‘void for vagueness’ in describing the type of abortion procedure that it is banning. Even though Justice Kennedy spends considerable time trying to clarify why the law is clear, he holds that the law does not present ‘an undue burden from any overbreadth.’ For an indepth look at the case, you can check out what I said here.

Kennedy’s opinion is alarming for its perverse misogynistic outlook on abortion. Kennedy echoes the latest conservative talking points about how ‘abortion doctors’ must give women as much information as possible to make an informed decision without establishing an ‘undue burden.’ Kennedy fears that:

a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.

The Court’s ruling in this decision could be construed to mean anything from simply reaffirming the outlawing of intact D&E to a justification for state to impose significant burdens upon a women who wants to seek an abortion. The Court has reaffirmed, and potentially strengthened, the ‘legiti=mate concern of the state’ to promote life by ensuring that women know exactly what they are getting into. More often than not, the idea of giving women all the information they can get is designed to scare her away from an abortion by giving her gory details about the worst things that can happen and the use of pejorative labels on every commonly used scientific procedure possible.

The most interesting analysis that I’ve read about the Carhart decision is the piece over at Eminent Domain about the importance of Thomas’s decision.


2 Responses to “Feminists Unite!”

  1. 1 Tyler

    I like how Fox News calls OBGYNs that perform abortions “Abortion Doctors.” They just can’t be regular doctors, we have to put them in their own category.
    We shouldn’t form our laws based on one religion’s values, even if it is the court’s values. It’s one group and eventhough they have the power of Jesus in them, they should let the rest of us sinners abort our own fetuses.
    Kennedy is a freak. Women KNOW what happens in the womb when she is pregnant. We’re told from the moment we become women (unless if you’re some crazy fundamentalist, then you think babies still come from the stork even after you’re married).
    Kennedy really shouldn’t have an opinion: he’s a man and therefore will never EVER experience childbirth: the joy/torment of having your body invaded by something that is the equivalent of a parasite. A woman should have a choice to whether to do the most beautiful thing in the world and to give birth to a child, or abort something that does permanent, irreversible damage to the body. The uterus never shinks down to it’s original size, the vagina is often torn all the way to the anus, and childbirth is still quite dangerous.
    Childbirth is beautiful, but choice is American.

  1. 1 What Can Dems Do About A Conservative SCOTUS? at DailyWrit

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Top Female Advocates Before the Supreme Court: To celebrate Patricia Millett's record-breaking thirty-first Supreme Court argument last week in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatom...
  • Chief Justice Roberts and Unanimous Decisions: When he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts mentioned that one of his main objectives as chief justice would be to cre...
  • Predicting the April Sitting: I run into the exact same debate every year around mid-January: which cases will be heard during the current term and which will be pushed o...
  • An Interview with Michael Dreeben: Michael Dreeben, a Deputy Solicitor General, spent the last semester on leave to teach at Duke University Law School. During his time there,...
  • A Deeper Look at Reversal Rates: An article in today's Cincinati Enquirer highlights the Sixth Circuit's current 15-case losing streak in the Supreme Court. Circuits regular...