...there is very real reason for people living in Bible Belt states to fear that access to female-controlled contraception could be in peril if the Supreme Court determines that women do not in fact have a right to privacy. Opposition to the right to use contraception comes out of a combination of the belief that women should have less of a right to self-determination than men and fear of female sexuality. Both of these beliefs are ones that the vast majority of Americans subconsciously respond to--feminists included, as we're human and absorb sexist beliefs, too--so really the issue for most people is not whether or not the state should supress women's reproductive rights, but just to what degree is going too far. So, without court protection of women's reproductive rights, it seems quite likely to me that some of the more hardcore sexist parts of the country will start exploring the option of banning the birth control pill.
I think those things are important for we who have no reproductive systems and/or live in the godless lands like California and Washington State to remember. For us, this is largely theoretical.
For a disturbingly large number of people, it's a very real possibility that control of a woman's body could legally be placed in the hands of men.
And personally, I like women's bodies too much to see what men will do to them, given that we (in the larger sense) tend to fuck up everything we get our hands on.
The NY Times has a pretty good piece on how the past "Chaotic Week [Has Left] Bush Team on Defensive." I should certainly hope so. Among the points they make is to underline again that the Supreme Court nominations are going to be Bush's most long-lasting legacy:
President Nixon himself summarized the stakes, when he announced Justice Rehnquist's nomination on television on the night of Oct. 21, 1971. "Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court, through its decisions, goes on forever," he said, adding: "They will make decisions which will affect your lives and the lives of your children for generations to come."
And for those of you new to the blog:
Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled...Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state.
(Source: The HRC)
He also:
played a [broad] behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election... -- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job
(Source: The Miami Herald via TPM)
And that is, as they say, the tip of the iceberg. This is a time when Senate Democrats need to remember that sometimes to speak is more important than to be re-elected.
4 comments:
Yes, but again, in what state do you live?
You may or may not have seen my own post about John Roberts a few weeks ago, where I concluded that while he's not who I'd pick for a nominee, he may be the best we're going to get out of the Bush Administration. Hey, at least he's not John Ashcroft.
One thing that makes Roberts difficult to pin down is the fact that he's a lawyer. Yes, he advocated prayer in schools and disputed Roe v. Wade, but he's also given a gay rights group advice that helped them win their case. And that was a job he took willingly, not one that was assigned to him.
When most conservatives say they want Justices who "won't legislate from the bench," what they really mean is that they want Justices who will legislate from the bench in their favor. But what if the improbable has happened, and Bush really meant what he said about wanting a Justice who won't legislate from the bench? That might not necessarily be a bad thing, because then you'd have a Supreme Court that would let established precedents like Roe v. Wade stand on the grounds that they are established precedents. That's what the Rehnquist court actually did back in the 90's.
As for the specific threat to birth control - speaking as someone who actually was a Christian fundamentalist at one point (I'm feeling much better now), I can assure you that birth control isn't necessarily on the Christian conservative agenda. My ex-father-in-law, for example, saw the Catholic church's ban on birth control as a conspiracy to overpower Protestantism by force of numbers. So I still think Ms. Marcotte is being a bit alarmist.
But suppose that she's right, and somehow the states are free to choose for themselves whether or not they can try to regulate women's reproductive options. "States' Rights" can cut both ways. If you say that states don't have the right to choose for themselves whether reproductive options are a privacy issue, you could also say, for example, that states don't have the right to choose for themselves whether gay couples can marry. Can you really pick and choose based on your own personal likes and dislikes?
One last thing about Roberts. I got a real kick out of his memos warning the Reagan Administration to stop calling the US, "the greatest nation God ever created," on the grounds that God doesn't create nations. I liked it because (a) I agree with it, and (b) it shows that while Roberts is both a Christian and a conservative, he isn't necessarily someone Christian conservatives are going to like.
In short, I still don't think the world is ending. Let's wait and see who Bush is going to nominate next. If it's John Ashcroft, then we can start worrying...
And I still think this is a time when a show of resistance is more vitally important than you imagine.
Call me Chicken Little if you like, but I fully expect to see Bush and/or the new justices arguing that *of course* states can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.
And "John Roberts: At Least He's Not John Ashcroft" doesn't quite have that Sorkinesque lilt to it...
Post a Comment