Letters to the Editor
Pedestrian0
Published Letters: 32
-
I thought Andrea Dworkin died
[Read the article: Kos gets a pass this week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jeez, Joan, could you be any more condescending? Maybe Kos is holding out for non-anecdotal proof before declaring this the new flesh-eating virus panic of 2007.
Does anyone see parallels between Joan's daily crusade on this issue and the satantic ritual abuse (SRA), child molestation, and date-rape "panics" of the 1980's and 1990's?
Here's a primer: First, the media claims, on mostly anecdotal evidence, that women are being brutalized by men on a massive scale that requires instant action. Reforms are suggested. These reforms usually burden or abridge civil liberties of population far in excess of the anecdotal "victims" of this new virulent misogyny. Then, when people voice criticisms about the "reforms" or express disbelief that there's a true panic, "feminists" like Joan play the "sex card" to try and savage each disbeliever.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the new Andrea Dworkin: Joan Walsh!
-
A thousand thanks, Camille
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for throwing a bomb into the global warming "debate," where Stalinist self-censorship and coercion has surpassed the outrageous levels of the date-rape panic from the 1990s. I see the lockstep conformity of much of the left hasn't changed in a decade and a half.
And having just seen the Sontag death pictures, I found it odd how much she looked like Gertrude Stein. Sontag was a true modernist to the end!!
-
Good decision
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds a federal abortion ban]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought this was rightly decided. Congress' act specifically requires the doctor to perform an affirmative, mortally-wounding act, and it also has a scienter requirement. So a doctor intending to perform a regular D&E , but has the fetus slip out farther than intended, will not be liable, because s/he did not intend at the start to perform the D&E prohibited by the act.
And unless I'm misreading Kennedy's opinion (joined by Alito and Roberts), exceptions for health-based reasons may be considered on as-applied challenges and not the facial challenge that court dealt with here.
Interestingly, neither Alito or Roberts joined Thomas and Scalia, who reaffirmed that the "right" to an abortion is not in the constitution.
-
Also
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds a federal abortion ban]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having read broadsheets blurb here, I notice she says of the Act "[I]t's also said to be worded so vaguely as to cover - at least in chilling effect - some of the earliest, most common abortion procedures."
Two things:
1) The Act covers "some of the earliest, most common abortion procedures" only in the sense that there are a limited number of methods for aborting a pregnancy and this is one of them. But it is by no means commonly used (and, for the reasons I listed above, the Act requires that a doctor intend, at the outset, to perform a partial-birth abortion in order to be criminally liable.) The most common procedures for abortions are vacuuming out the blastocyst (early in a pregnancy) and tearing apart the fetus while it remains wholly inside the woman.
2) What kind of analysis is "[I]t's been said"? That's Planned Parenthood saying this. Is Broadsheet just passing along "action alerts" from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and substituting that for her own analysis? I expect critical thinking out of Salon.
-
The other view
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]National Organization of Women: The law was narrowly tailored to criminalized only a KNOWING violation of the law, to execute an abortion procedure which the AMA has said is never medically necessary. The joint ruling is the first step in applying O'Connor's 'undue burden' test, which explicitly allows states to discourage abortion.
Susan Estrich, Fox News: Congress decided not to cherry-pick medical experts, and reached beyond the College of Obstetrics. The AMA, and the vast majority of doctors and nurses, oppose this procedure.
Feminist Majority: All abortion procedures are extremely safe. Many doctors refuse to perform it, regardless of this law. Please quantify the elevated 'risk' older women and preteens will face from no longer being able to crush their baby's skull in the birth canal. We know the risk to the fetus is still 100%.
Bitch Ph.D.: Your legislators (aka white males) have decided that fetuses are still non-citizens (and can be killed for any reason) but that it is inhumane to deliver the head out of the womb before crushing it.
Planned Parenthood: The Supreme Court is not a common law court; it interprets a constitution, not precedent, and it is not required to follow bad precedent (see Brown)
Echinde: Seven middle-aged men found the 'right' to abortion in the penumbras of the constitution back in the seventies. The vague 'undue burden' standard, properly applied here, was drafted by a woman, Justice O'Connor. I agree, elections have consequences. Feel free to vote out any member of Congress who voted for this law.
NARAL: The court listened to other 'leading doctors,' those whose opinions you don't like.
-
No one wants you to die, Anonymous
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This law has an exemption in order to save the life of the mother.