- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Although being accused by ranndino of basing my argument on ignorance is probably a compliment, at least I'm in pretty good company since the Supreme court struck down the spousal notice provision that Alito was perfectly willing to uphold. It seems to me that the circumstances under which the spousal notification should or shouldn't take place is fairly irrelevant. Alito's dissent argued that spousal notification was constitutional, and did not place a significant burden on women. Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Sorry, but that's as wrongheaded and naive as asserting, as ranndino does, that married couples should just "sit down and talk about things" because "that is the most reasonable path to pursue". Well call ME crazy, but just because it's the REASONABLE path to pursue sure doesn't make it the right path for every pair of people trapped in a bad marriage. ranndino is more than welcome to interpret my point of view as being some declaration that I think "infidelity is a good excuse to not notify the husband ... Let the couple keep living a lie so that we don't disturb the family peace", but, truth to tell, I think that marital infidelity is simply a fact of life and I don't think the courts or any state or federal legislature has the right to expect or force a woman to confess her infidelity to her spouse before she can terminate her pregnancy.
