Jackson Free Press

Here is a NYT article about Alito's first day warming the seat.

The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear a challenge to a federal law outlawing an abortion procedure, reopening the contentious issue on Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s first day on the bench.

The law, the Partial Birth Abortion Act, was passed in 2003 but was immediately challenged in court and has never taken effect. It was ruled unconstitutional by three federal appeals courts in the last year, in rulings based on a Supreme Court decision in 2000 striking down a similar law passed in Nebraska.

He's such a show off.

Previous Comments

ID

104970

Comment

Alito actually voted to overturn a partial-birth abortion ban some years ago on technical grounds, so he may or may not be a safe vote for the far right here. I have to say, BTW, that I'm actually impressed with what Alito has done so far--in his very first case, he went with a 6-3 majority (with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting) in agreeing that execution by lethal injection may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. I think in ten years we're going to see Alito as a legitimate originalist straight-shooter (like Scalia but more moderate on some issues), and will wish that we'd tried to filibuster Roberts instead (who will probably turn out to be such a huge partisan hack that he will in effect exonerate Clarence Thomas on that point). Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-21T19:53:32-06:00

ID

104971

Comment

My issue with this procedural abortion ban, BTW, is that there is no women's health exception at all, even in cases involving non-viable fetuses. So if you've got a late-term fetus with anacephaly who will never be capable of becoming conscious and will not survive outside of the womb, and the poor woman giving birth to the child will lose the ability to give birth to any living children down the road, we've basically passed a law to sterilize the woman for no good reason. Supporters of the bill were by and large aware of this loophole, and left it in as a poison pill so that they could paint moderate opponents as extremists. Clarify the law to specify that the procedural ban only applies in the third trimester and add an exception for non-viable fetuses, and I'm not sure it's a bad piece of legislation. But then if it weren't a bad piece of legislation, even Barbara Boxer would have voted for it and then Senate Republicans wouldn't be able to use it in November. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-02-21T19:57:49-06:00

ID

104972

Comment

Anybody worried yet? South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade . The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-02-23T10:48:01-06:00

ID

104973

Comment

Okay, Anybody worried NOW? A state House committee voted to ban most abortions in Mississippi, which already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. The bill approved by the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. The bill now goes to the full House, which could vote next week, and then to the Senate.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-03-01T13:59:08-06:00

ID

104974

Comment

There still aren't enough votes on the Supreme Court to support a full abortion ban; Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens are all on record as supporting Roe, which gives us a 5-4 decision even if Roberts and Alito want to go out on a limb and try to overturn Roe their first year on the bench (which would not be good for Republicans in the November 2006 midterms). What will happen is what usually happens in cases where restrictive abortion laws are passed: A federal court will review the law and find it to be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. No, this is just local politicians' way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Remember that the Mississippi law was proposed only after the strangely-timed movement to have legislators' votes available to the public, which the right-wing MPPC was suddenly available to do (before the state would have had a chance to respond to the criticisms by setting up such a site themselves). Virtually every legislator in the state claims to be pro-life, but the legislature is predominantly Democratic. Now the stage is set for a Republican takeover of the state legislature, because however the Democratic legislators vote, they will lose a considerable chunk of their base. It's brilliant maneuvering, but sickening that they would use women's lives as the battlefield for this. I'm impressed and disgusted at the same time. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-03-01T14:33:10-06:00

ID

104975

Comment

God bless Omeria Scott. Feministing points out: Rep. Omeria Scott, D-Laurel, persuaded the House committee to approve an amendment that says the state would provide free education and medical services to any child born in the state, until age 19. Scott said her proposal could extend beyond the public schools and Medicaid already offered. She said it could make a significant difference for a poor woman who's trying to decide whether to have an abortion. "Anyone who wants to take this language out of this bill is not for life," Scott said. And she really nails it on the head. Many of the same people who want to ban abortion want to make it as hard as possible for women to avoid getting pregnant, and then they want to make it as hard as possible for women to raise children alone--then they decide that if they want to force pregnant women to carry their kids to term, they're doing some kind of moral thing. Well, "want" may be a strong word. Once people have sold their souls, it tends to be less about what they want and more about what serves their long-term personal interests. Again, I'm impressed and disgusted. But at least there are a few people left in the legislature, like Rep. Scott, who still have a conscience. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-03-01T18:34:46-06:00

ID

104976

Comment

Again, I'm impressed and disgusted. But at least there are a few people left in the legislature, like Rep. Scott, who still have a conscience. Now, that's cool. If you're gonna be pro-life, go all the way with it.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-03-01T20:11:45-06:00