Some feminists have taken comfort from a new AP poll which has been widely reported as finding that “59 percent [of respondents] say Bush should choose a [Supreme Court] nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion… 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision…”
Unfortunately, the poll itself was inaccurately worded, as Eugene Volokh reports:
“As you may know, President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?”
But wait — Roe didn’t just make abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. It also made it legal at any time before viability (limiting government regulation to that related to protecting “maternal health”); the Court said viability would be at about six or seven months (though over time, the line has moved up a bit, as the 1992 Casey decision recognized). I suspect that such months-four-to-six abortions would be considerably more controversial than ones in months one through three.
Another poll shows that 66% favor abortion being generally legal in the first three months, but only 25% favor legal abortion for months four through six.
Of course, reproductive rights aren’t right or wrong based on what polls say. Still, it’s unfortunate that this poll was so badly worded.
Yeah, I’d hoped (and thought) that support was much more widespread, even into the second trimester. If abortion’s restricted from 4 months on, then they don’t have to give you the run around for long before it becomes impossible to abort, no matter how early you decide to do so.
Tell me again why Plan B, RU-486 and the like aren’t widely available?
“Tell me again why Plan B, RU-486 and the like aren’t widely available?”
Because liberals entrusted the government with responsibility for drugs, instead of letting the market work.
;)
Yeah, trust the bunch of chickenshits that comprises “the market.” [Yawn.] The same deep thinkers and servants of the public need that brought as Nike and Mal-Wart. Whoop-de-doo.
Alsis, if you had a free market in drugs, you wouldn’t need Nike and Wal-Mart. You could sell RU-486 out of your basement over the Internet, if you were so inclined.
The cost of letting the market work is that sometimes people will make bad decisions and there will be bad consequences. The cost of giving the government control is that sometimes people with different values will control the government, and people won’t be able to get what they want.
Decide which cost is most bearable, and live accordingly.
I’m not into dualism in most instances, Robert. And since our system is at best an uneasy hodge-podge of Government and market (I believe the term Nader –amongst others– likes to use is “Corporate Socialism”), I really don’t see the point of your stated “choice,” which is A) Vaguely stated and B) Not what we’ve got or what we’re likely to get.
And frankly, I don’t know if selling RU-486 –or any other drug– on the internet is such a great idea. I also don’t think I’d want to buy it on the net, or sell it.
Hey, back in the 1800s, the market ruled and Coca-Cola contained cocaine and face powder contained lead! All kinds of patent medicine contained colloidal silver, which turns people gray.
And remember Sinclair Lewis and The Jungle? The market sure looked after our best interest when the product was sausage! And the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Well, all those women were there waiting to be consumed by fire because of the magic of the market!
I am not maintaining that the market leads to perfect outcomes in all situations.
I am noting that all tradeoffs have costs, and when we make a decision, we are often simply deciding which costs we are willing to pay.
We decided that drug-laced sodas and poison cosmetics were too high a price to pay, and so we selected a different model. The cost of that model is a reduction of overall choice.
It is illogical to complain about the results of a choice you make yourself, or approve of.
I know I have all day to meticulously research every product I buy to make sure it’s not going to kill me.
Yeah, I know that every time either the Feds or Coca-Cola want to do something important, they show up on my doorstep to make sure that it meets with my approval. [snicker] Usually, this is right before Jesus, Tim Allen and Buddha all show up in their bright pink flying saucer to take me bar-hopping.