A lot has been going on in the world of reproductive-rights politics this week– such as the SCOTUS hearings on the Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood case and some of Alito’s old documents coming to the surface. I’ve been swamped with end-of-semester work and studying for exams so I’ll just provide a round-up of some articles and blog postings I’ve come across, relating to the SCOTUS case and Alito’s documents…..
From the Boston Globe (and Boston.com News), ‘Abortion Reargued’ …
THE FIRST abortion case since 2000 heard by the Supreme Court this week is not primarily about requiring minors to notify their parents before they can obtain an abortion; 43 states already have parental notification or consent laws. What makes the New Hampshire case so controversial is that it does not include an exception for the health of the mother, a violation of requirements in the 1973 decision Roe v Wade. And, of course, what also makes this case controversial are the shifting dynamics on the court. Supporters of the law point to a provision allowing a judge to intervene in a medical emergency — Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed that it takes but ”thirty seconds” to place a telephone call — but actual experience with judicial bypass provisions has proven far more time-consuming than that. A pregnant teenager facing a medical crisis needs a doctor, not a judge.[…] From the Washington Post, ‘Newly Released Papers Energize Alito’s Critics’…. […]Details of Alito’s 1985 strategy to undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling have energized abortion rights groups, they said, but broader questions about his overall credibility may eventually prove more problematic to the Bush administration’s confirmation efforts.[…] The flurry of events was triggered by the release Wednesday of the lengthy 1985 memo in which Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, outlined a strategy for attacking the 1973 Roe ruling without making a “frontal assault” that might prove unwinnable. “What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?” he asked in the memo concerning a Pennsylvania case before the Supreme Court, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Alito did not cite the case in his responses to the Senate questionnaire, also released on Wednesday, which asked him to describe the most significant litigation matters he has handled.[…] “In light of your 17-page memorandum and the accounts of your former colleagues, your ‘participation in the litigation’ was clearly substantial,” Schumer said in a letter asking Alito to explain. Citing a previously disclosed memo in which Alito successfully sought a promotion in the Justice Department, Schumer added: “In your 1985 job application, written only a few months later, you appeared to highlight your work on the Thornburgh case.”[…] From MSNBC, ‘Pharmacists disciplined over morning-after pill’ (fine by me)…. ST. LOUIS – Walgreen Co., the nation’s largest drugstore chain by revenue, said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule. The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and “have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option,” Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.[…] Now for some blog round-ups; Jill over at Feministe and her post, ‘Alito, Abortion, and the Future of Roe.’ —Echidne of the Snakes and her post, ‘Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.’ –Scott Lemieux and his posts ‘Ayotte’ and ‘Applied Illogic’ –Stone Court, ‘Alito, Abortion, and Precedent’. –Amanda Marcotte, ’60 Minutes On the Plan B Controversy’. –SCOTUSblog, ‘Abortion: narrowing the focus’. –CultureKitchen, ‘Here is the evidence that Samuel “Scalito” Alito has a strategy for overturning ‘Roe v. Wade’. –The Smeal Report, ‘There Can Be No Choice If There Are No Clinics.’ And last but not least, Jessica at Feministing and her post ‘Memo reveals Alito’s anti-choice strategy.’ There you go. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to return to my studies and be miserable until finals are over (which will be in about two weeks). Oh and a belated Happy Anti-Racist–Blogging-Day.
Those pharmacists shouldn’t just be suspended – they should be fired.
Could you imagine a Mormon clerk refusing to sell pop because it has caffeine? Or a Muslim clerk refusing to sell alcohol in a grocery store? Or a non-smoker like me refusing to sell cigarettes? They’d be canned in an instant.
Jesus freaks get special rights in many instances – hopefully not in this. Two cheers for Walgreens…
What makes the New Hampshire case so controversial is that it does not include an exception for the health of the mother
Wouldn’t the fact that the teen’s life is threatened make notifying the parents even more of an imperitive? I would think a law that required parental notification when any minor is seeking a medical procedure because their life or health of the teen would make sense – that’s when the teen needs their parents most, and the parents should certainly know about it.
Of course, there are cases in which it’s notifying the parent that itself would threaten the girl’s life. But I guess we won’t talk about that.
Yeah, that should be the exception, but it isn’t what they seem to care about.
Wouldn’t the fact that the teen’s life is threatened make notifying the parents even more of an imperitive? I would think a law that required parental notification when any minor is seeking a medical procedure because their life or health of the teen would make sense – that’s when the teen needs their parents most, and the parents should certainly know about it.
It is a question of time. If something happens in the middle of the night and the teen is taken to a hospital there may be no time to find a parent or a judge to get around the parental requirement. Though the proposed law does have an exception for life-threatening causes.
Then they should say the law needs to allow for the notification to be done after the procedure if there is an emergency situation.
But I bet there are other laws that could get in the way of saving someone’s life if they were scrupulously followed, and we don’t call them unconstitutional, like speeding, or driving without a license, or breaking and entering, in order to save someone’s life. Does every law need a “life” exception? Why are abortion laws different ?
And what about the right to self-defense? We already say it is OK to kill someone if they were going to kill you and it was ‘self-defense’? Why is it any different if the person is threatening your life unintentionally? Are you supposed to let them kill you just because they don’t mean to be killing you?
I don’t have a problem with a law allowing a medical procedure to be performed on a minor whose life is at risk if the risk is such that there is no time to contact the parents. But:
1) unless there is a very strong indication that notifiying the parents would risk the child’s life, the parents should be notified afterwards, as they would be after any other medical procedure, and
2) the same standards that would be applied in any other medical procedure should be applied in this case as to whether or not there’s time to contact the parents first.
The objective should be to take the procedures necessary to save the child’s life, not to take the procedures necessary to enable the child to deceive or avoid conflict with her parents.
Seems to me that these pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense medications that they think are morally repulsive. It also seems to me that the pharmacy has the right to fire them for that.
I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.
Having said that, I watched the press conference after the case was argued and both sides seem to agree. If a girl’s health is in immediate danger and she needs an abortion, go ahead and do it. According to the attorney general of NH, the doctor won’t be prosecuted. Really. She promises. So why don’t they just put that in the law? Why did NH purposely leave out an emergency health provision.? I understand they didn’t want just any old health claim to be good enough to bypass parental consent, but we’re talking emergencies here.
I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place.
I would not call myself an expert on this, so if anyone else cares to comment, go ahead (not that you need my invitation …). But my impression is that the proponents successfully painted a picture of a) how the young lady might be in danger from her parents if they were to know of her pregnancy, and b) that it would be a horrible violation of the young woman’s rights if the parents were to withhold permission.
Thanks for the answer. I’m definitely pro-choice and agree that there has to be protection for minors from possibly abusive or overly religious (for lack of a better term) parents. But it seems to me that the norm should be parental consent with exceptions in place, though I’m not sure how that would work in real life. I guess in all practicality, most kids will tell their parents if they don’t fear their parents freaking out.
“I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.”
Your kid doesn’t need your consent to get prenatal care, obstetric care, midwife services, etc.