supreme court decision

i’m angry about the supreme court decision regarding intact dilation and extraction methods. i’m not going to go into the debate about whether a woman has a right to make her own choices about her body, which include whether or not to have sex with a man, whether to use birth control and what method, and whether to abort an unwanted pregnancy, as well as the right to safety and general health.

what i do want to talk about is my take on the rationale for the decision. i think it’s a ridiculous, paternalistic rationale that makes no sense. no matter what your personal feelings on abortion are, whether in general or this particular procedure, i would imagine that it’s hard to justify a majority opinion that states that women have a “natural bond” to the embryo, and the main justification for the ruling is “moral concerns”. justice Ginsburg, in her dissenting opinion, rightly points out that the majority opinion uses the “bond of love a mother has for her child” and the assumption that women will regret their choices in the future, “and consequently suffer severe depression and loss of esteem” as CENTRAL arguments to their upholding of the law.

at the same time that the court upholds the law disallowing intact dilation and extraction, it continues to allow non-intact dilation and extraction. they are basically the same procedure, it’s just that the fetus is in pieces for non-intact, and comes out as a recognizable fetus for intact. intact dilation is safer for the woman, but of the two choices of a similar procedure, they have chosen to explicity outlaw the safer, while leaving the more risky for the life of the mother, legal.

other than my general disagreement with the ruling, i’m really REALLY upset at a lot of the logic used by the justices. they make the paternalistic assumption that women will regret their decision later, and apparently this gives them the right to take away women’s ability to MAKE that decision. the rhetoric implies that women are not capable, together with their physician, of making decisions for themselves but rather this is for our own protection. as Justice Ginsburg points out,”The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks”, but, “Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety”. These statements and others that the court makes take us back to a time when women’s work hours were restricted because of fragile feminine dispositions, and when man was considered the natural defender of woman. give me a break – this is infantalizing bullshit and it comes from the highest court in this country.

the court overrules and ignored the opinions of physicians. these justices dismiss the opinions of physicians regarding this procedure and the health and safety of women, preferring instead to use their own moral judgment to determine whether or not a medical procedure is a reasonable course of action.

i hate this.


One Response to “supreme court decision”

  1. I am SO with you. 2008 cannot get here soon enough. Not that that will affect the Supreme Court but at least it’s a chance at a new start. The democrats are having their first debate this week, btw. :)there is light. Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: