January 12, 2006
On Alito and Husband Notification
Tiffany of BlackFeminism is blogging for choice.
One of the things that most disturbs me about Samuel Alito is his 1991 dissent in a challenge to a Pennsylvania law restricting abortion access. In his dissent, Alito argued that legally requiring a woman to notify her husband before seeking an abortion did not constitute an “undue burden.”
My disagreement with Alito is simple, but from a common-sense standpoint, not a legal one: my health and safety are on the line. Why should anyone else have a say, and why should the government legally require me to put my health and safety at risk? Not only is pregnancy itself a risky proposition, but for many women, so is revealing a pregnancy. In fact, some researchers say that homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women. And what if that pregnancy wasn’t a result of her husband’s good lovin’? Thank goodness the other judges in the case had more sense. (You may also be interested in reading Alito’s Casey Dissent on Lawyers, Guns and Money.)
Read the full post at BlackFeminism.
Posted by at January 12, 2006 1:57 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The government should NOT be requiring pregnant women to tell their spouses. Like you said, the risk of abuse is horrible. Also, you have to wonder what kind of husbands would support such a law.
Whether or not a woman tells her spouse or partner is a decision that she herself will have to make without government-obstacles. I hope though that if a woman has an understanding, trustworthy husband that the marriage is strong enough so that she will see this and voluntarily tell her husband. I hope to be such a worthy husband. But legally requiring women does NOTHING to make this trust and bond happen. I think the Republicans really need to re-evaluate their love of "small government". There are Pro-choice Republicans, including the Republican Majority for Choice (which now opposes Alito) that want to see their party saved from their nightmare leaders.
Save the GOP from the anti-choice zealots!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I tend to vote Democrat. ;)
Posted by: H at January 14, 2006 1:17 AM
I couldn't agree more. I actually am a transgender female, so aside from the discrimination, I can cross over to any side of the gender divide I want. Even though as a cross-over, if I got physically altered, I'd get all the benefits of being male, I know what it is like to be female and to be abused for a number of reasons. I don't think this law is a good idea.
And in my opinion, we should all be independents as voters, regardless of what party we belong to. A good candidate is a good candidate!
Posted by: Malafides Lucius at January 14, 2006 9:10 AM
Alito should rule that adulterous Gingrich, Blunt, Hyde, Don Sherwood, Deal Hudson, Neil Bush, Randall Terry, etc. must notify and receive signed permission from their wives 24 hours before they commit any adultery! Vow-breaking priests and bishops should do the same with Pope Rat, parishioners, and the parents of molested altar boys. Anti-birth control pharmacists should notify wives, church organizations, and police departments of all Viagra prescription users. Viagra users (anti-abortion adulterous Repugs and pedophile priests!) should be shown pictures of mothers who lost breasts, noses, lips, ears, eyes, hair, limbs, etc. to pregnancy-INDUCED CANCER!!! They should also do community service in smelly Third World childbirth bladder and bowel FISTULA clinics!!! But Alito hates women and probably has sex scandals we won't hear of until he puts Pope Nazinger and Father Pedophile in charge of women's privates.
Posted by: Heil Mary at January 15, 2006 6:27 PM
Wow! Heil Mary!
Such vitriolic venoum spouted by hate and anger!
KUDOS! to you. I share your views totally, perhaps not in the same degree, but I am not in your position, so please continue to post. We need to discource further, as I see some extreme issues at hand
Hey, lucious. The benefit of being male? Let me know so I can share. Just kidding, my friend!
Posted by: robert at January 16, 2006 3:29 AM