Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Hard right: Bush nominee for the Supreme Court is John Roberts. According to Salon, (citing a Boston Globe report), his wife "has had a leadership role in a group called Feminists for Life." Feminists for Life: websiteIt's very slick. They offer several downloadable ads (in PDF format), all pretty much focusing on abortion. Here is one [PDF] to consider: The clear message is that there should not be abortions even for those pregnancies caused by rape. That's not anywhere close to a mainstream view. How much does Roberts' wife believe it this stuff? How much does Roberts himself? Hard to say, but it looks like they are inclined to want to prevent abortion in all circumstances. UPDATE: FFL promotes the abortion -> breast cancer charge. That's probably not true. The National Cancer Institute has charged that the study has been interpreted inaccurately and "[t]here is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion. [National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, Risk of Breast Cancer Associated with Abortion, Washington, DC, February 13, 1996.]
posted by Quiddity at 7/20/2005 11:59:00 AM
9 comments
Juan Cole had a unique take on this attitude earlier this a.m. that I riffed on later. I consider myself a feminist, and I think this is claptrap. You have a problem with the morality of having an abortion after you've been raped? Next time it happens, don't have one! Personally, I'm not ready to tell someone who's been traumatized, injured, and possibly suicidal that she can't do something about it. And I wish to hell people would stop feeling they have such intimate rights with regard to perfect strangers.
His philosophy is perfectly in keeping with the current Republican agenda:
Get government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom,
yes, the prospect of roe being overturned is frightening, but it would be smarter politics to frame the opposition against this nominee not solely on the abortion issue but on economic grounds as well (set him up as being pro corporate, anti-worker). we would gain greater sympathy with that argument. abortion isn't a day to day concern for most people, but they do understand "putting food on the table" issues such as protecting pensions from corporate raiders.
isn't this the argument thomas frank is making? haven't read his book yet.
pet theory in the correlation-does-not-mean-causation in breast cancer/abortion: Does it control for ethnicity? The ACLU report cites that the study FFL uses relies on self-reporting. An ethnic population such as Central European Jews which is genetically more breast cancer prone (relatively) is also religiously not disapproving of abortion. Easily explains the correlation without resorting to voodoo causation.
The breast/cancer abortion thing is retarded.
It has to do with menstruation.
Women who have no kids, and those kids who have no kids and an abortion, have the same breast cancer rates.
Women who have many children have less breast cancer.
--
Thomas Frank was saying that the economic arguments don't phase them at all, it is about abortion.
--
The positive side of this inevitable failure of Roe is that no longer will this issue be political ammunition for the religio-right.
Although, a political education would help even more.
Josh Narins wrote, The positive side of this inevitable failure of Roe is that no longer will this issue be political ammunition for the religio-right.
Huh? It will overnight become an issue in 50 state legislatures. And it might even become an issue in the federal Congress, right-wing paeans to federalism notwithstanding.
Roberts is a stealth candidate of the extreme far right wing, a Taliban neo nazi of the worst order. The paper trail is limited because conservatives know that any paper trail would awaken the American people into realizing what conservatives truly are.
My mom had six kids, all breast-fed, and no abortions. She still got breast cancer. Oops, there goes that nice little theory.
Honestly, when will the right learn to stop twisting science AND politics for their own sexist ends?
You are either for free choice, or for controlling others choice.
|
