uggabugga





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: website

It'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.]



15 comments

A cutline in this NYT story has a freudian slip:

President Bush announced the names of candidates for federal judgeships in May 2001. Included was John G. Roberts, far right. The president's choices reflected his desire to leave a conservative imprint on the courts.

By Blogger Sven, at 7/20/2005 1:34 PM  

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.

By Blogger Riggsveda, at 7/20/2005 1:37 PM  

His philosophy is perfectly in keeping with the current Republican agenda:

Get government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom,

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/20/2005 3:04 PM  

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.

By Anonymous jello, at 7/20/2005 8:47 PM  

One thing we’ve always found most curious about FFL is that of all the groups in the anti-abortion spectrum, they are uniquely positioned to push the one point where their side might have a case with most women: coerced abortions.

But they don’t. See their main issues page. "Fathers' Rights and Responsibilities" is up there alright, but not a whit about what we think animates many women on the anti side: that a great deal of women every year are strongarmed by families and/or partners into having abortions they don't want.

Compare with this New Zealand-based site, the only one online that seems to address this issue, perhaps not coincidentally because it seems to have nothing to do with the US anti-abortion movement (and note that at the end of a couple of the stories, the women telling them explicitly say that they do not think abortion should be illegal just because they had such a bad experience with it).

Of course, the real reason the anti-abortion movement doesn't push this issue is because a) it points a huge finger at parental-consent and notification laws, which have probably caused abortions that otherwise wouldn't have happened, and b) it concedes that the ultimate reproductive choice does indeed lie with the woman who's pregnant.

(BTW, pro-choice movement: Here’s our wedge issue. Are we game enough to take it up?)

By Blogger Sully, at 7/21/2005 9:21 AM  

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.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/22/2005 1:27 PM  

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.

By Blogger josh narins, at 7/22/2005 3:07 PM  

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.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/23/2005 8:20 AM  

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.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/23/2005 10:22 PM  

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?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/24/2005 10:32 PM  

You are either for free choice, or for controlling others choice.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2005 10:30 PM  

I was looking at your posts about cancer picture skin and found a good article about the same cancer picture skin info too...

God luck with it : )

By Blogger jon, at 10/02/2005 7:31 AM  

Looking for throat cancer information I came across this post. I totally agree with you and would feel the same way!

jon

By Blogger thermoplastic resources, at 10/03/2005 6:41 AM  

Hi,
While I was searching through Blogger I came past your site, it is not really the information I was after about sign of breast cancer but I did stay to read your blog and found it interesting and well done. Keep up the good work and hopefully I will visit again sometime and also find the information on sign of breast cancer that I was looking for in my travels.
Regards,Regards,

By Anonymous sign of breast cancer, at 1/24/2006 1:19 PM  

» International Trial Of Novel Breast Cancer Drug
14/12/06 07:03 from Breast cancer blog from medicineworld.org
-------------------------------------------------------------
A clinical trial of a new targeted breast cancer drug, led by
physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer
Center, has begun enrolling patients. The TEACH (Tykerb
Evaluation After CHemotherapy) trial will investigate ...


For useful content on breast cancer information,breast cancer current treatment: check
the url is http://breast-cancer1.com

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/19/2006 10:21 PM  

Post a Comment