GRRRRRROWL!!!

[trinityvixen]

I am woman, hear me roar at the Supreme Court (well, some of it)

It really makes me wonder when Scalia can be so cavalier and say that there's no undue burden in forcing an underage girl to get a judge's waiver from having to tell her parents that she's getting an abortion. On the one hand, I applaud his ridiculous optimism and faith in the youth of today that they would be able to find a judge and snap him up in a second when worried about the health and life of an underage girl. Because, clearly, if you were 15-16 or so and pregnant and you felt like something was wrong to the point of your health being in danger, you're going to be very calm and easily look up your local judge and get him to say it's okay to abort the baby. Because every teenager knows immediately which court they should go to, too.

ON THE OTHER FUCKING HAND, YOU REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS NAZI, you have never been a scared teenage girl, never been responsible for making a tough decision that might save your life at a cost. It's so easy for you to say it creates no undue burden that a girl inform her parents first or else get a judge to except her from the rule. How the hell a frightened teenager makes the case she needs one in front of a judge before health complications get too severe or without her parents noticing in the first place is beyond me. So, either she tells her parents or she performs some magic trick to get them not to notice she's gone to the doctor and gotten him in front of a judge to maintain her privacy. Jesus H. Christ, why do you allow men to be so stupid and selfish?

And don't fucking get me started on another article I saw about this case. The Ayotte woman, arguing that the NH law should stand doesn't think it should fall because it inconveniences someone.

::crickets chirping::

That's right. We shouldn't strike down a law that prevents doctors from saving the health of a patient (note: if the girl's life is in danger, the law is not applicable) because the chances of it ever coming up are slight. O-kaaaaay, so tell me why it is again that we are a society founded on the ideal of presumed innocence, and it's-better-to-let-10-criminals-go-free-than-convict-1-innocent-man? I mean, it's awfully convenient, not to mention good odds, that we put away 10 guilty men and sacrifice an innocent one every so often, isn't it? So what if the health of the girl is in danger? She's still going to live, so she should definitely have to tell her parents. Who cares if, in the mean time, damage is done to her reproductive system or her psychological health that is irrepairable!

The point of law here is that if it does harm to an innocent person, it's not lawful, am I right or am I wrong? I'd sooner have that applied across the board and lose the death penalty than to allow these right-to-life puritans this inch. THERE SHOULD BE NO LAWS RESTRICTING A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION WHEN THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE TO HER HEALTH, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL.

Period, motherfuckers.

Comments

At the risk of getting into trouble...

[carpdeus.livejournal.com]

Without choosing sides, let me make a couple of comments. And let me say that I am only making these points to get correct knowledge out there. I take a stand neither way on the actual issue since I am a "stupid and selfish" male <smiles gently> I stand aside. But, for points of law to be correct:
you felt like something was wrong to the point of your health being in danger, you're going to be very calm and easily look up your local judge and get him to say it's okay to abort the baby. Because every teenager knows immediately which court they should go to, too.This is the doctor's responsibility, not the patient's. And, in theory, the doctor would indeed know the number to call, just like the cops know who to call to get warrants. In the case of no physical or mental harm to the patient, the doctor would contact the judge, get the ok, and perform the abortion. In the case of potential harm, the law as written would require the same procedure and the question hinges on how long that would take.

Another point to be made here is that is a facial case. It is being brought before the law takes affect and before anyone has actually been harmed. This is different from Miranda, where the court was judging harm already done. With that in mind...
The Ayotte woman, arguing that the NH law should stand doesn't think it should fall because it inconveniences someone.This is one of those technical issues. The question is whether the whole law should stand or fall. The court can decide that the law is fine as is, can strike down the law and tell the legislature what was wrong with it so the legistlature can craft new legislation without the constitutional issue, or the court can reword the law so that it meets the constitutional requirements. In general, a facial case needs to prove that it harms a majority of the people covered in order for the whole thing to be stricken.

Please note, the facial case is arguing that the need to get a judge's or parent's permission in the case of medical emergency that is not death is the constitutional roadblock. Therefore the lawyers are trying to prove that a majority of the teens getting abortions would be in the case of medical emergencies.

Peace

Re: At the risk of getting into trouble...

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

I would like to note here that, as pharmacists and doctors around the country have made painfully clear, sometimes doctors cannot be trusted to make a decision when it comes to their patients needs crossed with their own personal morals. If a girl's doctor does not want to provide her with an abortion, even in cases of her health, s/he may not provide the appropriate guidance. The thought that all doctors take the moral high ground when it comes to their patients' health is about as naive as Scalia's opinion of teenagers.

And please, don't use being male as an excuse to stay on the fence. Or, if you insist, please don't say it (smiling gently) following an impassioned treatise. While it is indeed problematic for biological males to make absolute claims by virtue of not having a uterus, they are perfectly capable of believing a)that a fetus is a child and/or b)that a person, male or female, has a right to control over his/her own body. There are some men that believe both, and I admire that. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Trinity), that the point was that Scalia's blinders are made all the more blatant because his words betray a lack of understanding of the psychological and physical trauma of a harmful pregnancy. Or even of a healthy pregnancy, for that matter, though that doesn't seem to be coming up right now. It's nice to think that every parent would lovingly accept their daughters in spite of anything, but the reality is that many teenage girls who become pregnant are emotionally or physically abused, kicked out of the house, cut off from familial support, etc. That's part of the "undue burden" that Sandra Day O'Connor stands behind, though that term is much softer than the issue in reality. Don't get me started on the language of the abortion debate. It's only 10AM.

Re: At the risk of getting into trouble...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the back up, Ms. L. Your words are always more wisdomatic (aka more intelligent) than mine on this issue.

As for Msr Carpdeus, I am well aware what the two sides are arguing. The NH side argues that since the law doesn't affect the majority of cases, it should stand. The opposing side, supported by planned parenthood et al., argues instead on the side of law more of us are familiar with, that if a law harms one person through no fault of their own, it is unjust. Personally, I return to my sentiments about preferring innocent men to stay out of jail rather than convicting guilty ones. Whether that is the typical rule of law in cases as these, I don't know. That the case is being heard is not about an abortion where there was a health risk is a dangerous complication for those wanting to keep the law as is. It scares me, frankly.

Re: At the risk of getting into trouble...

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

My personal views are in line with yours in this particular case, but it sounds like carpdeus's statements where more about technicalities of jurisprudence than personal preference. It may simply be the nature of our legal system that what it's "appropriate" for a judge to rule in this case is that the law stand, but that if or when a case comes up where someone is actually harmed, it may be struck down. I'm not one of those law school fellows, but that's what I glean from his comment. It's the nature of our legal system to be reactive, not preventive, shame that that can be when a person's life (or health) is at stake. Of course, in theory, the prevention is the job of the legislature...

Nonetheless, law is anything but absolute, and I am with you in hoping that they rule to strike it down, even while silently sniggering at the feminist reference you chose to use in your link to the article. (Come on, you didn't even go to Barnard...)