GRRRRRROWL!!!
Nov. 30th, 2005 05:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI 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.
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.
