The big early word on Bush's nominee to the SCOTUS, Samuel Alito, is that he was the lone dissenting vote in a Pennsylvania case (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that dealt with requiring a woman to notify her spouse before she got an abortion. Still, those who reflexively believe that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Alito gets on the high court should know
in 2000 ... Alito joined the majority that found a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Alito said the Supreme Court required such a ban to include an exception if the mother's health was endangered.
Jim Lindgren points out that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that spousal notification is the right thing to do -- by a whopping 72% to 26%. This figure has remained pretty steady over the last decade and a half.
I've wondered about this whole premise. If a woman (wife) does not have to inform her husband if she goes ahead and has an abortion, then why is the father legally liable for [child] support if the wife decides to have the child? The ultra pro-choicers believe that it's the woman's body and thus she can do as she wishes, husband be damned; however, if she wishes to have the child, these pro-choicers are right out there demanding to know where daddy is with his wallet!
Someone once made the point to me that "the woman has a special responsibility" by carrying a child, so she should have "special" rights in this case.
Hmm. If she has a "special responsibility," maybe that ought to be taken to mean she should be damn sure she and her partner both have birth control measures before getting it on!
"If she has a "special responsibility," maybe that ought to be taken to mean she should be damn sure she and her partner both have birth control measures before getting it on!"
That is just common sense. Your future daughters will no doubt benefit from your wisdom on this topic.
As far as Casey vs. Planned Parenthood is concerned, I think O'Conner had the right take on it.
If a woman (wife) does not have to inform her husband if she goes ahead and has an abortion, then why is the father legally liable for [child] support if the wife decides to have the child?
Fine point.
See, mikem? You ever uttered those two dirty little words on a liberal blog? :)
Posted by: dan at November 2, 2005 06:40 PM