Disclaimer

Some parts of this blog may contain adult-oriented material. (It is NOT porn or erotica, but some of the content is inappropriate for children). If you are under your country's legal age to view such material or find it to be "objectionable", please leave this page now. Reader discretion is advised...but if you couldn't infer from the title that this may be an adult-oriented blog, then you shouldn't be on the Internet at all.

Everything on the Evil Slutopia blog is copyrighted by the E.S.C. and ESC Forever Media and may not be used without credit to the authors. But feel free to link to us as much as you want! For other legal information, disclaimers and FAQs visit ESCForeverMedia.com.

April 29, 2007

The Supreme Court Sucks

We're too depressed to write in detail about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on "partial-birth abortion" without a health exception for pregnant women. But we did put together a list of some of the links that we found the most useful.

  • An overview of the decision from SCOTUSblog. The full decision can be read here. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion (it begins on page 49), which is absolutely worth reading. We love her and owe her: "Today'’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health."
  • Katha Pollitt writes an awesome rant: "So now you know. It really does matter who's President and which party controls Congress. A Democratic-controlled Congress would never have passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which banned intact dilation and extraction abortions and, in flagrant violation of Roe v. Wade, lacked an exception to preserve the health of the woman. A Democratic President would never have signed such a bill. Nor would he have nominated the extremely conservative antichoicers John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, which on April 18 upheld, in Gonzales v. Carhart by a 5-to-4 vote (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas--all GOP nominees), a ban essentially identical to one rejected 5 to 4 in Stenberg v. Carhart seven years ago, when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the bench."
Tell us again why women put up with this? According to the old white men who run our government, women are either manipulative, cold-hearted whores or feeble-minded, weak little flowers. In both cases we need the help of our loving and protective government to prevent us from making the wrong (and also evil) decision. Aren't we lucky?

In addition to ranting and bitching and complaining (which we are excellent at), we'll keep writing about opportunities to get involved, like Back Up Your Birth Control Day and other actions involving reproductive choice and freedom. And we're always open to suggestions about what we should write about or get involved in, so email us: evilslutopia@yahoo.com

4 comments:

Meeky P. said...

Yes, the Supreme Court sucks great big monkey balls.

What's so strange about this decision is that pro-lifers are celebrating like Roe has already been overturned. What great victory have they supposedly won? It's not like this decision in any way prevents termination of unwanted pregnancies. If they were capable of intelligent thought, perhaps pro-lifers would see that this procedure was performed during WANTED pregnancies that happened to develop severe abnormalities and/or complications. God, these people are idiots!

Collin Brendemuehl said...

This ruling only affects 1 late-term procedure, done a couple hundred times per year. And the pregnancy needs to be terminated at that late stage, live birth should be the viable option. There's no need to take the life.

Collin

THE EVIL SLUT CLIQUE said...

Because of the language in the decision and the precedent that it sets for future cases, this ruling will almost definitely have far-reaching effects beyond the one procedure that it bans.

And while you're certainly entitled to your opinion about which medical procedures there are "no need" for, we prefer to give just a bit more weight to the viewpoints of actual doctors and medical experts on this one. (We apologize for making the assumption that you are not, in fact, an obstetrician or a gynecologist.)

Jezebel said...

Below is the press release that was issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the day that the Supreme Court ruling came out. It can also be found on the ACOG website

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

"On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us," said Dr. Laube.