Monday, April 23, 2007

What happened to choice?

Every day poses challenges for many women - and by association, partners, families, and friends - in the struggle to protect their reproductive freedoms. Poverty and inadequate reproductive health education in schools add to the barriers to a healthy community. We need easier access to emergency contraception (EC), and we're gradually getting it. We need our medical experts to know the difference between RU-486 and EC. But one thing we don't need is a Supreme Court decision allowing politicians to interfere with personal medical deicions.

Unfortunately, that's what we've got. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning certain abortions. Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans.

The Court ruled on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

If you'd rather these difficult medical decisions be left to women and medical professionals, you can send a letter to your representatives here.

The cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

Jess in Philly


Anonymous Anonymous said...

God Bless the Supreme Court. Whatever people try to say this decision saves lives not the other way around.

5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous is smoking something. Even the backers of this decision—which violates stare decisis, common sense, and good medical practice—readily acknowledge that it won't reduce the number of abortions or "save lives." In fact, it puts women with second trimester problem pregnancies at great risk for their health and welfare and installs a bunch of middle aged white males as landlords of American wombs. That's a condition that will not stand for long or as Justice Ginsberg in dissent noted "A decision [Kennedy's opinion in support of the PBA law] so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power." And it won't. It's only a matter of time before the decision is superceded by a new court, restoring stare decisisor Congress passes a law rendering the decision irrelevant.

10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saves lives? The only reason to use this procedure over and above the other late term options is for the health and well being of the woman. And the law PURPOSELY left out a health exemption for no reason other than to try a new legal strategy of "fact finding" by congress-critters.

Subjecting women to danger simply to gain the opportunity to make a legal point in a courtroom is basically immoral. And I don't make that judgment lightly. Speaking freely, may God damn those who would do so.

9:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home