Boxen should post this
Roe v. Wade is in constant peril, people. Should you doubt it, check out this story which illustrates how American women who are insured by Medicaid are not reimbursed for abortions, even when the fetus suffers from profound genetic abnormalities.
Link is here
Nice culture of “life” we’re cultivating here. If you’re poor, you’d better find a way to get excited about your baby without a brain.
danger Said,
August 20, 2005 @ 12:29 am
The 9th circuit appellate (which includes California) is widely considered to be the most liberal circuit in the country. The judges here took the easy way out by deferring to a 25 year old case.
The result of this case should not invoke Roe v Wade arguments. The result of this case should invoke revulsion at weak-willed life-time appointed judges.
bluegrass girl Said,
August 20, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
Although we may not like the 25-year-old case in question, the judges actually did their job, which is to interpret the law by applying precedent. I doubt you would feel as upset if they referred to our 200-year-old Constitution. If the judges were acting out of “liberal bias”, I believe we would expect them to have reached a different verdict.
This case is about Roe v. Wade in a number of ways. First, it demonstrates that while women have the right to an abortion in this country (for now), the ease with which that right may be obtained is not unitary across all segments of our society. Poor women and minors have less access, as do women in more rural areas, where there are less practitioners willing to take on a politically charged procedure that has resulted in numerous doctors being killed by right-wing reactionaries. Second, why do you suppose that the Supreme Court ruled years ago that Medicaid need not cover abortion outside of direct risk to the mother’s life? Because the political right would raise holy hell if federal tax dollars (which fund Medicaid) were applied to pay for abortions. The fact is that although Roe v. Wade stands, the last 20 years have seem numerous legislative attempts to chip away at it.
danger Said,
August 21, 2005 @ 1:04 am
I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal and agree with your points that this is bad law and that the government is grossly misguided here…
… but one could argue that the federal government shouldl never even have ruled on Roe v Wade in the first place. What will happen if RvW gets overturned by the SJC? The decision will be left up to the individual states. Now, isn’t less federal government better for all of us?
Oh, and let’s not forget the REAL reason the SJC disallows Medicaid to pay for abortion… pregnant women are hot hot hot. I should know, my wife is pregnant with our third child. What better time to tell y’all than during this thread. :)
bluegrass girl Said,
August 22, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
Congratulations!