Can We Have Harriet Miers Back?
divert attention (as he does so masterfully) from the gathering storm concerning Libby's alleged leaks to the media. What do we know from Iraq though - not our area here on bioethics blog except when it comes to the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu G. The critical issue that has us terrified is the hard right turn from Harriet to Samuel.Alito has written some interesting rulings that are, um, important in the evolution of the new conservative approach to abortion - to grant states the right to whittle away at abortion rights. Most notably he joined the majority in the Casey decision that imposed numerous restrictions on women in Pennsylvania including mandatory notifications of alternatives to abortion and a 24 hour mandatory waiting period prior to abortion. Parental notification was also made mandatory in Pennsylvania under their ruling.
Washington Post writes of a particularly frightening writing from Alito in the matter of Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
"In addition," he wrote, "the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 [the spousal provision] would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband's interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. . . . The Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it "unwise" or worse. "O'Connor, writing for the court in the matter when it reached SCOTUS, was the Justice most involved in rejecting Alito's view on that matter. The notion that Alito would be replacing O'Connor is in that respect particularly instructive.
The great fear here is that Democrats will have a very hard time 1) pushing back against a concerted effort by the conservative Republicans on this matter, and 2) fighting a battle on this matter and their desire to see a Congressional investigation in re: Karl Rove et al. We've been Borked.
