Opinions on Alito | Imamother

Mommy912

Wed, Jan 11 2006, 10:32 pm

you can watch it live during the hours that it is broadcast

Ending Reproductive Freedom
Judge Alito has written that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion. He is on record opposing Roe v. Wade, and endorsing state laws so burdensome they effectively deprive women of their right to privacy, reproductive freedom, and reproductive health. There is little doubt that as a Supreme Court justice, Alito would vote to overturn Roe.

In 1991, the Third Circuit heard Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a case that challenged a Pennsylvania law that would have severely restricted access to abortion. The Third Circuit upheld the law except for one restriction — a provision that would have required married women in Pennsylvania to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion.

But Alito dissented from the majority in Casey to express his support for the entire law, including the requirement that women notify their husbands of their intent to have an abortion. "The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," he wrote. Notably, Alito's opinion significantly downplayed the plight of abused women who would be affected by the statute.

After the Third Circuit's ruling, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit's ruling in its entirety, and reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A majority of the Supreme Court emphatically rejected Alito's opinion on the spousal notification provision, deeming the restriction unconstitutional.

Justice O'Connor, along with Justices Kennedy and Souter, wrote in reference to the spousal notification requirement, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry." The opinion also noted that the provision does not take into account the "millions of women in this country who are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their husbands" that "may have very good reasons for not wishing to inform their husbands of their decision to obtain an abortion."

Still, the vote in this case was just 5-4 in favor of O'Connor's position, which means that if just one of the five justices in the majority had gone the other way, the spousal notification provision would have been upheld. The four justices who went against the majority wrote that they wanted to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade. These justices approvingly quoted Alito's argument in favor of the spousal notification provision in their opinion.

So what would have been different if Alito had been sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court in O'Connor's place in 1992? It's almost certain that today women in Pennsylvania, and perhaps many other states, would be required to notify their husbands before getting an abortion.

↑ ElTam ↓

Wed, Jan 11 2006, 11:19 pm

The right to privacy issue centers around whether there is a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. It's not expressly stated, but widely inferred from the fourth amendment, which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Alito has said, as I understand it, that he does not read this to mean that we have a protected right to privacy.

TzenaRena

Thu, Jan 12 2006, 9:40 am

Mommy912 wrote:

you can watch it live during the hours that it is broadcast

Notably, Alito's opinion significantly downplayed the plight of abused women who would be affected by the statute.

So what would have been different if Alito had been sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court in O'Connor's place in 1992? It's almost certain that today women in Pennsylvania, and perhaps many other states, would be required to notify their husbands before getting an abortion.

Note that the above article is an opinion, or editorial, heavily in favor of abortion.

What I don't understand is how any woman could claim that her husband doesn't even have the right to know about, much less have a part in this"decision". Rolling Eyes

Isn't it his child too?!!

What is this guarantee to a "right of Privacy"? A right to do a crime without restraint.

carrot

Thu, Jan 12 2006, 11:57 am

Mommy912 wrote:

Notably, Alito's opinion significantly downplayed the plight of abused women who would be affected by the statute.

I don't think that they force anybody to tell their husbands. Just sign a paper that nobody checks up on. I think this "abused women" thing is a red herring.

It is unfair to give the father the responsibility of paying child support in the case that the mother decides to give birth to the child, at the same time that he is not considered important enough to be notified if the mother decided to abort it. Responsibilities have to be balanced with rights.

↑ ElTam ↓

Thu, Jan 12 2006, 1:52 pm

The thing is, what is a crime and what is not a crime is so variable. At one point in this country's history, drinking alcohol was a crime. At another point, it was against the law to have or give information on birth control, even to married women. At some point in the future, it is easy to forsee that vaccines might be mandated by law (beyond the way they are now). Are you comfortable with the government accessing your medical records or your child's medical records to find out if you've vaccinated?

In other countries, in modern times, shechita has been outlawed. Other countries have toyed with the idea of outlawing circumcision. I'm not sure enough that those sorts of things can't happen in this country that I'm willing to give up my protection to government intrusion in my life.

I do think that the government listening in on my phone calls or reading my mail or seeing what I check out from the library or buy from the bookstore is an "unreasonable search," especially without a lawful warrant and probable cause.

I am not doing anything illegal, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with the government poking into my life. The framers knew a lot about the abuses of government, and gave us the fourth amendment for a very good reason. To chuck it the window because we don't think we need it seems very scary to me.

Last edited by ElTam on Thu, Jan 12 2006, 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total