Apr 20, 2007
The religious right got its reward on April 26, when the Supreme Court banned an abortion procedure.
And the reasoning of the Bush Court was Neanderthal.
"Supreme Court justices have exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
The decision will jeopardize the health of some women, and it will criminalize the practice of some doctors who perform abortions. But it will not reduce abortions.
Under Roe v. Wade, a woman's health is supposed to be protected.
But this decision blithely ignored that key precedent by claiming, contrary to the conclusion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that there was no health concern present in the banning of the intact dilation and evacuation procedure.
"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 group said in a statement denouncing the decision [1].
"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."
Supreme Court justices now purport to have greater medical expertise than the specialists in the field. They've exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
What's more, their decision may not prevent a single abortion. It will only change the way a small fraction of abortions are done--from safe to less safe.
If their concern was with the fetus, they haven't accomplished anything.
But betraying a huge streak of paternalism, their professed concern was with the woman's mental state were she to find out how this kind of abortion was performed.
Abortion is a difficult moral decision for women. But they are fully capable of making it, regardless of the procedure.
A woman doesn't need five men who aren't doctors to pretend to shield her, even as they deprive her of autonomy.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
(c) 2007 The Progressive
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 The Progressive
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
The religious right got its reward on April 26, when the Supreme Court banned an abortion procedure.
And the reasoning of the Bush Court was Neanderthal.
"Supreme Court justices have exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
The decision will jeopardize the health of some women, and it will criminalize the practice of some doctors who perform abortions. But it will not reduce abortions.
Under Roe v. Wade, a woman's health is supposed to be protected.
But this decision blithely ignored that key precedent by claiming, contrary to the conclusion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that there was no health concern present in the banning of the intact dilation and evacuation procedure.
"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 group said in a statement denouncing the decision [1].
"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."
Supreme Court justices now purport to have greater medical expertise than the specialists in the field. They've exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
What's more, their decision may not prevent a single abortion. It will only change the way a small fraction of abortions are done--from safe to less safe.
If their concern was with the fetus, they haven't accomplished anything.
But betraying a huge streak of paternalism, their professed concern was with the woman's mental state were she to find out how this kind of abortion was performed.
Abortion is a difficult moral decision for women. But they are fully capable of making it, regardless of the procedure.
A woman doesn't need five men who aren't doctors to pretend to shield her, even as they deprive her of autonomy.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
(c) 2007 The Progressive
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
The religious right got its reward on April 26, when the Supreme Court banned an abortion procedure.
And the reasoning of the Bush Court was Neanderthal.
"Supreme Court justices have exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
The decision will jeopardize the health of some women, and it will criminalize the practice of some doctors who perform abortions. But it will not reduce abortions.
Under Roe v. Wade, a woman's health is supposed to be protected.
But this decision blithely ignored that key precedent by claiming, contrary to the conclusion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that there was no health concern present in the banning of the intact dilation and evacuation procedure.
"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 group said in a statement denouncing the decision [1].
"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."
Supreme Court justices now purport to have greater medical expertise than the specialists in the field. They've exchanged their black robes for white ones, never bothering to go to med school for the privilege.
What's more, their decision may not prevent a single abortion. It will only change the way a small fraction of abortions are done--from safe to less safe.
If their concern was with the fetus, they haven't accomplished anything.
But betraying a huge streak of paternalism, their professed concern was with the woman's mental state were she to find out how this kind of abortion was performed.
Abortion is a difficult moral decision for women. But they are fully capable of making it, regardless of the procedure.
A woman doesn't need five men who aren't doctors to pretend to shield her, even as they deprive her of autonomy.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
(c) 2007 The Progressive
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.