SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Neanderthal Supreme Court Decision on Abortion
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
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 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.