Posted on 11/04/2005 3:55:33 AM PST by wita
Some of you already know that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is such a regular customer at a coffee shop near his office that they named a drink after him: Judge Alito's Bold Justice Blend.
What you don't know is that married waitresses have to have their husbands' permission to wait on him.
OK, I made that up.
But Alito's 1991 ruling on a section of Pennsylvania's abortion law was nearly that repressive. He upheld the provision that required married women to notify their spouses before they could get an abortion.
The two other judges on the three-judge federal panel who heard Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey struck down that provision.
The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled it unconstitutional, declaring that it theoretically could "give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Glad you feel that way, Jill.
Wait on a judge/get an abortion...yeah, that's some clever parallelism :-/
I guess the ultimate power in a relationship is to be able to kill one of your children without consulting the spouse.
It was my first experience that I can remember, and just as soon as I read it, I wanted to forget the, I'm not a feminist comment.
Because she's been committing adultery.
Can anyone think of another?
I'm not sure of the lower case used in the title, but I did notice and would easily believe there is a reason for it, other than English.
Sure. Because he wants kids and she doesn't.
Why, that dirty guy! OMG, he is worse than Hitler! /liberal-claptrap off
Her husband is Michael Corleone?
How about, he beats her up on a regular basis, even though she is pregnant, and she is deathly afraid he is going to kill her, and she hasn't gotten that court order yet prohibiting contact. Oh, I forgot, that is the feminist normal scenario, to explain she has been slightly unfaithful.
Actually, in the law that was struck down, one of the ways a woman could get out of notifying her husband was to say that the child was not his, so they had your case covered.
Conveniently forgotten in the haste to meet the newspaper deadline of course.
Go figured...he's actually rule that it isn't excessively burdensome for a wife to talk with her husband prior to going for an abortion...and I'm sure it also scares you that the majority of America agrees with him...it is you that is out of the mainstream here.
He's dangerously radical.
Along with the vast majority of America.
Bad enough that Alito ignored trial testimony from an expert witness who said: "Forcing a battered woman to notify her husband is like giving him a hammer to just beat her with." Clearly, the victims of domestic violence would have been hurt the most by the spousal notification provision - and I do mean that literally. But the import of this requirement goes way beyond that.
If you'd removed your head from the NARAL talking points and actually read the law that the state passed and Alito upheld you would have realized that there were 4 provisions where a woman would not be required to mention to her husband that she was going for an abortion, and one of those was if she believed she would be subject to physical abuse...so you just lost this argument due to ignorance.
OK, so if you think I'm just a feminist zealot who's overstating the implications of the provision, consider what the Supreme Court said in throwing it out.
Well, either you're a feminist zealot or an idiot since your argument is based upon faulty understanding of the law in question.
Not a very intellectually honest journalist.
There is a huge difference between "seeking someone's permission" and "notification."
Good comments, I would question ignorance, and consider intentional appeal to the emotional needs of a very few choir members, when examining how she wrote the story.
Sounds like the premise of 90% of the movies you see on Lifetime. (The other 10% of the movies are a guy plotting to take her kids away.)
... the kind that ends up in taking a life.
Assuming the child is his, a husband should have some say in whether or not it is aborted. Same for unmarried women; the father should at least be notified. In both cases the father will be responsible for support if she does have the baby. You can't have it both ways. If men truly share responsibility for a baby, then men also get to decide whether or not she has a baby or an abortion. If it's her body and her decdion only, then men are not responsible for child support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.