A Policy of Mitigating Effects
Court nominee Alito doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade directly, he argues that such a tactic would fail (even with such a wonderfully right wing packed court?). But following a policy of "mitigating its effects" - now that's ok. While an assistant to the solicitor general wrote in a memo that was released today by the National Archives that "no one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade." But, (and oh, what a but) "by taking [cases that mitigate abortion bit by bit] the court may be signaling an inclination to cut back. What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"
Again, thank you National Archives - In 1985, according to CNN, Alito urged that the Justice Department attack the issue by working for limitations on abortion. Alito wrote: "I find this approach preferable to a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. It has most of the advantages of a brief devoted to overruling of Roe v. Wade; it makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open. At the same time, it is free of many of the disadvantages that would accompany a major effort to overturn Roe."
Thank you, "Scalito" for that wonderful preview of our future.
Again, thank you National Archives - In 1985, according to CNN, Alito urged that the Justice Department attack the issue by working for limitations on abortion. Alito wrote: "I find this approach preferable to a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade. It has most of the advantages of a brief devoted to overruling of Roe v. Wade; it makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open. At the same time, it is free of many of the disadvantages that would accompany a major effort to overturn Roe."
Thank you, "Scalito" for that wonderful preview of our future.
posted by Anonymous at 2:48 PM
2 Comments:
okay, how about a heretical thought? what if we DID overturn roe and return the abortion debate to the states? i don't know about popessa, but i'm sick to death of having this thing poison every single election cycle, making it the be-all and end-all issue of the world. is the right to an abortion something that absolutely demands federal protection, right up there with civil and voting rights? or am i being calloused, cynical and dismissive of other people's rights?
Not heretical at all, and I'm open to discussing this in some manner and fashion that doesn't include throwing fetuses at people or shooting them. One concern about making it a states-level issue, is that the right is then denied to women of those states who can not afford to travel to a state where it is allowed.
Post a Comment
<< Home