Supreme Court: Slate summaries

I don't have particularly much to add, but I thought these Slate articles were nice rundowns for those worried about the future of Roe.

First, Emily Bazelon's piece "The Front-Runners on Roe: What Bush's shortlist thinks about abortion."

And what seems to be a very astute analysis from William Saletan:

Bush has something to gain and little to lose by replacing O'Connor with an anti-Roe justice, because abortion isn't just an up-or-down issue. It's an issue of incremental restrictions. On the restrictions, the public tends to agree with Bush. And while Roe isn't directly at stake in this court appointment, some of the restrictions are.

Bush understands this. Every time he's asked about abortion, he does a cute little dance. Two years ago, when I was writing a book about abortion politics, I called it the Texas Three-Step. Here's how it goes. First Bush nods to pro-lifers in principle. He tells them something vague about building a culture of life. Then he winks to pro-choicers in practice. He lets them know he won't or can't ban abortion outright. Then he changes the subject to restrictions that poll well—usually laws that require parental notification or ban partial-birth abortion.

Here's Bush speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention two weeks ago: "A compassionate society rejects partial-birth abortion. And I signed a law to end that brutal practice, and my administration will continue working to defend that law." And here he is an interview last week: "Life is precious in all forms, all stages, and … that belief leads into political debates on issues like whether or not a parent should be notified prior to a daughter's abortion." The interviewer asks: "Do you think abortion should be illegal?" Bush replies that he's "a realist" and that because Americans are "polarized" on the issue, "we're going to have to change hearts."

Two days after Bush gave that interview, O'Connor dropped her bombshell. Reporters asked Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., what might happen to Roe. Santorum is one of the most avid pro-lifers in Congress. But he also serves in the Senate Republican leadership and faces a tough re-election fight next year. "I'm not sure that Roe itself will be in jeopardy," he demurred. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review headlined his comments, "Santorum predicts limits on abortions." The paper's lede said Santorum "expected the next justice to be more inclined to ban so-called partial birth abortions. He also predicted parental consent for minors seeking abortions will likely get a more sympathetic ear."

Why do Bush and Santorum pick these restrictions? Look at the polls. Do you want Roe overturned? Two-thirds say no. Should partial-birth abortion be illegal? Two-thirds say yes. Should teenage girls have to notify their parents before getting an abortion? Four-fifths say yes.

As any medical students worth their salt know, there is no such thing as a partial-birth abortion. For the rest of you:

There are intact D&Es, and their are late term abortions, and somewhere by fusing these two ideas in the minds of the public, the social right has created the myth of partial-birth abortions.

The intact D&E is simply a method for removing a fetus from the mother, and is an important procedure for uses other than just elective abortion. As an abortifacient procedure, it is simply another option among others.

Late term abortions are not protected by Roe, and are still illegal in most states anyway. And while, yes, most late term abortions are performed by intact D&E, intact D&E procedures do not equal late term abortions.

The popularized idea of a doctor pulling a baby halfway out of its mother at the time of delivery and sucking its brains out is simple science fiction.

Banning the intact D&E procedure would be akin to banning a thoracic approach to repairing a hiatal hernia in favor of the abdominal approach. Sounds arbitrary and technical, doesn't it? Yup, it is.

And either this concept is just a little too complex for Rick Santorum and his cronies (unlikely), or their goal is simple obstruction of a legal medical procedure. In the coming weeks, I imagine that I might have to revive the douchebag-of-the-week award, as Sen. Man-on-Dog gives me new quotes of amazing ignorance.