PROSPECT OF ALITO ON THE SUPREME COURT SCARES ME

I have to say it.  The prospect of Judge Alito on the Supreme Court of the United States scares me.  I have been nervous about him ever since I read his Third Circuit Court of Appeals dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he strained his factual analysis in order to opine in favor of a state law that would have required married women to notify their husbands prior to getting an abortion.  I wrote about that here.  While I haven't had time to read any more of his legal opinions, nothing else I'm hearing about the man is giving me a warm fuzzy sense of reassurance either. 

And my concern isn't really about Roe v. Wade.  It has to do more with what I sense as a fundamental, general lack of concern for women's rights across the board.  For example, what really bothered me about his Casey dissent wasn't so much that it indicated that he might be opposed to legalized abortion.  It had to do with the fact that, given that abortion is legal in this country, he was so eager to uphold a law forcing women to disclose a private medical decision to their husbands, so eager to uphold a law that would have given men at least a small measure of control over a physiological process that affects only the woman -- i.e. control over her body. Frankly, I'd rather just have Roe overturned than have Alito's proposed Casey precedent on the books.  Even if you are a pro-life woman, that kind of precedent should make you nervous because it would pave the way for the man to have a say in medical decisions (whether abortion or not) that affect your pregnancy.

More recently we learned about Alito's infamous 1985 memo, written when he was an Assistant to the United States Solicitor General, as to how to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.  Again, it isn't even the potential overruling of Roe v. Wade that I find most alarming.  In that memo Alito wrote as follows in favor of an Illinois law:

What, for example, is the objection to informing a woman that certain methods of birth control are "abortifacients," i.e. that they do not prevent fertilization but terminate the development of the fetus after conception?  Why cannot the State of Illinois require that this information be provided to patients, in the doctor's own words, so that women for whom the difference is morally significant can make an informed choice?

Uh, well because the methods of birth control to which Alito refers are not abortifacients.  These methods of birth control have the potential to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.  And that is quite a different thing than terminating the development of a fertilized egg once it is safely ensconced in the womb.  Because, heck, we lose fertilized eggs that don't manage to implant in the uterus ALL the time.  That's a normal part of the process.  Just as tons of sperm fail to hit an egg, quite a few fertilized eggs don't make it into the womb.  Losing fertilized eggs is just a natural and common part of the effort to conceive, one that we generally don't even notice, much less mourn as the loss of a human life.

Again, Alito strains to define abortion and the beginning of pregnancy in the way most onerous to women.  NARAL Pro-choice America has said that some of the most common and reliable forms of contraception could fall under Alito's definition of "abortifacients," including birth control pills, the contraceptive ring, the IUD and the birth control patch.  In Alito, I see a consistent willingness to bend over backwards to support laws limiting abortion to the utmost possible and his definition of abortion as potentially including processes used by the majority of American women to control their own fertility and its impact on their lives and bodies.  I see a judge who may well in his judicial opinions favor a clump of cells without nerve endings or a consciousness over the autonomy and dignity of adult women. 

And don't even get me going on the strip search opinion, or the numerous other examples I'm reading in which Alito seems determined to screw the little guy at every turn.  Ugh.  End rant for now.  I'm looking forward to watching today's hearings on C-SPAN tonight.  If you are opposed to Alito's confirmation, you can make your wishes known here.

Comments

[Nicole Black]

Here's a link to a great summary of Alito's opinions, should you have the time to skim it: http://campusprogress.org/uploads/YLSAlitoProjectFinalReport.pdf

I have a ton of reservations about him. The hearings should be interesting, to say the least.

[will]

First, I am totally opposed to Alito.
Second, I have been affected by death threats due to protecting abortions rights. I've had my picture on crazy people's websites. I've had federal marshalls protect family members.

Having established that, why shouldnt a husband be informed? Don't get me wrong. I think it is a practical nightmare. But what is the harm in having a husband informed?

[The Happy Feminist]

Ooh, this is great, Nicole. The evidence I've read scares me, but I have been looking for a way to educate myself on other aspects of his approach without, you know, giving up my day job.

[The Happy Feminist]

There is no harm in having the husband informed. Most wives who are considering abortion do, in fact, discuss the matter with their husbands. The harm comes from the state forcing women to notify their husbands. Such a law would likely have an an impact only those women who have a good reason not to notify their husbands.

I'm a bit tired for ranting effectively about this now but there was a lot of good blogging done on the issue a couple months ago. I'll look now for some good links on this.

[The Happy Feminist]

Jill at Feministe provided a good explanation:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/11/01/scalito-and-spousal-consent/

[The Happy Feminist]

More from Hugo Schwyzer here -- http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/11/index.html

In the key paragraph he says:

As I've written before, pregnancy is a burden carried solely by women. While conception takes two, and parenting ought to involve an equal commitment from both parties who took part in the earlier conception process, it's hard to argue that men are as involved as women in the period between conception and birth. And where there is an unequal burden, the law does well to honor the wishes of she who, by herself, bears that burden. One would hope that most married women would feel safe enough to share the news of an unexpected pregnancy with their husbands; one would like to think that many women would be eager for their husbands' input. But ultimately, given the radically unequal nature of pregnancy, the law ought to do nothing to interfere with women's sovereignty between conception and delivery.

[bmmg39]

"Uh, well because the methods of birth control to which Alito refers are not abortifacients. These methods of birth control have the potential to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. And that is quite a different thing than terminating the development of a fertilized egg once it is safely ensconced in the womb."

Then it depends upon whether one believes a person's life begins at the moment of fertilization, or at implantation.

bg

[Richard]

"[My objection to Alito] has to do more with what I sense as a fundamental,
general lack of concern for women's rights across the board."

Your use of the word concern gives you up. Justices are not suppose to have
concerns about this group over that group, this issue over that issue. A justice
is not suppose to be a women's rights justice or the free speech justice or
the animal rights justice. This is, after all, what the Big Argument about
activism is all about. Your concerns should be advocated by you reps in
Congress, not by the S.Ct.

"[Memo] written when he was an Assistant to the United States Solicitor
General, as to how to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade."

I was bewildered to read your objection to the contents in Alito's memo
insofar as you are an attorney and therefore not naive to the attorney's role as
advocate for a client. Part of that role is asking questions and hypotheticals
surrounding your client's position so you can be prepared to confront questions
when you are asked by a court, or challenged by an opponent. For Alito not to
have done so would have been gravely unethical.

"[Alito was] so eager to uphold a law that would have given men at least a
small measure of control over a physiological process that affects only the
woman -- i.e. control over her body."

My understanding of the statute was that the husband had absolutely zero veto
rights as to whether his wife had an abortion. I think it was a clunky statute
too, but let's not call it something it wasn't.

[Richard]

"I see a judge who may well in his judicial opinions favor a clump of cells without nerve endings or a consciousness over the autonomy and dignity of adult women."

I understand what you're saying here, but it comes back to the problem bmmg39 correctly identified above, namely, when one feels life begins. The issue is, at it's core, religious, and religion is often unfriendly to reason. (The book to read is, "The End of Faith", by Sam Harris.)

[The Happy Feminist]

Bmmg39, I agree that it all depends on when you believe pregnancy begins -- fertilization or implantation. But I tried to explain in my post why I find the view that it begins at fertilization strained and problematic.