either gender, prepare to bend over & spread 'em

posted today to my favorite e-List of courageous reformers dedicated to distributing high-quality inexpensive psychoactive molecules without law-enforcement interference to everyone older than 18 who wants them on Planet Earth .........

So like, okay, do I criticize YOUR vision of a Better Tomorrow? Lighten up, chill.

===================================

I profoundly sincerely apologize to the entire Reform Community (or the seedy subset bunch that just likes to hang here) for this Major Bigtime Off-Topic post.

What's about to take place in the United States Senate, and on Fox News ("Shut up! Shut up! You're stupid!" -- Bill O'Reilly), is entirely about women's reproductive rights, and the future of Roe v. Wade.

It has absolutely nothing to do with drug policy and drug law and the future shape and direction of Prohibition and the drugwar-fueled racist Prison-Industrial Complex (a term I believe was coined by Professor Angela Davis of the University of California at Santa Cruz).

If the Bush Fundies have their way with our Female-o-American Pals and Allies and their Daughters and Granddaughters, and manage to appoint Deputy US Attorney (for the Northern District of South Dakota and parts of Nebraska) Hiram Caucasian Lunkmeister Jr. to this week's vacancy on the US Supreme Court, it will be a streamlined express ride back to the Back Alley Pregnancy Termination Providers, a septic Koathanger Krew America hasn't seen much of since 1973.

Not fast enough for the Fundies? Rehnquist has cancer, chemo and radiation therapy, and I suspect he's not smoking ganja to get his sorry ass through it. Add 2 to the Fundies on the Big Bench very soon. It surprised everybody that Sandra Day O'Connor bailed first. It's like an episode from the West Wing -- only at the conclusion of this two-parter, the Courageous, Brilliant, Thoughtful Liberal from New Hampshire gets hyperhosed, and the USA changes its name to The Republic of Gilead. (Ask T** from Canada what that's all about, or venture your own explanation here.)

VLEEPTRON PIZZAQ: 2 slices with ham and pineapple for first THOROUGH answer to: WTF is The Republic of Gilead? Vleeptron Honor System, etc.

So sorry about the Off-Topic Post. But I got just one question:

After Justice Hiram Caucasian Lunkmeister Jr. casts his first vote on Granddaughter of Roe v. Gonzales, his next case is gonna be some Non-White Single Mother Addict who got yanked off an AMTRAK with a quarter pound of Prohibited Things. To get the cuffs on her and award her the 30 years in Women's Max she so richly deserves, about half the Amendments in the Bill of Rights had to be sodomized, tortured and ignored. Now it's the Supreme Court's turn to sniff this 3-year-old basket of fœtid seafood.

Nominee Lunkmeister's feelings regarding women's reproductive rights are well known. But I wonder how Justice Lunkmeister -- and the next White (or Wannabe White) Fundie Evangelical Born-Again Republican Prosecutor in a Suit who joins him a few months later -- will vote on our On-Topic cases? Is this something WE should worry about? Ya think?

Elmo

PERSONAL TO P****** -- I'm getting my cheapdrugz4all posts in totally screwed up order -- is your computer screen giving you some kind of hallucinogenic heebie-jeebies? Your last crisis, I recommended Stop & Shop Stool Softener. Maybe I got something in the medicine chest for this too, if I could figure out what This is.

=========================================

chicagotribune.com
84° F

O'Connor retires

Seat Empty at the Supreme Court
July 1, 2005

President Bush's statement on Justice O'Connor's retirement.

Stories
Choosing nominee becomes trickier
July 3, 2005

From early on, grit ingrained in O'Connor
July 3, 2005

Putting their own spin on it
July 3, 2005

Volatile issues to shape list
July 2, 2005

For Bush, a defining moment
July 2, 2005

O'Connor steps down
July 2, 2005

Firsts define O'Connor
July 2, 2005

Left and right, groups gear up
July 2, 2005

Unsealing letter brings a surprise
July 2, 2005

Text of O'Connor's Retirement Announcement
July 1, 2005

Bio Box: Sandra Day O'Connor
July 1, 2005

O'Connor Leaves Legacy As Key Swing Vote
July 1, 2005

A Look at How Justice O'Connor Voted
July 2, 2005

Excerpts From Opinions by O'Connor
July 1, 2005

O'Connor Known for Pragmatic Style
July 1, 2005

One woman's path to the U.S. Supreme Court
July 2, 2003

Reaction to O'Connor Resignation
July 2, 2005

Potential Candidates for the High Court
July 2, 2005

Senate Prepares for Fierce Judicial Battle
July 2, 2005

Bush Says He'll Pick Replacement Quickly
July 1, 2005

Interest Groups Mobilize for Court Push
July 1, 2005

Rehnquist Retirement Still Just Speculation
June 28, 2005

Facts and Figures on Supreme Court
July 1, 2005

The Chicago Tribune
(Illinois USA)
Tuesday 5 July 2005

Future of abortion uncertain
With Supreme Court vacancy,
activists on both sides mobilize

By Judy Peres
Tribune staff reporter

With the future of abortion law hanging on the next few Supreme Court appointments, the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has pushed activists on both sides of the national divide into high gear.

"Abortion rights and women's rights are on the line," said a mass fundraising e-mail sent out by the Feminist Majority over the weekend, while the liberal lobby MoveOn.org said it aimed to deliver 250,000 signatures by Tuesday on an emergency petition asking U.S. senators to help preserve the right to terminate a pregnancy.

At the same time, the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said it would mobilize 20,000 churches across the country in an attempt to change the direction of the court. Another conservative group called Progress for America launched an $18 million advertising campaign in support of new justices who would overturn rulings it opposes. Chief among those is Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

With the better part of four years left in George W. Bush's presidency, and the possible replacement of several justices in that time, abortion foes hope -- and abortion-rights advocates fear -- that Bush will change the court's balance.

A more conservative court might well vote to overturn Roe, abortion-rights and civil-liberties groups have warned. Abortions then would quickly become illegal in some states, they say, and Congress would be free to pass a federal law banning the procedure in every state.

But it is far more likely, observers say, that opponents will continue to whittle away at the edges, restricting access to abortion where they can.

In order to overturn Roe, legal and political experts say, at least two solidly anti-abortion justices would have to be nominated and confirmed. Then the right case would have to come along. Even then, experts say, Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments do not always vote as expected. Also, justices in general are reluctant to overturn well-established law.

"What are the chances of [overturning Roe] in the next four years?" asked Bill Beckman, executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee. "It's a possibility, but it's not certain by any means."

Beckman said the court in its current composition has only three sure votes to overturn Roe -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Rehnquist, 80, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer late last year, also is expected by many to retire in the near future. But his replacement likely would not change the voting lineup.

"We'd need to replace two others in order to replace the 6-3 pro-abortion majority with a 5-4 pro-life majority," Beckman said. O'Connor's resignation gives Bush the chance to move in that direction, he added.

Activists on the other side say the current majority supporting the right to an abortion is a slim 5-4 in some cases, because Justice Anthony Kennedy has been a swing vote. But even they concede that Bush would need a third appointment in addition to O'Connor and Rehnquist to reverse Roe altogether.

O'Connor has been one of the five sure votes in favor of Roe. The others are those of Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.

Doing the math

"If two of those are replaced -- or if Kennedy is replaced along with one of the five -- you could have a flip on Roe," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. But Bush "has to replace only one of them with an anti-choice justice to tip the majority toward upholding much more restrictive regulation on abortion."

For example, when the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth abortion" in 2000, the vote was 5-4. Without O'Connor, such bans could be upheld in the future.

To forestall that, NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the leading abortion-rights groups, is mobilizing the 800,000 members of its "Choice Action Network." The group's 30,000 "rapid responders" sprang into action over the weekend to organize efforts including telephone and letter-writing campaigns to the Senate and the news media.

The liberal People for the American Way sent out 1 million communications last week warning that the high court would turn back 40 years of constitutional law -- including Roe and the right to use birth control--if Bush succeeds in appointing more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

The other side also has launched a huge public relations and advertising effort, including television and radio spots, rallies, news conferences and mass mailings.

Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said it recently sent out an "action letter" to about 1.2 million supporters, asking them to help get conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

A spokesman said the group also planned to run newspaper and radio ads in select states urging people to contact their senators.

Whether or not Roe is overturned, advocates on both sides of the issue believe federal and state lawmakers will keep trying to limit access to abortion where they can.

Roe vs. Wade, which has been affirmed several times since it was handed down 32 years ago, said states may not prohibit a woman from getting an abortion in the first two trimesters of her pregnancy. Even in the third trimester, when the fetus is assumed to be viable outside the mother's body, abortion may not be banned if the woman's life or health is at risk.

Legislative attempts to ban specific abortion procedures, such as one opponents call "partial-birth abortion," have been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the principles in Roe. Likewise, some restrictions--notably spousal consent for married women--have been struck down as overly burdensome. But others have been allowed to stand, and lawmakers continue to expand on those restrictions.

Abortion right eroded

Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said reproductive freedom can be curtailed without overturning Roe. That freedom "has been eroded in substantial ways since Roe and [despite] its many affirmations," she said.

The 1976 Hyde Amendment eliminated federal Medicaid reimbursement for elective abortions. Most states (but not Illinois) require parental consent or notification in a minor's abortion decision. Many have mandatory waiting periods and state-scripted counseling. And, outside large cities, access is a major problem: Nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties do not have an abortion provider.

"All of those combine to make it more difficult" for women, especially young and low-income women, to get an abortion, Connell said.

Not everyone is convinced Bush really wants to overturn Roe.

"The Republican Party is an unstable coalition," said Andrew Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. "It includes both the religious right and people who are not at all religious but are interested in keeping themselves prosperous and their taxes low. If you tell those people they or their daughters can't get abortions if they get pregnant, they're likely to start thinking about voting Democratic.

"If Roe were reversed," he added, "every Republican at every level of government would have to decide if they want to act to criminalize abortion. Whatever you do will disgust one large group of your supporters."

Koppelman noted, "There would be real political costs to appointing ... a real right-to-life firebrand to replace anyone other than Rehnquist."

But some political observers think Bush will appoint an individual who is acceptable to the conservative wing of the party.

"I think he's going to go for broke on this," said Democratic political consultant David Axelrod. "The religious right has an enormous influence on this administration. I think there's a strong expectation on their part he'll appoint anti-choice judges who would undo Roe."

Axelrod said the Republicans' strategy in the 2004 election was essentially to play to their conservative base.

"If you have a base-oriented strategy," he added, "you want to keep that base by maintaining a consistent and aggressive position" on issues important to it.

Abortion is an extremely divisive issue, but how people line up depends on how the question is asked.

According to the ACLU's Connell, polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe that the decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term should be that of the woman, not the government.

"If you ask whether they think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or when there's risk to the woman's health, you get high numbers," Connell said. "If you ask whether it should be legal for reasons like she wants to finish her education or she doesn't want any more children, the majority is smaller."

- 30 -

jperes@tribune.com
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune