Your Scalito Random Reader

Meet the Press: Transcript for October 20, 2005
Peter Baker, Washington Post: President to Name Nominee for Court
David Kirkpatrick, New York Times: Parties Set Stage for Showdown on Court Choice
Is That Legal?: Sam Alito, As I Knew Him
Underneath Their Robes: Alito : Luttig :: Clement : Roberts [via Lawyers, Guns & Money]
FindLaw: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Bret Schulte, US News & World Report: Samuel Alito Jr.
Lawyers, Guns & Money: Little Nino Link Dump

Would love to hear from Libertarian-types on how it would be okay to have a law requiring women to inform their husbands before they get an abortion. Or is this just another head fake, designed to take everyone's attention away from the Plame indictments?

Comments

[NTodd]

Thanks, Rox.

[X]

It is not rational to simultaneously expect marriage to mean something, to expect a man to be responsible, and yet give choice within a marriage solely to the woman.

The left wants choice without responsibility, the right wants responsibility and no choice. In any case, it is a sorry state of affairs when a married woman would undergo an abortion without talking to her spouse. Why fight for the gay right to be married when marriage is increasingly meaningless?

[NTodd]

In any case, it is a sorry state of affairs when a married woman would undergo an abortion without talking to her spouse.

Yes, it is a sorry state, but who are any of us to force the wife to tell her husband? It's their issue, not the State's. Further, can you not imagine situations where the wife might not want to tell her spouse? Like, say, in an abusive relationship?

Marriage is meaningless only if is it forced to comply with one definition, and the State sticks it's nose in at every opportunity.

[Sadie]

Dear X:

What if she's pregnant by someone other than her husband?

[NJG from NYC]

Yes, it is a sorry state of affairs. But let's think about under what conditions a wife would not want to tell her husband that she is pregnant. Here's what come up off the top of my pre-coffee'd head:

Might it be because she is in a violent marriage and scared of him and his possible reaction?
Or because he's run off and she can't find him?
Or because he's a drug addict, a drunk, or addicted to gambling?

We're not talking about women in stable happy mariages not telling their spouses, except in some crazed fantasy of the Right. We're talking about people in crisis.

[Praxxus]

X,

What about a situation where the woman could well be endangering herself if she informed her spouse about the intended abortion? I'll bet if you stop for a minute and reeeeeally stretch your head, you can think of a few scenarios where it would be decidedly to the woman's disadvantage if it were mandated by law that she inform her spouse before having an abortion.

Go on. Give it a try.

[eli]

silly lefties. the founders didn't mean for women to have freedom or liberty. otherwise, they would have included women in the constitution when they wrote it. that is why we did/didn't/did/didn't/did/didn't need the equal rights amendment.

onward christian constructionists!

[Redshift]

It is not rational to simultaneously expect marriage to mean something, to expect a man to be responsible, and yet give choice within a marriage solely to the woman.

Therefore the law should require a husband to notify his wife before he quits his job, right? That's a choice that may have as big an effect on a marriage as childbearing, so we shouldn't give "choice within a marriage" solely to a man, should we? Or is there some reason why the only "choice" this argument applies to is abortion?

The question here isn't whether society should encourage spouses to discuss these choices if at all possible; of course it should. The question is whether the law should require it.

[llad12]

An anti-women/civil rights ghoul is nominated on Halloween from the Bush adminstration.

Why am I not surprised?

[Phoenix Woman]

Therefore the law should require a husband to notify his wife before he quits his job, right?

Or to notify his wife if he gets another woman pregnant? "Um, honey, remember all that 'overtime' I said I'd been working? Well..."

Haven't there been studies showing that violence against women increased during preganancy including murder by their husbands?

[Josh]

Homer Simpson for SCOTUS: "Marge, it's uterUS, not uterYOU."

[NTodd]

Haven't there been studies showing that violence against women increased during preganancy including murder by their husbands?

Oh, I'm sure that Scott Peterson was just an anomoly. Such a nice, handsome young man...

[X]

OK, no law. But then if a woman gets pregnant because she wants a child and her husband does not, then he should be able to divorce her without child support obligations.

[The Countess]

Geez, Rox, get with the program. Haven't you learned yet that wives are the property of their husbands, and the husband's fetus that the wife is carrying is also his property? And, on the other hand, if she becomes preggers and he doesn't want it, he shouldn't be required to support her or the fetus she carries? That's what the throwbacks want - put them uppity women back in their places where they belong.

[Inspector Callahan]

What if she's pregnant by someone other than her husband?

and

Might it be because she is in a violent marriage and scared of him and his possible reaction?
Or because he's run off and she can't find him?
Or because he's a drug addict, a drunk, or addicted to gambling?

There are exceptions for EACH of these in the original statute in question. It's no surprise that the media haven't reported that aspect.

I'm afraid the media, and the hysterical left, will be making Chicken-Little assumptions without actually reading (or noting) the law in question. The ends justify the means, I guess.

TV (Harry)

[Chris Clarke]

But then if a woman gets pregnant because she wants a child and her husband does not, then he should be able to divorce her without child support obligations.

I completely agree.

If, that is, the husband took responsibility for contraception.

And consistent condom use is difficult to prove in a court of law. So all you MRAs out there should call your spay and neuter clinic ASAP.

[KathyF]

MRAs? Marriage Responsibility Avoiders? Motherhood Resistance Association? Men Reinventing Awfulness?

Come on, what's a MRA?

[NTodd Pritsky]

MRA = Male Regressive Asshole?

[JDC]

MRA: machos reaccionarios y abobados

in English: men's rights activists

[X]

Marriage, among other things, is a recognition of mutual responsibilities, recognized by the law, given an official stamp of approval, so to speak. The decision to have children or to abort a pregnancy ought to be joint decisions. I'm glad to note that there are exceptions provided for, where the husband is incompetent or criminal or absent.

If you don't want those obligations, do away with marriage.

[drublood]

Inspector Callahan & Mr.or Ms. X, the law might protect women against violent abusers (I don't know for sure, because I haven't read the fine print) but there are many, many, many, MANY situations in which women are abused in less easily definable ways.

In other words, there's a HUMONGOUS swath of grey between happy marital bliss and violent, obvious, provable abuse. That's already a very unfun place to be for a woman. It's even a less fun place for a child.

[Louis Seayiss]

As a Libertarian with a passion for gender equity in the service of our Lord, let me first say that I make no universal claims as to the morality of abortion.

But how can we claim that a woman ought to be able to end the life within her womb, without doing violence to the sacred essence of human conception - not the foetus per se, but the holy act by which the foetus was originated?

Because procreation is also co-creation, i.e., the making of a human life through a sanctified union. Isn't it only fair and just that one co-creator consult with the other before extinguishing their mutual creation? The New Testament, in the most beautiful language, makes the point that man and woman, in matrimonial union, "become one flesh." In the exchange of intimate fluids, therefore, one can't easily separate the spiritual from the corporeal.

However, once we accept that sexual partners are literally unified in the flesh, i.e. intra-incorprated, we must also acknowledge the mutuality of their responsibilities. In which case, it is also only fair and just that a man, for instance, consult with his partner before indulging in any sort of transfusion of bodily substance - whether under circumstances of gross infidelity or medical emergency.

I'm talking about bone marrow replacement, say. Or blood transfusion.

Beyond the obvious physical changes - introduction of foreign DNA, potential introduction of pathogens potentially affecting the health of his partner - such a procedure deeply impacts their sanctified union, injecting a third party into the fleshly bond. Such an injection is potentially non-corrupting, so long as the decision is made mutually. One might argue that extenuating circumstances - severe trauma after an automobile accident, say - necessitate a unilateral decision. This is illogical; the union is either holy and sacrosanct, or it is not. The potential for physical death due to blood loss is easily as treacherous as the danger of spiritual death due to the corruption of the matrimonial contract.

Spousal notification before abortion? Of course. And spousal notification before blood transfusion.

[Hubris]

For the record, the statutory exceptions are:

(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.

Under the statute, what was required from the woman seeking an abortion was a statement that she either notified the spouse or that she met one of the exceptions.

[NTodd]

Again, it would be sure nice if the woman and her spouse would be working on this together, but WHAT THE FUCK HAS THE STATE GOT TO DO WITH IT?