web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • At RH Reality Check, we find another stone to mountain of evidence showing Amanda Marcotte’s inability to do basic research. She makes the following absurd claim:

    For instance, in Tennessee, they’re just straight taking contraception funding and giving it to anti-contraception propaganda centers called “crisis pregnancy centers”.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Shelby County Commission voted to have Christ Community Health Services provide the county’s family planning program over Planned Parenthood. CCHS is obviously not a CPC unless CPCs started providing primary and dental care and no one let me know. CCHS is also obviously not “anti-contraception” since they scored higher than Planned Parenthood on their ability to provide family planning services. Maybe Amanda thinks they’re anti-contraception because they will refer out emergency contraception requests instead of providing them.

  • At Public Discourse, Michael Paulsen discusses laws banning sex-selection abortions:

    Four states – Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and most recently Arizona – have enacted laws prohibiting sex-selection abortion. Those laws have yet to be tested in the courts. At least seven other states have considered bills that would ban the practice….

Are such bans constitutional, under the Supreme Court’s decisions creating a right to abortion? The question such laws present is a dramatic one, challenging the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade in the most fundamental and direct of ways: Does the U.S. Constitution create a right to abortion, even when the woman’s reason for abortion is that she does not like the sex of her unborn child?

Sadly, the answer, under the Supreme Court’s absurd, through-the-looking-glass constitutional law of abortion, is yes….

Even after viability, a woman may abort for any “health” reason, an exception that ends up swallowing the rule: The Court’s abortion decisions define “health” justifications for abortion to include any “emotional,” “psychological,” or “familial” reason for wanting an abortion.

A pregnant woman’s (or a couple’s) preference for a boy rather than a girl would seem to fit comfortably within the gaping loophole for “emotional” or “familial” reasons for abortion….

The fact that laws banning sex-selection may fly in the face of the Roe and Casey decisions is no reason not to enact them. On the contrary, it is a powerful reason to enact them: The justices, and abortion supporters generally, ought to be forced to confront the uncomfortable reality of the Court’s abortion jurisprudence.

[Photo via filipspagnoli.wordpress.com]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...