central to womanhood

By Diogenes (articles ) | Apr 20, 2007

In her angry dissent in Gonzalez v. Carhart, Judge Ginsburg writes that the majority decision...

… cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court-- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.

Now imagine that you're speaking to an anthrolopogist, who has just returned from a visit to a previously undiscovered primitive tribal community on a remote island in the South Pacific. If he reports that the ability to bear children is a central factor in the lives of the tribe's women, you might figure that you'd met another one of those remarkable social scientists who has found a way to earn a salary by saying the blatantly obvious. But if he told you that the right to kill their own children was central to those women, you'd have to conclude that the island is a terrible place, populated by bloodthirsty pagan savages, and any sane traveler should stay away.

You might pause, though, to question whether the anthropologist's report was accurate. You can pause now, and ask yourself whether Judge Ginsburg is properly describing the mainstream thoughts of American society. Go ahead: think about it. The results may not be reassuring.

Then if you need a morale boost, consider this passage from a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas (with references removed, and emphasis added at the end):

I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.

Scalia joined Thomas in that opinion, so we know he agrees that the Roe decision is wrong. Roberts and Alito did not join in the concurring opinion-- although they joined the overall majority in Gonzalez v. Carhart. But they didn't explicitly disagree, either; so we can hold out the hope that in some future case they would join with Thomas and Scalia, and we'd need just one more vote...

But then again-- with apologies for pouring ice water over budding hopes-- if abortion really has become a central factor in the lives of American women, it's unrealistic to believe that 5 votes on the Supreme Court can repair society's wounds.

Yes, yes; I know. It was a simple majority in Roe that began this process. But they made water flow downhill. Now comes the hard part.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 13 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Apr. 21, 2007 7:03 PM ET USA

    Let's just stop the dialogue and get on with mass producing pro-lifers. When Catholics quit using birth control, the Church will regain it's strength.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 21, 2007 9:38 AM ET USA

    Now is the time to apply the ratchet: can't we just stop talking about this issue and move on? My goodness, the left seems obsessed with killing fetuses. I'm not, any longer. Can't we just stop the "dialogue" now?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 21, 2007 6:01 AM ET USA

    The "wind" that has been sowed in this country is the hot breath of hell, sowed by the Sangers, Kinseys, Hefners, Smeals and others who have tried to separate procreation, marital union and sexual pleasure from each other. What God has joined, no human may divide. The reaping is producing a 50% divorce rate, a collapsed Social Security system, an aging workforce, a diminished priesthood. We need more white Catholic males like these in every walk of life.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 21, 2007 2:15 AM ET USA

    Be philosophical abortionists. You win some and you lose some. It's the American way. No complaints when you won by one vote. Why the complaint when you lose by one vote? There may be more majority votes coming. You might not like them either.Morality will in the end conquer. Man does not get to play God all the time. Prepare for your accounting!

  • Posted by: - Apr. 21, 2007 12:32 AM ET USA

    I don't know how fast the law will be overturned, but I have hope that it will. Eventually, because culturally we do make progress, abortion will be seen for what it is--murder of innocent people without due process--a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.Lucky for us, places like San Francisco, where the sacrament of abortion is foremost in the values of the citizens, those very citizens are having few, if any children. Life, from a biological standpoint, will always correct itself. Have hope!

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 11:45 PM ET USA

    It is amazing to me that when the Supreme Court finds in favor of a liberal cause (e.g. abortion, gun control, affirmative action), no matter how narrow the decision, the MSM and their radical liberal supporters deem the decision to be constitutionally sound and a victory for mankind, but when the Court finds favor with a conservative cause, the MSM deems the decision to be an affront to liberty, justice and the American Way.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 11:27 PM ET USA

    Funny that anyone who thinks it reasonable to suck the brains out of a viable infant to avoid the legal term 'live birth' has the gall to become moralistic and judgemental toward those who think it a heinous crime of murder. There is not one instance in all of history where this disgusting form of infanticide has 'saved the life of the mother'. It was designed, by admission of its inventor, simply to kill a viable baby that was inconvenient. If the body exits with no harm, the head will too.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 10:56 PM ET USA

    Better to have the issue in the hands of 50 states than mandated by the Court. We have a fighting chance then. At least it might become a political item. Michigan SC justices are elected and we are a primo pro-life state. We've often gone around a pro-abort governor. But I too worry that abortion is such a for-granted thing. We have a population that can't recall it not legal. We lost that with the election of Clinton. We were on our way to a pro-life SC then, but Clinton won/derailed the train.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 6:45 PM ET USA

    Because only a woman (who can have a pregnancy!) can decide whether jabbing scissors into a baby's neck and sucking his brains out should be illegal. Why must liberals always go right for the bleeding obvious anti-male anti-white baloney? Oh right, because their entire proposition is intellectually bankrupt.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 4:54 PM ET USA

    One notes that when President Bush signed this legislation, he was surrounded by white males, none of whom had experienced pregnancy. This was a majority decision by five male Catholics. Those five haved sowed the wind, they may reap the whirlwind as Catholic Chieff Justice Taney, a Maryland slave owner, did, when he solved the "slave problem" by his Dred Scott dicta, and brought on the Civil War.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 2:57 PM ET USA

    The fall of Roe will not end abortion. If the Court returns the issue to the political process, each state can do what it wants. Many state courts have already interpreted their state constitutions as requiring abortion, so it will continue unabated in these states even after Roe is gone. Only a state constitutional amendment will restore the Culture of Life. We cannot amend any state constitution without first evangelizing the state. So we must "increase and multiply" our votes.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 10:22 AM ET USA

    The issue no longer rests with the supreme court solely. The furrowed and nurtured opinion of the american public has been inculcated into younger generations to accept abortion rights of women as true and mainstream. When and if this issue goes to states rights, we will be fighting an enemy that has just increased fifty fold in each state legislature. A hard and long battle lays ahead. Let us not waver.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 20, 2007 9:27 AM ET USA

    It speaks to the lack of moral education in this country that it can produce so-called leaders like Justice Ginsburg, who can apparently with sound minds, state that murdering unborn infants by the millions is a right of pregnant women. A right, it also seems, not guaranteed by the Constitution, but by five rather elderly, very properly liberal men, one of whom imagined this right as coming from somewhere past the earth's atmosphere. For that delusion, 45,000,000 babies are dead.