Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis: Sacrificing rights is not the answer.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Sacrificing rights is not the answer.

This is my response to comments in a discussion about the new Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts. You can go read the whole thread on Americablog.
If Roe v. Wade is overtuned the Republicans wouldn't have that issue to "excite" their Conservative base anymore.

And "choice" would be...where?
You know - I'm an old pro-choice feminist - but I've been thinking lately that the fight for Roe isn't worth the time. I've got a 13 year old daughter - and yeah - I'd like to give her choice - but we live in different, more complicated times now.

See, just because abortion may not be an issue for you anymore...and just because you'd be one of those "cool" moms who would have no problem raising a child of your daughter's if she got pregnant, doesn't mean other women out there don't NEED the choice as an option to save their own lives.
I'd like to leave her an intact world. I'd like to leave her a society with basic freedoms still intact.

What freedom is more "basic" than freedom over your own body? How would sacrificing those most basic of rights help make our world "intact?"
If Roe goes - states take over. And if states take over - we'll figure out a way to get poor women into the states they need to travel to for abortions.

Hi...I live in Alaska. Alaska is a Baptist, Republican oil state with a Conservative Republican Congressional contingent and a Conservative Republican Legislature. The minute Roe v. Wade would go, abortion would be banned in this state in EVERY form.

Will you pay for me to fly the 5000 miles that would be required to get a safe and legal abortion in another state?

See, I'm one of those women whose health is such that my birth control choices are limited. Also, if birth control fails and I get pregnant, the pregnancy would kill me or at the very least, shorten my life by a number of years.

"Choice" isn't just something one waves on a banner until their need for it is done. It's something that needs to be there for everyone...always. I'm grateful to the old pro-choice feminists who are still around and kicking up a fuss when our rights are in danger...whether they personally need the choice or not.


Blogger Smurph85 said...

Well said! I couldn't rant it better! I'm glad to know there are people who understand what this issue is really about!

7/20/2005 6:00 PM  
Blogger Coldfoot said...

Could the President have nominated anybody (short of Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy) who wouldn't be pilloried as "anti-choice"?

Don't even bother to answer. The answer is "no".

7/20/2005 9:22 PM  
Blogger CelticDiva said...

"Could the President have nominated anybody (short of Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy) who wouldn't be pilloried as "anti-choice"?

First off, my rant was much more at the alleged feminist than it was at the new nominee.

Secondly, sure they wouldn't be pegged as anti-choice...if they hadn't (like Mr. Roberts) publicly declared that Roe v. Wade was a mistake.

I'm just hoping that he's a judge who will respect case law rather than make knee-jerk decisions based upon party platforms. Thomas and Scalia do enough of that already.

7/21/2005 1:22 AM  
Anonymous JMo said...

It makes me sad and angry to think about now, let alone what might happen if Roberts is confirmed. Have you ever done a search of abortion providers by state (I think on Planned Parenthood or NARAL)? Some states that I checked (southern states especially) already have limited access for abortion services.

7/21/2005 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY!
» »

8/26/2006 1:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home