Alito more controversy (but not too much)
As you've heard by now, Judge Alito is nominated for the supreme court. I've done a little research and so far I like what I see.
He seems to have his head on straight.
Of course, the key issue of debate is going to be his ruling on a case in 1991, where he dissented with his collegues by supporting a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify
their husbands if they were going to have an abortion. (Well, duh!!)
The biggest stated concern of this law is that it could endanger women who are physically abused. That is a legitimate concern, yet one that the law addressed through four exceptions [the exceptions being that (1) he 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) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her]. Additionally, under this law the women were only required to notify husbands.. they didn't have to give the husbands any vote or say in the matter whatsoever.
So Alito's line of thought was this: How does this law present an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion? This is excellent logic. (Of course I'm simplifying this a lot - you can check out his opinion(point #58) for yourself).
Pro-Choice advocates are so concerned that any limitations on abortion would be a set-back for women's rights, but they hurt themselves in being so radical in their views.
A husband who is not threatening his wife has every right to be notified about an abortion - don't even try to change my mind on this.
I understand the issue goes a tad deeper, but I'm not going to throw all my logic out here.. since it's time to eat!
Unlike Miers, there's no question in my head that Alito will be confirmed... unless its found that he's Don Michael Corleone's long lost relative.... but that would be a stereotype...
He seems to have his head on straight.
Of course, the key issue of debate is going to be his ruling on a case in 1991, where he dissented with his collegues by supporting a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify
their husbands if they were going to have an abortion. (Well, duh!!)
The biggest stated concern of this law is that it could endanger women who are physically abused. That is a legitimate concern, yet one that the law addressed through four exceptions [the exceptions being that (1) he 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) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her]. Additionally, under this law the women were only required to notify husbands.. they didn't have to give the husbands any vote or say in the matter whatsoever.
So Alito's line of thought was this: How does this law present an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion? This is excellent logic. (Of course I'm simplifying this a lot - you can check out his opinion(point #58) for yourself).
Pro-Choice advocates are so concerned that any limitations on abortion would be a set-back for women's rights, but they hurt themselves in being so radical in their views.
A husband who is not threatening his wife has every right to be notified about an abortion - don't even try to change my mind on this.
I understand the issue goes a tad deeper, but I'm not going to throw all my logic out here.. since it's time to eat!
Unlike Miers, there's no question in my head that Alito will be confirmed... unless its found that he's Don Michael Corleone's long lost relative.... but that would be a stereotype...