Well, Guess That's Settled. . .

Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a highly restrictive Texas abortion law, emphatically reaffirming the constitutional right to abortion.  Now that the abortion question has been settled once and for all, I guess we need discuss it no further.

Well, it would be nice to think so....

Disingenuously promoted as protecting women's health, Texas' law mandated among other things that abortion clinics meet onerous physical-plant requirements that had nothing to do with making abortions safer.  The actual purpose of these laws, of course, was simply to ensure that very few clinics could meet the enhanced standards and would consequently be forced to close,  And the law was very effective in this regard, as the number of abortion clinics in Texas has been roughly halved since the law's enactment. 

The Supreme Court's decision yesterday reversed an appeals court ruling upholding the law, a ruling, by the way, that summarizes the fundamental flaw behind much anti-abortion legislation.  The appeals court judges upheld the law, claiming that they "had to accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions."  Because, after all, who is more knowledgeable about women's health needs than right-wing politicians?

Hillary Clinton seized on the ruling to emphasize the importance of electing a candidate who will choose well-qualified Supreme Court justices--justices who will uphold abortion rights and other liberal concerns.  Donald Trump "made no direct public comments on Monday’s decision."  So in addition to reaffirming women's right to abortion, SCOTUS actually managed to make Drumpf shut the hell up for five minutes.  On the whole, then, a positive--if not miraculous--ruling.

Abortion Logic

The degree of difficulty involved in getting an abortion in Texas has reached Olympic diving levels, thanks to a number of laws placing onerous requirements on abortion providers.  Lawmakers disingenuously claim that these laws actually protect women, requiring, for example, that doctors who perform abortions at small clinics have admitting privileges at hospitals and that the clinics themselves conform to rigorous hospital-like standards that actually have nothing to do with providing safe abortions.  These laws don't seem to have any practical effect, other than putting abortion clinics out of business--which is of course what they we're designed to do. If state lawmakers really wanted to improve the safety of women seeking abortions, they could simply, for example, provide additional funds to abortion clinics, but that obviously will never happen.

What I find particularly galling about these laws is that they force women determined to get an abortion to undertake arduous journeys--sometimes of hundreds of miles--to find one of the few clinics that remain open in Texas. An article in today's paper tells of a woman who actually flew to California to have an abortion because she couldn't get an appointment at an overbooked Texas clinic.  She considered herself "lucky" that she was able to take out a high-interest loan to get the procedure done. And she's kind of right, as any number of women don't have the same resources. So in other words, these "protective" laws force women who lack the financial resources to get an abortion to, perhaps, carry a pregnancy to full term--because raising a child obviously poses a much smaller financial burden, right?

Supreme Court Round-Up

OK, OK. . . Elena Kagan's been on my ass for the last three hours, desperate to hear the Solipsist's take on the latest round of Supreme Court rulings.  OK, Associate Justice Kagan, here we go.

First, the case the Court got unambiguously right: Riley v. California.  In this and an associated case, United States v. Wurie, the Court held that law enforcement authorities needed to obtain a warrant before searching through someone's cell phone.  Police often looked through cell phones after arresting someone, searching for evidence of criminal activity--which, given today's smartphone technology, could include not only call histories but also photographs, internet searches, journal entries--even, dare we say it, blog posts.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the pervasiveness of cell phones (and, by extension, in all likelihood, tablets, personal computers, etc.) made them subject to the same protections against "general warrants" enshrined in the Constitution.  In other words, police may no more freely rummage through one's personal data contained on an iPhone than they could barge into one's bedroom and rifle through the underwear drawer, unless they first obtain a warrant.

More interesting than the verdict, however, was the acknowledgment by the Court that changing technological standards merited changing interpretations of constitutional actions.  Law enforcement officials, for example, equated searching a cellphone with other, more permissible searches of things like wallets or purses.  "That," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon."  In other words, as technology changes we must revisit the actions of the Founding Fathers, who codified civic norms in a time vastly different from our own.  Just as a cell phone is vastly different from a wallet or an appointment book--and so calls for a different understanding of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches--so, too, is an AK-47 vastly different from a flintlock--and calls for a similar reassessment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Two other unanimous decisions were also decided correctly.  I say this begrudgingly, as I am totally sympathetic to the "losing" side in both cases.  First, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court basically said that President Obama had no right to make recess appointments to Executive Branch positions while the US Senate was "in session"--even though these "sessions" were merely pro forma meetings where no business was conducted--and, indeed, whose only purpose was to ensure that President Obama could not make recess appointments.  While I abhor the obstructionist tactics of Congressional Republicans, I recognize that a certain amount of political gamesmanship is a fact of American life.  And while I generally support President Obama--at least as far as his political appointments go--I am not keen to see any congressional tactic hurriedly eliminated, lest it be useful in the future when, say, someone like Ted Cruz occupies the Oval Office.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

(And lest you accuse me of hypocrisy, I had similar qualms when the Democratic Senate leadership effectively eliminated the use of filibusters last year.)

The other correct if unsatisfying decision concerned the ability of legislatures to establish "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.  The aim is laudable: to protect women who seek abortions (or, indeed, any services from clinics such as those run by Planned Parenthood) from harassment by pro-life protesters, legislators have declared that protesters must maintain certain minimum distances from entrances to such facilities.  In its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court declared unconstitutional a Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.  The law, the justices found, infringed on First Amendment rights to free speech.  And while I sympathize with the desire of women not to be accosted by right-wing zealots as they seek to exercise their right to control their own bodies, I think that placing arbitrary (35 feet?  Why not 30?  Why not 40?  Why not 6.5?) restrictions on speech is not the solution.  As the Court pointed out, existing laws that prevent harassment and other antisocial behavior can effectively serve the same purpose as the disputed law.

Finally, the case that I just don't understand: ABC v. Aereo.  The Court declared that what Aereo was doing was bad and wrong and must be stopped.  Now, I had never heard of Aereo before yesterday.  Apparently, it's a service that allows people to "pick up" the broadcast signals of the major television networks through a series of antennas.  The networks were upset that Aereo was allowing people to do this.  But unless I'm mistaken, this is how television always used to work!  You turned on the TV, you fiddled with your antennas as needed, and you were able to watch "The Incredible Hulk" at grandma's house.  When did this become illegal?

Anyway, Justice Kagan, there you have it.  On the whole, you guys did a good--if somewhat unsatisfying--job.  Now, if you'll excuse me, "Judge Judy" is on, and I need to fiddle with the ol' rabbit ears. . . .

Marriage Is Marriage Until It Isn't, and That's OK, Too

As the Supreme Court ponders arguments for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage, the justices inevitably wrestle with the legacy of Roe v. Wade.  In retrospect, that landmark case, far from settling a contentious social argument, inflamed the situation.  In the 40 years since abortion became a constitutional "right," those on either side of the debate have only hardened their stances rather than finding common ground.  Indeed, just the other day, lawmakers in North Dakota passed legislation that would effectively outlaw abortion in the state, openly challenging established law and essentially defying the Supreme Court.  The current justices are presumably leery about the prospect of launching another 40 year crusade, this time against gay marriage.

I don't think the Court needs to worry about that much.  Certainly there are people who feel passionately that marriage is a strictly heterosexual institution, but I doubt that a decision in favor of same-sex marriage would lead to the sort of never-ending, take-no-prisoners battle that commenced in the wake of Roe v. Wade.  For one thing, even if one truly feels that same-sex marriage is wrong, it is, at worst, a victimless "crime": Scaremongers howl that gay marriage somehow "threatens" the institution of marriage yet cannot offer any plausible evidence for their claim.  As far as I can see, their arguments boil down to linguistic tautology: Changing the definition of marriage harms marriage because it changes the way "marriage" is defined.  Unless a change of definition is inherently harmful, though, this argument is meaningless.

Definitions change constantly,  I suspect in the future we will lament the changed definition of marriage about as much as, say, Clarence Thomas laments the change in the definition of a black person from three-fifths of a human being.  Some will protest after same-sex marriage is legalized, but they will soon realize that their lives have changed not at all, while the lives of their gay friends and loved ones--and everybody has 'em--have changed for the better.  Just wait and see.

Beat 'Em at Their Own Game

Did you see where Arkansas legislators have passed a law making abortions illegal after the twelfth week of pregnancy?  They didn't just pass the law, either.  They overrode a gubernatorial veto to do so.  Of course, the 12-week limit goes against established legal precedent, is blatantly unconstitutional, and stands virtually no chance of surviving the inevitable judicial scrutiny, much less reaching the Supreme Court.  Even most anti-abortion crusaders think the law unrealistically ambitious.  Are those Arkansan lawmakers nuts?

Sadly, no.  They know exactly what they are doing; they are doing precisely what anti-abortion activists have been doing for the last thirty-plus years.  They are shifting the ground on which abortion battles are fought.  They have not yet been successful in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they have succeeded regularly in chipping away at its protections.  A woman's right to choose is gradually succumbing to death by a thousand legislative cuts.  In parts of this country, abortion is effectively illegal already, thanks to state and local laws on parental or spousal notification, "partial-birth" abortion, waiting periods, etc.--to say nothing of hostility towards abortion-services providers (including death threats and, in the case of George Tiller, murder).  In this environment, pro-choice advocates will take solace when they succeed slapping down Arkansas' paleoconservative abortion restrictions.  But when other lesser--but still onerous--restrictions are proposed or passed, the will and the resources to fight them will be that much more depleted.

It's a depressing scenario.  I would suggest, however, that liberals should make lemons out of lemonade and adopt this same tactic toward left-wing causes.  I'm thinking particularly of the gun-control debate.  There is no chance of a state legislature successfully passing laws to completely outlaw gun ownership (indeed, very few people--liberals included--advocate such a total ban).  But why not get sympathetic legislators to propose such legislation, the more implausible the better.  Flood statehouses from coast to coast with all manner of handgun restrictions, from the relatively benign (background checks) to the utterly unrealistic (a law forbidding private citizens from owning any firearm more powerful than a musket).  Make the gun lobby defend itself, make them fight numerous battles on numerous fronts.  As the ground under the abortion debate has been shifted inexorably to the right, let's shift the ground beneath the gun-control debate leftward.  It's worth a shot--no pun intended.

A Day Off

Between the New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants, I have neither the time nor focus to do much right now in the way of writing.  Instead, here's an article from Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who took the week off from pontificating about all-things-globalized to offer some relevant points on the seemingly endless stream of GOP outrages to common sense and decency.  Worth a read.  Go Giants!

The Vagina Ideologues

In what--somehow--passes for good news, Virginia's right-wing lunatic of a governor, Bob McDonnell, backed down from a controversial law he had previously supported, wherein women seeking abortions would first have to submit to a vaginal ultrasound.  Instead, Virginia law will "only" require women to have an abdominal ultrasound, with the more intrusive method simply being available as an option if the woman requests it.

(DIGRESSION: Las Vegas bookmakers have established the over/under on vaginal ultrasound requests at zero. EOD)

(ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: This whole reproductive rights battle has really gotten out of hand.  Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of vaginas, but could we please go a day without seeing them splattered all over the front page of The New York Times! EOAD)

Well, abdominal ultrasounds.  I guess that's not so bad.  And it does ensure that women seeking abortions will get ultrasounds, which is important.   After all, women need ultrasounds to. . . uh. . . to. . . Wait, why  do these women need to have an ultrasound, again? . . . Oh, so that they can see the fetus they're carrying.  Oh, OK!

Wait, I'm sorry: This is important, why? . . . Oh, because then they might have second thoughts about having an abortion. . . . I see. . . So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health, then; it's basically just something politicians are doing to possibly make women feel worse about a decision that they've probably agonized over already. . .

Now, I know what you're all thinking: Here goes the Solipsist on another left-wing rant about overreaching, self-righteous, paleo-conservative zealots seeking to impose their Sharia-esque worldview on the rest of America.  Well, you couldn't be more wrong.  I think this law is a wonderful idea.  I think women should be forced to consider fully the consequences of whatever abortion-related decision they make.  Of course, in fairness, if pregnant women must face this sort of "reality check," so should everyone else--especially politicians who seem to find this sort of thing so important:

--You want to repeal Obamacare?  You go and explain, in person, one at a time, to a substantial number of people--let's say fifty, just to keep it manageable--a substantial number of people who will lose their access to healthcare--why this is really good for them.

--You don't like gun-control laws?  Go speak to the relatives of the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Tucson shootings--go speak to them one at a time--and explain why everyone must have continued access to guns.

--You don't think taxes should be raised on the rich?  Go around the country to explain to people making around $30,000 a year--one at a time--why it's a good thing for the country that they pay taxes at a higher rate than multi-millionaires.

You get the point.  If women facing one of the most serious decisions they are ever likely to make must undergo a blatant attempt to force them into empathy, I see no reason why we should not hold our elected representatives to the same standard.

Alternatively, in keeping with the whole vaginal ultrasound concept, we could simply force politicians to undergo a thorough colonoscopy whenever they're thinking about dropping a load of crap on the rest of us.

It's the Politics, Stupid

“Is it possible for a woman’s health organization to stay out of the abortion issue and help all women?” asked Mr. Raffaelli, the Komen board member. “I don’t know the answer to that yet. What we were doing before was angering the right-to-life crowd. Then, with our decision in December, we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we’re going to make the right-to-life crowd mad all over again. How do we stop doing that?”
                          "Cancer Group Backs Down on Cutting Off Planned Parenthood"

How? Simple, really.

In the last week or so, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation (an incredibly awkward name, by the way, but that's a problem for another day) has come under fire for a decision, made late last year, to discontinue grants for Planned Parenthood.  This was in response to pressure from pro-lifers, who objected to Komen's funding of a group that provides abortion services.  When Komen's decision went public, the backlash was immediate and, given the reach of the internet, pretty much ubiquitous.  Hundreds of thousands of messages on social networks blasted Komen, and Komen yesterday backed down, saying that Planned Parenthood could again apply for grants.

Komen board member John Raffaelli suspects that, now that Komen has given in to pressure from pro-choice advocates, his group will now face pressure again from pro-lifers.  He may be right.  He can take solace, though, in the fact that surveys consistently show a large majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-choice; so if you must alienate someone, it makes more sense to alienate the anti-choicers.

I suspect, though, that Komen got into trouble not so much because of the group's actions but because of the way these actions were taken.  After all, the funding Komen provides Planned Parenthood amounts to a small part of the Komen budget, and Planned Parenthood actually increased its revenues in the wake of Komen's decision (admittedly due in large part to the outrage generated by the Komen decision).  What grates on people's nerves was the nakedly political nature of Komen's actions.  Komen decided to de-fund Planned Parenthood in a very quiet way, mainly in an effort to avoid the very reactions that the decision provoked.  If a group is going to act politically, it can hardly be shocked when the body politic responds.

What would have happened if the folks at Komen had made a public statement saying that its board was simply opposed on principle to supporting an organization that provides abortions?  Would there have been a backlash?  Sure.  Would Komen have lost supporters?  Yes. But it would not have lost as many supporters as it did.  This is because its actions would have been seen as principled--wrongheaded, perhaps, but principled.  Instead, their actions appeared--quite rightly--as nothing more than a cynical political ploy to avoid losing money.

The general public is not so intolerant as some of these groups seem to expect.  We can appreciate an organization that acts on principle, even if we disagree with the principles on which it acts.  What we cannot tolerate is hypocrisy.

(Digression: The direct inspiration for Komen's decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood was a congressional witch hunt launched by an extreme right-wing congressman, Cliff Stearns, to investigate whether Planned Parenthood inappropriately used federal funds to provide abortions (all indications are that it hasn't).  If Komen was, directly or not, responding to this investigation--as it actually claims it was doing--all Komen had to do was make an announcement that its policy was not to award grants to organizations under congressional invesitgation--and that if people were outraged, they should take out their ire on Stearns.EOD)

Birth Control: Not Just for Rich Folks, Anymore

An advisory panel has recommended that insurance providers be required to cover contraception.  If adopted, this rule would allow women of all income levels reasonable access to basic contraceptive measures (e.g., birth-control pills, etc).  This measure would presumably reduce unwanted pregnancies and, consequently, abortions.  Sounds like a win-win for everyone.  It's always nice to see common-sense rearing its unfamiliar head in our hyperpartisan political culture.  Who could have a problem with this?

Oh, of course. . . .

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

We've spent many a fruitless hour trying to understand and/or sympathize with the knee-jerk hostility of religious zealots to anything that runs afoul of their beliefs (notwithstanding the fact that these folks have freely chosen to live in a country which, at least in principle, gives no consideration to religious beliefs when formulating legislation).  We think we've finally figured out what's bothering these people.  So, in the interest of promoting national harmony, we would like to send a message to the Deirdre A. McQuades of the nation:

Just because insurance companies COVER reproductive services like birth control, this doesn't mean that you and your co-religionists would be forced to TAKE birth-control pills or have abortions.

There!  That should take care of that!  You're welcome, America! 

Solipsistography
"Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception"

Of Babies and Bathwater

Earlier this week, the Republican congressional majority tried to push through an anti-abortion bill that would have banned any federal funding for abortion services in the case of rape. Faced with an uproar, they then changed the wording to specify that they would allow for exceptions in the case of forcible rape, "under the theory," as Gail Collins acidly noted, "that there was a problem with volunteer rape victims." The GOP backed off on that bill, too, but their latest iteration of anti-abortion legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is probably worse: It would allow hospitals--as a matter of "conscience"--to deny emergency abortion services, even when these services were necessary to save the life of the mother.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

Years ago, we were in a play. One of our fellow cast-members was an ultraconservative anti-abortion zealot--highly unusual among actors, whose general liberalism is slightly to the left of Karl Marx. At any rate, one evening we overheard him engaging in a debate with one of the women in the crew. She asked him if he opposed abortion in the case of rape. He said he would. His logic? That the fetus conceived as a result of the rape should be considered a "gift"--something good to come out of a horrible experience. We were too gobsmacked to come up with an apt reply at the time.

(DIGRESSION: Gobsmacked (adj.)-A wonderfully evocative British expression indicating utter shock and disbelief, as of one being smacked in the gob [mouth]. EOD)

Later, in a perfect example of esprit de l'escalier, we realized what we should have said.

(DIGRESSION: Esprit de l'escalier (noun)-A wonderfully evocative French expression, literally "spirit of the staircase," referring to a perfect reply that occurs to you too late--for example, after you have left the party and are on the staircase heading home. EOD)

We should have said, "So, if a woman is raped and contracts a disease, she should consider the virus a 'gift' and allow it to rampage through her system rather than seek a cure?" Are we comparing a fetus to a virus? Well, yes, we suppose we are; it's no more offensive than diehard "pro-lifers" implicitly (overtly?) comparing pregnant women to incubators.

(DIGRESSION: Pro-life (adj.)-A disgustingly tendentious appelation adopted by the anti-abortion movement, who seem overly concerned with "life" only until it comes out of the womb, after which, you're on your own, baby! EOD)

To Rep. Pitts and his ilk, we say, If you love fetuses so much, why don't you marry one? Of course, we suspect that these folks would be all too happy to lavish affection on fetuses--if only they didn't come connected to anything so distasteful as an actual living woman.

Solipsistography
"The Siege of Planned Parenthood"
Talking Points Memo

What's Good for America. . . .

Hey, Sloppists, how much cash you got on you?  No need to go to the ATM, just, how much do you have right now in your pockets or wallets or between sofa cushions?  Ten bucks?  Great!  The Solipsist himself has about five, so. . . we can buy 30 shares of GM!

Seems like a sound investment.  It was trading at $70 a share a little over a year ago.  If it ever comes back to even half that, we make (uh. . . hold on. . . carry the two. . . ) a lot of money!

Alas, it will be a while.

Yes, the venerable General Motors is bankrupt.  How should we feel about this?

We feel bad for workers losing jobs, as well as communities devastated by the closings of factories and dealerships.  At the same time, though, left-liberal sympathies conflict with a sense of pragmatism.  The fact is, GM is going under because they failed to make cars that people wanted to buy.  Last year, when the Solipsist's car (a Jeep) finally died, YNSHC promptly went out and bought a Prius.  Not because he has any antipathy toward American workers (let's face it, most Toyotas are probably built in America anyway, albeit at non-unionized factories), but because Toyota makes good cars that last a long time and get good gas mileage.  In years past, nothing other than stubbornness stopped GM from building similar cars.  How long should stubbornness be rewarded?

Look, we hope GM comes back, not because we have some misplaced sense of patriotism, but because we want Americans (well, all people, really) to have good jobs with good benefits.  Plus, we have a faint hope that a chastened GM will come back stronger and wiser--maybe harnessing that fabled American can-do spirit to create the next wave of automotive innovation: safer cars, sturdier cars, greener cars.

GM is dead.  Long live GM.

*******************************************

On a more serious note, a moment of silence for Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas.  Yesterday, Dr. Tiller, one of only a handful of doctors in the country willing to perform late-term abortions under certain circumstances, was murdered in the vestibule of his church (!).  No word on whether the god-fearing assassin was directly affiliated with any of the more prominent anti-choice groups.  Just one more example of the lunacy of right wing haters.  Pro-life indeed!

************************************

The answer is '13.'  The question is, "How many paragraphs into a story about the death of Millvina Dean, the last survivor of the Titanic, does the New York Times article mention the movie?"

Strikes us as a superb example of  journalistic restraint.