The last month has shown the Supreme Court to be nothing but a political body, and nominees who promise to respect precedent cannot be trusted. Imagine you want to have your gallbladder removed. Your doctor determines the safest procedure for you, but because some people who aren?t doctors, don?t approve of ANY cholycystectomies, and won?t be in the operating room find that safer procedure ?gruesome?, you must take a greater risk of hemorrhaging or being maimed. Your gallbladder will still be removed, just not in the safest way.
This is the logic the Roberts court just exhibited in their decision upholding the ban on intact D+E abortion. Supposedly the right to an abortion has not been infringed because you can still get one using a different procedure.
It?s like saying your right to vote is not infringed upon if they close all the vote centers in Denver and you have to go to Durango. You still have the right to vote, even if eventually the only vote center in the country is in New York.
For the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment. The 5-to-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, occasioned by a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, illustrates how fragile reproductive rights are.
If you think private personal decisions are best made by women and their doctors, be sure to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate next year.
Max Ernst, Denver
This letter was not edited
