Why (misogynist) Krauthammer Doesn’t Get It - (Alito)

[donsu]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/04/krauthammer-doesnt-get-it/

In his column today Charles Krauthammer defends the constitutionality of Judge Alito’s decision that would have required a woman to notify her husband before having an abortion. (The Supreme Court later ruled it constituted an “undue burden.”) Among Krauthammer’s arguments:

In 1991, Judge Samuel Alito was asked to rule in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s spousal notification requirement, Supreme Court precedents on abortion had held that “two-parent consent requirements” for a juvenile with “a judicial bypass option” do not constitute an “undue burden” and thus were constitutional. By any logic, therefore, spousal notification, which is far less burdensome, must also be constitutional…

Krauthammer and Alito can’t understand that there is a difference between the relationship parents have with their children and the relationship a husband has with his wife. Just because a system of notification is acceptable between a child and a parent does not mean it’s acceptable between a woman and her husband.

Krauthammer also notes that, under the provision in question, “The married woman just has to inform her husband. Even less than that. She just has to sign a form saying that she informed him. No one checks.” Translation: This isn’t anything a woman couldn’t work around by lying.
----------------------------

the women in Krauthammer's life (if there are any) should take him aside and clear his mind of such tripe

[mandomom]

1. MISOGYNIST

Say it over and over and over. Misogynist Bush, Misogynist press, Misogynist Cheney (Mr and Mrs), Misogynist GOP, etc

[shenmue]

2. True

These people are vile.

:grr:

[supernova]

3. Nice companion piece @ Slate from William Salatan

I wonder if that writer read this piece?


Right to Wife
Why does Judge Alito treat women like girls?
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005, at 7:55 AM ET

snip.

Judge Alito, it's a pleasure to have you before our committee this morning. You're obviously an accomplished jurist, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak very highly of you. I really have only one question for you, and it's my hope that you'll be able to put my mind, and the public's mind, at ease about it. What I'd like to know is, why do you think it's constitutional to treat a pregnant woman like a child?

I'm referring, of course, to your dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 14 years ago. As you know, that case involved a Pennsylvania statute that required women to notify their husbands before having abortions, on pain of criminal sanctions. You voted to uphold the statute.

First of all, Judge, I notice that in your concluding footnote to that case, you mentioned that the plaintiffs had asked your court to hold the statute unconstitutional because it "violates the rights to marital and informational privacy and equal protection." You wrote that you wouldn't address those arguments because your colleagues had relied on a different argument, the right to abortion. Since you rejected the abortion argument and didn't bother addressing the other arguments, I guess we can infer that they wouldn't have changed your vote. So, you don't think privacy or equality entitles a woman, constitutionally, to make the decision without consulting her husband....

snip.. Here's the money quote:

Now, here's my question, Judge. Do you really think an undue burden for a grown woman is the same as an undue burden for a teenager? Do you think a woman deserves no more deference than a girl?

more:

http://www.slate.com/id/2129321/

[MADem]

4. The ugly, twisted twit is probably used to being LIED TO by women

Must be why he doesn't have a problem with it.

Of course, he misses, completely, the real issue: why should a woman have to go through that crap in the first place? Her body, her rules!

[TheFarseer]

5. I'm not sure I understand the decision

It does not say the husband has to approve. It just says he must be notified. Would he possibly have some right to get an injunction on the abortion to delay or prevent her from getting it? Another thing to consider is if the husband did not know she was pregnant but had to be notified about the abortion. This is more complicated than people on both sides want to make it out to be.

[The White Tree]

6. Not really, I don't think

Consider, when A man and a woman marry they each retain the right to control their own bodies. For example, if the wife decided she did not want to have sex with the man and the man forced her, that I beleive, could be considerred rape. Or if he beat her or otherwise assualted her he would face consequences if she chose to pursue them. Marriage does not give him dominion to make a decision over her body.

The Roe v Wade decision was about a womans right to decide on the issue of abortion or as it was posted above, her right to privacy and equal protection. If that equal protection applies then it would seem there is no legal justification for a woman to have to notify her husband that she was even pregnant if she felt cause not to.

Or consider another situation, is a man legally required to notify his wife if he had an affair with another person? I don't beleive their is a law that requires this, even though he is doing something with his body that could affect their relationship, though some may wish it were so (although I am not 100% sure).

Just my 2 cents.

[haele]

7. The problem with the decision is ...

Like any notification law in matters of reproduction, it will only "have teeth" in the situation where there is an unstable relationship.
A woman or teenager (or man, in cases of vasectomy if that ever becomes law)in a stable relationship will usually notify the other party(ies) in the relationship.
A woman or teenager in an unstable, potentially dangerous relationship will not - even if the family relationship does not have a history of violence. Ever since I can remember, ever since my mother and grandmothers can remember, girls were beaten or underwent psychological torture, kicked out of homes for "dishonoring" the family, and wives were also beaten or underwent similar mind-games if an unwanted pregnancy occurred, whether or not there was going to be an abortion involved.

Relationships cannot be legislated. Family members are not property. Obstetricians, court clerks, and judges should not have to play "single stop" family or marriage counselors as well as do their own jobs.
Criminalizing - and make no mistake, that is what this is - that very small percentage of women in a trusting, stable relationship that will not want to bother a loving spouse with an unwanted pregnancy and not at least mention that this is what she is going to do does not outweigh the danger faced by an even greater percentage of women who may not be in a safe, stable relationship and face harm if they do tell their spouse.


Haele

[No Exit]

8. Krauthammer = Neocon Gargoyle and enemy of America. n/t

[neoteric lefty]

9. Lets implant Krauty with a uterus and see how he feels, then!!!

Anyone else with me?!?

But really. He says the law is constitutional partly because it is so easy for women to break it... what law school did this moran come out of? He then compares the relationship between a parent and a minor child with that of a husband and adult wife... Geeze, they are getting desperate!

[dajoki]

10. you know where...

Kraut is comming from. i try not to pay any attention to him and the like, it only gets my blood pressure up, and that's not good for me.

[occuserpens]

11. Never underestimate Krauthammer

The real problem with judge Alito is that he is an ideologue who will definitely shift SCOTUS even farther to the right. However, his position on abortion is not that unacceptable. Yes, singling it out from all other healthcare procedures is not a good thing. Also, legislating medical consent forms on the highest level is an absurdity. In the end, spending time and effort on discussing this kind of rules makes very little sense.

However, the Catch-22 of American politics is that the distinction between conservatives and liberals is traditionally defined based on "abortion" as a critical issue. Liberals are supposed to make abortion as easy as possible while conservatives oppose it. As a result, dems challenge far-rightist Alito on minor differences regarding the issue which is of no importance for an average American!

Now Krauthammer masterfully exploits the "abortion" catch and disarms dems on the really critical issue of SCOTUS appointment.

C.Krauthammer. Distorting Sam Alito

Pop quiz: Which of the following abortion regulations is more restrictive, more burdensome, more likely to lead more women to forgo abortion?
(a) Requiring a minor to get the informed consent of her parents, or to get a judge to approve the abortion.
(b) Requiring a married woman to sign a form saying that she notified her husband.
Can any reasonable person have any doubt? A minor is intrinsically far more subject to the whims, anger, punishment, economic control and retribution of a parent. And the minor is required to get both parents involved in the process and to get them to agree to the abortion.
The married woman just has to inform her husband. Even less than that. She just has to sign a form saying that she informed him. No one checks.