Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Women's Rights & Issues
Related: About this forumAlito Says Abortion Has Nothing To Do With Gender Equality--But History Says Otherwise
Alito Says Abortion Has Nothing To Do With Gender EqualityBut History Says Otherwise
7/22/2022 by Shoshanna Ehrlich
In Dobbs v. Jackson, Alito claims preventing abortion does not evince a discriminatory animus against women. History makes clear: Hes wrong.
Pro-abortion protesters gather in New York Citys Foley Square on May 3, 2022, following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. (Legoktm / Wikimedia Commons)
In one fell swoop, Justice Alitos majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization eviscerated Roes privacy anchoring of the right to abortion. It also trashed the Courts subsequent recognition in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that control over ones reproduction is inextricably linked to gender equality. Roes concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions, according to Alito, has liberated them to participate equally in the social and economic life of the Nation. Without so much as a nod to Casey, Alito blithely disconnects the dots. In support of this decoupling, he relies upon the Courts 1993 conclusion in Bray v. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic that clinic protests by Operation Rescue did not deprive those seeking abortion services of their civil rights because opposition to abortion does not evince a discriminatory animus against women. In doing so, Alito ignores the deeply gendered origins of the nations criminal abortion laws. A considerable irony is at work in this omission given his pointed criticism that the Roe Courts survey of abortion history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect.
The nations criminal abortion laws that were deemed unconstitutional in Roe were the product of a 19th-century campaign by elite physicians who sought to replace the common law quickening rule, which permitted abortion up until the time of fetal movement, with a strict prohibitory regime subject to a narrow life-saving exception. According to historian James Mohr in his classic monograph on the subject, their efforts proved to be the single most important factor in altering the legal policies towards abortion in this country. As a result, by the turn of the century, the quickening rule had been consigned to the historic dustbin, in favor of a near absolute ban on abortion. Animated by a pervasive fear that the mid-19th-century womans rights movement was encouraging the better sort of wife to abandon her divinely-inscribed duty to bear children, the physicians campaign was saturated with a deep gendered paternalism.
Sounding the alarm, Dr. Horatio Storer, the Boston-born and educated leader of the crusade, urgently warned that those who become unmindful of the course marked out for her by Providence by giving into desire while avoiding the pains and responsibilities of maternity would no longer merit the respect of a virtuous husband, and could expect to sink into old age like a withered tree stripped of its foliage, with the stain of blood upon her soul. The physicians crusade can be understood as a masculinist project aimed at repairing the damage they believed had been wrought by feminist agitators who foolishly believed that woman was born for higher and nobler purposes than the propagation of the species. To this end, Storer exhorted his colleagues to engage in a bold and manly effort against the crime of abortion which he claimed interfered with all elements of domestic happiness.
. . . . . .
This history upends Alitos claim in Dobbs that the goal of preventing abortion does not evince a discriminatory animus against women. It also makes a mockery of his assertion that the Roe Court was guilty of a plainly incorrect reading of history.
https://msmagazine.com/2022/07/22/alito-abortion-bans-history-discrimination-women-gender/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 534 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alito Says Abortion Has Nothing To Do With Gender Equality--But History Says Otherwise (Original Post)
niyad
Jul 2022
OP
SharonAnn
(13,887 posts)1. It has to do with his religion, the Catholic Opus Dei cult.
niyad
(120,046 posts)2. and the fact that he is a woman-hating, lying piece of scum.