John Roberts and the threat to Roe.

Unlike too many Democrats, I am deeply concerned at the prospect that John Roberts will be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have issued statements of open-mindedness and polite caution about this nominee. Clearly, their aides are spinning them frantically; common wisdom on the Hill dictates that a contentious confirmation hearing would alienate them from their constiuents.  Gotta keep those upcoming elections in mind, eh, Senators?

As a consequence, the Senate Judiciary Committee remains disturbingly mum and low key about the number one issue presented by Nominee Roberts - the possibility that his confirmation places women's reproductive rights, as protected by the Constitution, at dire risk.

I will be blunt:  I, GraceD, a proud US citizen who exercises and fulfills her voting privileges and duties at every election, am my very own single-issue interest group.  And the GraceD single-issue, special interest is the preservation of Roe versus Wade at all costs.

This 'special interest' is profoundly personal.  I'm taking a massive step in revealing to you, Dear Reader, and my family and long time friends who read this blog, that:

The passage of Roe versus Wade saved my life.

I will not provide further details; this statement will stand alone in its bold honesty. 

For those of you with a constructive interest in my story, I would be willing to engage in a dialogue offline.  For those of you requiring 'justification' as to why I terminated a pregnancy, it's likely that your motives are highly suspect and therefore I have no time or energy to give you one nanosecond of my attention. Hate emailers, beware: Your comments and messages will be promptly deleted and your ISP will be banned from my site and email service.

In the 32 years since the landmark Roe decision, I have been vigilant in reviewing the background and character of legislators and court nominees whose election and appointment may adversely impact Roe's survival.  My data collection covers the usual bases of governmental, scholarly and organizational information clearing houses, publications and records.  But these days, I've been zeroing in on perspectives from anti-choice groups. The USA of 2005 is edging alarmingly further to the far right; hence, such organizations have blanket support from the White House and growing visibility and validation in the media.  They have influence and a powerful voice. 

And they're crowing with excitement about Nominee Roberts.  They're also ready for the fight:

• From Life Site, a conservative news source for right wing activism whose analyses include serious reservations about Harry Potter books:  As the intense scrutiny of every possibly relevant aspect of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts begins, pro-life groups have been pleased to discover that his wife, Jane Roberts, once served as the Executive Vice President of the strongly pro-life Feminists For Life.

• From the American Life League:, an anti-choice organization also vehemently opposed to stem cell research:  President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court has garnered intense reaction from both the pro-abortion and pro-life voices in our country. ..It is certain that the pro-abortion lobby will now be out in full force, attempting to demand a Supreme Court justice who endorses the unrestrained slaughter of innocent preborn babies.

• The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the most visible of all pro-life groups, tapped frequently by media outlets for the anti-abortion viewpoint :  Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion,"  said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.  "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

Crackpot? Not to millions of Americans.  Again, Dear Reader - influence.  Big time influence.

So, I am returning to the pro-choice activist front.  I'm a veteran; I've known many afternoons standing in front of a mall behind a propped-up iron board, dressed nicely and neutrally, handing out NARAL literature and discussing the issues earnestly and respectfully to any one curious enough to pick up a flyer and ask, "What's this?"  I'll be marching.  The last pro-choice rally I attended was in 1988 when the Oakland Athletics played the New York Yankees in the World Series. My sign read, "Oakland A's Fans for Choice".  It conjured up many smiles, and some significant conversations with spectators unaware of the issues.  And I'll be putting my money towards the cause.  My husband's and my donations, as George is enthusiastically proud to tell anyone he is a feminist and pro-choice.

For both my husband and I have lived long enough to know this:

"Few women born after 1960 can appreciate the terror of being without a choice -- and the intense shame and danger of illegal abortion...the increasing curtailment of a women's right to control her own body is leading the U.S. back to those days."

'Marie Blackstone', a pseudonym of a frequent contributor to Belief.net, whodisclosed her own harrowing story of an illegal abortion.

Comments

[Karen]

We've gone from discussing the fact that Malcolm still has his balls to the fact that most of the Democrats don't. Let's get educated, folks, on this latest nominee to a LIFE TIME JOB and make some noise. This is a slippery slope we are heading down.

[Bethiclaus]

While I would not consider myself a single-issue voter (particularly since I despise seeing cars with "We Vote Pro-Life" bumper stickers on them), I completely agree with your points.

Also, for those out there who want to decrease the number of abortions occurring, and interesting bit of information: The number of annual abortions decreases under more liberal Presidents, likely because social welfare is more readily available to unwed mothers. Those politicians who villify women who make that oh-so-difficult decision are often contributing to the rise in abortion rates.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with helping people than legislating women's health care options.

[Jo]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for an excellent and personally felt post.

[Tonya]

I am SO on board with this. In many ways I am a single-issue voter, because I feel that anybody who would believe that a woman does NOT have the right to choose, would be narrow-minded, judgmental, intolerant, ignorant, and a downright asshat in every other realm of issues. That tends to go hand-in-hand. It's the litmus test.

Thanks for your heart-felt post.

[Crystal]

Couldn't actually read the post, as I start to twitch and see red when I think of our current administration and the Court nominations. I tried to tell those Texan fools that letting Bushiepoo win the election meant letting him stack the Court and fuck our world UP, but it was a losing cause. They are Texans after all, the majority think he's a god. I weep for our forefathers and our constitution. I weep for us.

[vicki]

Grace- I imagine that parts of this post were hard to write. In 30 years of seeing women in my practice I have yet to see one who terminated a pregnancy and didn't have it profoundly effect her. I have not found that women make this decison callously, easily or without incredible ambivalence and a certain amount of pain, even when they feel that it is the right decision. And I always think to myself, "how can lawmakers presume to judge, let alone make themselves a part of this decision?"

[Bonnie]

In an earlier part of my life I served on a Young Mother's board of directors of a Pregnant minor's school. I spoke up & down the state on the plight of the pregnant teen & issues it begat. I also did many projects & some volunteer abortion counseling for Planned Parenthood. While I did choose a different route that was best for me at the time, I am still haunted by some of the young girls & their horrendous stories( no, they weren't women yet by a long shot....). The coat hangers, back alleys & senseless deaths that occured. I shudder even now. To go back & even consider repealing Roe vs Wade is so appalling, I can't even imagine. It is not 2 steps forward & 1 back...It is decades & decades back, almost to midevil times in so many ways. Obscene is what I feel Roberts would be/is. Put me on your marching list dear Grace, I am there with you all the way any place & anytime! Choice is a right we cannot lose, or God help us all....B

[impossiblejane]

Thank you Grace for sharing this post with us. I was at the March For Women's Lives in 2004 and I will continue to march until these fuckers in D.C. stop worrying about what women are doing to their bodies. I will march for women who came before me. I will march for my future children. I will march for our next generation. I will not let some lawmaker tell me what I can and cannot to do MY OWN BODY. This issue makes me so mad. PISSED. RAGED.

Grace your story and the millions of others gives me the strength and the energy to continue this work.

[ComfortAddict]

A woman must have control over her body. One would think, oddly enough, that this would be a classic conservative position - freedom from government control. Since the classic conservatives have made their Faustian bargain with the religious right, though, that ship has sailed.

I have been very upset at the way our country has been heading. The Roberts nomination is only the latest example of attempts to erode our rights, dominate the world and impose a de facto theocracy. This sometimes makes me look longingly at joining our more enlightened neighbors to the north. However, when I consider what a dangerous combination military power and the prevailing ideology are, I know that I must stay.

I especially like and agree with the quote at the end of your post. I imagine that few young women, and hardly any men, would understand. I'm sure that your decision to obtain an abortion was wrenching. Thank goodness you did not have to do it under circumstances that imperiled your life (as did many before Roe).

I admire your strong and courageous voice.

[nina]

Sing it, sister!

[Michelle]

I would think that one could be pro-life yet not feel the need to legislate their feelings on a woman's body. There are many reasons for abortion, some of which are extremely complex, as I'm sure you know. Having one can break your heart. Can't they find something else to worry about, like how the government can now take our houses so a shopping mall can be put on our (former) land? I guess that doesn't fit well on a bumper sticker?

[Donna]

You are a braver woman than I. We were on vacation when I heard of O'Connor's resignation on CNN - and all I could say to my husband was "Now we're truly f**ked." Thank you for a passionate post.

[Jenny]

I am so on your side with this that I am essentially delurking to tell you so. I was in DC April 2004 for my first march, and until recently I was working at my local Planned Parenthood (Grant funding ended, boo). I am affronted that these lunatic anti-choice extremists are taking over what should be a personal decision and trying to legislate what we women may or may not do with our bodies.
What some people who are on the fence about the issue may not realize is that the same people who are trying to outlaw abortion are also trying to outlaw hormonal contraception. Cause, you know, to them a pregnancy begins at conception (despite the fact that any non anti-choice doctor will tell you that it begins once the fertilized egg implants). So because the pill sometimes works by prohibiting implantation, as well as by suppressing ovulation, then the pill and all its cousins are CAUSING ABORTIONS! (Their opinion, not mine, in case it's not clear.)
Fuck them all.
Rant off.

[Simone]

THANK YOU Grace for acknowledging your own experience relative to this issue, because now I feel brave enough to reveal my own history around this. I used to think only careless and stupid women found themselves in this kind of predicament, until it happened to me. In 1979, I, a college-educated person (and so one would assume I knew better) found myself pregnant, homeless, AND jobless. With no money, no job, and experiencing full-on morning, day, and night sickness, I was literally at my wit's end; extremely desparate and close to going over the edge.
Somehow I managed to get myself to the Social Services office in Palo Alto, only to find out that the next available appt with a counselor was in 4 weeks. But then a miracle occurred: the woman at the front desk somehow realized the urgency of my situation, I don't know how she knew, but she said "Oh dear, are you pregnant?" She found an opening in the schedule on the next day. I was able to get assistance from Medi-Cal immediately, and through that was referred to the local Planned Parenthood office. The folks at Planned Parenthood were GREAT -- so supportive, caring, and non-judgemental.
If it hadn't been for the people I described above, I would've definitely taken more drastic measures, and would not be alive to talk to you today.
I am so grateful to be living in the state of California where a woman can get the help that she truly needs.

We simply can NOT go back to the days pre Roe vs. Wade.

[BRI BUNS]

Hello Grace!

How are you doing? I decided to randomly comment on this one since it is your most recent blog entry. I wanted to remind you that YOU NEED TO DO THAT SHOW ON TV!!! :-) I was going to call you to remind you... but that would probably have been weird. So hope to see you soon and you should really think about doing it!

Bri

[nakedjen]

dearest grace, i must first say that i am your marching partner. just tell me when and where. any day, any time. i'm there. thank you for writing that very important piece.

secondly, malcolm, dear malcolm, must lose his balls. you're not breeding puppies. it's the responsible thing to do. if i can't remember what the price of a lazy boy recliner is, i can remember bob barker always telling me to spay and neuter my pets. you know i'm a dog lover as LARGE as they come, but really, it's for malcolm's own good. and his health. shall i share the health ramifications of NOT NEUTERING with george? maybe that will help. just enough to convince him about malcolm...not enough to make him think he should be neutered as well.

finally, i was driving in our little hamlet yesterday afternoon and stopped behind a black SUV that had scribbles on its very dirty back windsheild. usually i don't even pay attention to that. but this one i definitely noticed. it was a tribute to molly's friend jorge. sending him off in peace. and it made me burst into tears. your post immediately replayed in my head and i wept for his family and for his friends that were left behind. i would have never even known if it were not for you.

thank you for you. and i mean it about the marching. i'm quite good at that. i've been doing it since i was born.

[ricky]

Grace,

I hear what you're saying. I think Roe was a good decision in a lot of ways, not the least of which was simply reaffirming Griswold v. Connecticut--the idea that we Americans have certain fundamental rights, even if they are not enumerated right there in the first ten Amendments.

But I just don't see a Republican court overturning Roe. I mean, it's a Republican court now--7 to 2. And, of course, you know, it was a Republican court that handed down Roe in the first place.

In fact, the court hasn't been full of anything but Republicans since before the New Deal.

But, beyond that, Grace, the Republican party does not want to make abortion illegal. That would be the worst thing to happen to the Gee Oh Pee since the Great Depression.

Every single fucking Republican politician in this country runs for election on being anti-choice. Every one.

If abortion were illegal in this country, there would be no reason to vote Republican.

You think I'm kidding. But I'm not. Republicans might hate abortion. But Republican politicians love it. They need it. And they know it.

And if you think the Gee Oh Pee political machine is not that calculating, explain Karl Rove to me.

The modern Republican party is all politics and no policy.

Grace, Bush is not going to appoint a justice to overturn Roe.

[Don]

Although I am not "Pro-life" I do realize a fetus is a living human. In that regard I find it sad that some people think abortion is just as good a birth control as contraception.

Yes a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body but keep in mind there is a live human being that's being thrown away. I won't use "killed" because I tend to think a fetus shouldn't be considered legally a sentinent being until it is viable and could live if removed from the host.

My opinion on Roberts is he most likely won't cause Roe v Wade to go away. That said, I am hard pressed to find in the constitution where the federal government should be deciding these issues. It's actually a state issue and you can be sure if Roe v Wade was overturned abortion would still be legal in most states. This is not 1972.

The hysteria that occurs in the liberal camp whenever a conservative is nominated or appointed to the supreme court is "interesting". You heard the same thing when Reagan was in office appointing Thomas and Rehnquist and it didn't happen then. I doubt it will now.

[Jenny]

Don, it seems to me you clearly don't get it. Do you really think women make the choice to have an abortion lightly? No. I have read countless personal accounts from women having abortions (from a journal placed in the waiting room of my former place of work) and not one of them was "YIPPEEE! I get to have another abortion cause I don't use contraception and I like it that way!"
Women who have abortions do it for many different reasons.
Their contraception fails and they already have 3 kids. They are forced or coerced to have sex without contraception (i.e. rape). They can't afford a child and their contraception fails. They aren't emotionally or physically able to have a child and their contraception fails. And don't you even dare to tell me that they shouldn't be having sex if they can't raise a child (though you said you're not anti choice, so maybe you wouldn't go there).
Nonetheless, your post was condescending to the Nth degree. You must really think we're stupid if you truly think women who choose to have an abortion don't stop to consider that their pregnancy is a "living human" in your words.
Grace, I neglected to thank you in my last post for sharing your experience with us.

[Michelle]

To add to Jenny's reasons...the woman takes benzos that are a class X or whatever drug and the doc tells her that it is not safe for her to quit cold turkey nor safe for the fetus to take them at all. She researches the options, and every pharmacist tells her the same thing. Perhaps the pregnancy occurred while she was on the pill anyway.

Judgemental people out there. Fuckers.

[Don]

Jenny: I think I do "get it". I would not say that you don't but you clearly misread my post.

I am in agreement with you on the many valid reasons women get abortions. If you noticed I said some, not many or all. As for having sex when they can't afford to raise a child I would say this. They shouldn't have unprotected sex if they can't afford to raise a child. I think many "children" do have unprotected sex and don't think about the consequences. I believe part of that is due to ignorance but some is due to them knowing they could easily get an abortion if they ended up pregnant.

I did not mean to be taken as being condescending. I meant to be taken as someone who is a conservative yet doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose. I also wanted to make a few points about the fact that there is more than one human involved.

There's an old joke about the difference between being involved and being committed. Take a bacon and egg breakfast. The chicken was involved but the pig was committed.

That is the main thing I notice about pro-choice people. They are pro-women's choice but I rarely hear mention of the fetus's choice. I guess if you are in-utero you don't have any. Forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching, that isn't my intent.

I actually don't want to see Roe v Wade overturned. I just feel it wouldn't change that much. Abortions would still be legal in most states which is actually where the law should be made regarding abortion.

The world wouldn't end.

[Kris]

Grace, you know how I feel on all of this. It's a no brainer to me. I do wonder, however, if there is a rat's chance in hell that Bush would ever appoint ANYONE who wasn't hell bent on overturning RvW. I just don't see it happening. Politically speaking, I don't think we'll see any other choices that will be any different. I feel stuck, trapped, boondoggled even. What is a citizen to do?

[Cori]

My dh could not believe the string of foul words that came from my mouth when I heard that O'Connor was stepping down. I knew this was exactly what it would all lead to. It is a damn shame. And I find it sickening how powerless we are to change it. What happened to power of the people? Power of the almighty dollar won out again.

[CursingMama]

The loss of Justice O'Connor is profound; the appointment of Roberts is sickening. I don't think the majority of the Democratic Senators will block the appointment, they're running scared at every turn.

Pro Choice doesn't mean we're pro-abortion, it means we demand the right to choose what to do with our bodies and consider the decisions to be private matters, not public records.

[True Jersey Girl]

I too am terrified of what's happening in our country and of what's to come when Roberts is on the court.

I think the problem is that women don't really see the problem any more because we have never had to deal with illegal and dangerous abortions. I am in my early 30's, and its never been even a concern - its almost taken for granted that women have the right to choose. HOPEFULLY women (and men too) will start realizing that this right is in jeopardy and will stand up.