"I cannot believe that a state statute may be held facially unconstitutional simply because one expert testifies that in her opinion the provision would harm a completely unknown number of women," [Alito] wrote.
I don’t know which part of Alito's nomination and the statement above irks me more:
1) the idea that men think they can adequately represent women in decisions regarding abortion,
2) the implied idea that women need to be mandated to present an account of their actions to their husbands, (if a husband got another married woman pregnant, should he be legally required to notify his wife? j/k!)
3) Judge Alito’s position that unless it’s proven that a significant number of women will be in danger from disclosing intent to get an abortion (and the way to prove it is by enacting it into law and seeing if anybody gets hurt!), there is no constitutional basis to protect them, not even one, from what he apparently considers a purely hypothetical situation (man needs to watch more Springer), or
4) the idea that George Bush thinks that adding another white male (there are NO qualified women or blacks?!) to the Supreme Court amounts to fair representation for this country (well, I suspect he doesn’t really care about that too much – apparently he is under pressure from the people who handed him the election, to create conditions that would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned).
This is the case that Alito was commenting on. I don’t know the context of his comment, but I don’t think the context would alter the intent of his remark. For those of you who enjoy reading Supreme Court decisions:
In reading through this, I find a lot that worries me, not least of which is the logic behind this statement (yeah, I know - who the heck am I to be picking apart the Supreme Court's opinions? - actually, I believe I'm their employer):
"JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE THOMAS, concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "liberty," because (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. …The Pennsylvania statute should be upheld in its entirety under the rational basis test. Pp. 979-981."
Right – because the Constitution is so comprehensive, and America’s ‘longstanding traditions’ are always just. Yikes.
Much of this 'opinion' is balanced and shows a concern to protect women's (and 'viable' potential voter's) rights, but parts of it just smack of a chauvinism that I had hoped was disappearing.