|
National Organization for Women
San Fernando Valley – Northeast Los Angeles Chapter
(818) 769-2035 info@sfvnow.org www.sfvnow.org
For Immediate Release: April 18, 2007
For Information: Jan B. Tucker (310.618.9596 or Cell 818.720.3719)
JUSTICE GINSBURG’S DISSENT IS CLARION
CALL OF ALARM FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS
NOW Chapter Will Hold Forum on
Ramifications of Gonzales v Carhart Decision
The San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women (SFV/NELA NOW) will hold a forum on the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Carhart which today upheld laws that ban the “Intact Dilation & Extraction†method of terminating a pregnancy. The forum will be held Sunday, April 29, 2007 beginning at 12:00 noon at 11178 Burbank Blvd North Hollywood (Doctor Detox). Also on the agenda will be reports on local issues ranging from family law to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Linda Pruett, Co-President of SFV/NELA NOW said that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the Gonzales case is a “clarion call of alarm for women’s rights.†Ginsburg, writing with the support of Associate Justices Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, said that:
In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of “the decision whether to bear . . . a child,” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972), to a woman’s “dignity and autonomy,” her “personhood” and “destiny,” her “conception of . . . her place in society.” 505 U. S., at 851-852. Of signal importance here, the Casey Court stated with unmistakable clarity that state regulation of access to abortion procedures, even after viability, must protect “the health of the woman.” Id., at 846.
And that:
Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
Jan Tucker, another SFV/NELA NOW Co-President stated that “this decision is a wake-up call for doctors: what the U.S. Supreme Court did today, overturning by a single vote the decisions of six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, is to take away a doctor’s right to choose the best medical procedure available to protect a woman’s health. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it’s okay to force a woman to maintain a compulsory pregnancy for a dead fetus when the safest way to remove it may be the Intact D&E procedure.â€
National Organization for Women
San Fernando Valley – Northeast Los Angeles Chapter
(818) 769-2035 info@sfvnow.org www.sfvnow.org
For Immediate Release: April 18, 2007
For Information: Jan B. Tucker (310.618.9596 or Cell 818.720.3719)
JUSTICE GINSBURG’S DISSENT IS CLARION
CALL OF ALARM FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS
NOW Chapter Will Hold Forum on
Ramifications of Gonzales v Carhart Decision
The San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women (SFV/NELA NOW) will hold a forum on the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Carhart which today upheld laws that ban the “Intact Dilation & Extraction†method of terminating a pregnancy. The forum will be held Sunday, April 29, 2007 beginning at 12:00 noon at 11178 Burbank Blvd North Hollywood (Doctor Detox). Also on the agenda will be reports on local issues ranging from family law to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Linda Pruett, Co-President of SFV/NELA NOW said that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the Gonzales case is a “clarion call of alarm for women’s rights.†Ginsburg, writing with the support of Associate Justices Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, said that:
In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of “the decision whether to bear . . . a child,” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972), to a woman’s “dignity and autonomy,” her “personhood” and “destiny,” her “conception of . . . her place in society.” 505 U. S., at 851-852. Of signal importance here, the Casey Court stated with unmistakable clarity that state regulation of access to abortion procedures, even after viability, must protect “the health of the woman.” Id., at 846.
And that:
Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
Jan Tucker, another SFV/NELA NOW Co-President stated that “this decision is a wake-up call for doctors: what the U.S. Supreme Court did today, overturning by a single vote the decisions of six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, is to take away a doctor’s right to choose the best medical procedure available to protect a woman’s health. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it’s okay to force a woman to maintain a compulsory pregnancy for a dead fetus when the safest way to remove it may be the Intact D&E procedure.â€
This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm and is filed under National Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
| 
