Dear Conservatives… (updated)

Update: I am embarassed to admit that I screwed up in this post. I’m leav­ing it here to serve as a les­son, most­ly to me, but be sure to read the first two com­ments below. Many of my inflam­ma­to­ry com­ments (all of them?) were not just poor­ly researched, but untrue. For exam­ple, Ali­to held that the spousal noti­fi­ca­tion (it is not a con­sent require­ment) aspect of the law pro­vid­ed sev­er­al excep­tions (includ­ing par­ent­hood, spousal sex­u­al assault, and fear of bod­i­ly harm) and there­fore did not con­sti­tute an undue bur­den. While I may not agree that these excep­tions pro­vide enough to counter an undue bur­den argu­ment, I rec­og­nize that all my inflam­ma­to­ry exam­ples below are unfair to Ali­to and the views he expressed. Mea cul­pa.

Dear Con­ser­v­a­tives. Please jus­ti­fy sup­port­ing a man for the Supreme Court who actu­al­ly believes a woman should be required to ask her wife-beat­ing hus­band if she can have an abor­tion. You tell me, flat out, that you agree with send­ing a ter­ri­fied, abused, bat­tered woman to beg at the feet of her abuser before she can make a deci­sion regard­ing her own health.

Don’t like the rhetoric about “a wom­an’s health”? Okay. How’s this? Tell me you will make a ter­ri­fied, abused, bat­tered woman go ask the man who hits her, who breaks her bones, who caused a mis­car­riage last year, tell me you will make her go to this man and get beat­en again, maybe killed, to ask him if she can abort the lat­est baby they made togeth­er, or the baby his friends gave her when they were all drunk one night. Because the man up for the decid­ing vote on the Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Ali­to, believes this. He believes that a woman must be required to noti­fy her spouse before she can have an abor­tion. It does not mat­ter if he is the father. It does not mat­ter if he beats her. It does not mat­ter if he beats his oth­er chil­dren. It does not mat­ter, and pay close atten­tion to this, it does not mat­ter if he will kill her when she asks him.

The blood of those women, and of their unborn chil­dren, will be on your hands.

You think this is an extreme case? Well, the law does not dis­crim­i­nate between extreme cas­es and friv­o­lous cas­es. Unless, of course, there are pro­vi­sions writ­ten into the law, like a pro­vi­sion that takes into account the safe­ty or health of the moth­er. But you don’t want those either.

You want me to make an extreme state­ment, so you can hate me, and write me off as a lib­er­al nutjob? Fine, here: You tell me that you would agree with killing the moth­er if there is a chance it could save the unborn child. Tell me that. Then we can hate each oth­er.

Love, Dan­ny.

By Danny

My name is Danny, and I grew up living overseas, but have settled in Kansas, where it turns out some of my family started, back when. I am helping to raise my own family, and hoping to be proud of what I've done when it's all over.