Boardash: Women for Saturday November 7, 2009

Having trouble seeing this email? View the most recent issue or stories from previous issues.

	Today's Wine & Dine Daily Video
	How To Make A Tempeh And Shiitake ... Play Now!

Advice from Carolyn Hax

Women
For You
Saturday November 7, 2009

Health and Beauty Tip -- Green Tea Tonic
Alito and abortion: A changing high court
Annie's Mailbox
Quote of the Day
New Healthy Life Daily Videos

Health and Beauty Tip -- Green Tea Tonic

For a refreshing trick that's also good for your skin, mix two tablespoons green tea with half a cup of water. Sweep the mixture over your face with a cotton ball and let it evaporate -- you don't need to wash it off.

Comment on this Story | Printer Friendly | | Send Story to a Friend | Top

Alito and abortion: A changing high court

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Is abortion doomed in the United States? Probably not.

But with the changed equation on the U.S. Supreme Court -- Justice Samuel Alito succeeding Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005 -- the prospects for more restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion seem to be rising.

For anxious advocates hoping to defend the right in the ongoing culture war, abortion may seem like Santiago's giant marlin in Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea." Santiago brings home what he can of the marlin, strapped to the side of his small boat, but sharks have stripped it to the bone.

For re-energized opponents of abortion, the current makeup of the high court offers hope, not of an outright ban, but of a gradual dilution of a right -- the right to kill the "unborn" -- they never believed existed in the first place.

In contrast to the Alito-O'Connor exchange, Justice Sonia Sotomayor replaced fellow liberal Justice David Souter earlier this year for a wash.

There is no abortion case now on the Supreme Court's docket, but one is coming up fast on the outside from the country's heartland, and the justices may find themselves having to deal with it before recessing for the summer in late June.

Two Oklahoma laws were scheduled to go into effect Sunday. One would have required women seeking an abortion to fill out a 10-page questionnaire about their personal history and the reasons they were seeking an abortion, Rightjuris.com reports. Results would be posted on the Web.

The other would require women seeking an abortion to listen to a doctor as he or she described the fetus during an ultrasound.

Both are being challenged in the state courts. Last Monday, a state judge temporarily blocked the questionnaire provision on technical grounds. The law addresses unrelated issues in one bill, the judge said, in violation of the state Constitution.

Liberals and abortion rights advocates are bringing big guns to bear in the case. In an editorial titled "Oklahoma vs. Women," The New York Times said anti-abortion activists "found great encouragement" in the 2007 Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on "partial-birth" abortion. "Soon, they began looking for other inventive restrictions on reproductive rights for testing in the courts. In May, Oklahoma state lawmakers approved a beaut."

State lawmakers say they just want to find out why women seek abortions. But the Times contends, "The law's purpose is political. It's real aim is to persuade doctors to stop performing abortions by placing new burdens on their practice, to intimidate and shame women and to stigmatize a legal procedure that one in three women have at some point in their lives."

The Supreme Court has addressed aspects of the abortion issue a number of times, but two cases stick in the public's mind as the most important: 1973's Roe vs. Wade, the 7-2 ruling that recognized a woman's right to an abortion based on precedent that had found a constitutional right to privacy, and 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which generally upheld Pennsylvania's restrictions on abortion except for a provision requiring spousal notice before the procedure.

As an appellate judge in Philadelphia, Alito said in dissent before the Supreme Court ruling that he would have upheld the spousal notice provision.

Critics who see Alito as a sleeping threat to abortion also point to his 1985 application for a promotion at the Reagan Justice Department -- first obtained by The Washington Times -- in which he bragged that as a department lawyer he was proud of his contribution to Supreme Court cases arguing that "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," adding "I personally believe very strongly" in those positions.

However, a number of analyses of Alito's opinions in the lower court suggest he is less than a total culture warrior against abortion, unlike Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Judge Alito's record on abortion is more complicated than the caricatures would suggest," The Washington Post said prior to his confirmation in 2005. "His opinions imply a discomfort with legal abortion and suggest that he may be more willing than … O'Connor to uphold restrictions on abortion. But his writings also reflect an effort to diligently apply Supreme Court precedent in a changing and controversial area of law. They offer no definitive word as to how he would vote on whether to overrule Roe (vs. Wade) if presented with an opportunity."

In fact, as an appellate judge Alito voted to strike down New Jersey's ban on "partial-birth" abortion -- usually defined as "intact dilation and extraction" or "evacuation" regardless of when it occurs in a pregnancy -- in 2000 because the Supreme Court had struck down Nebraska's similar ban several weeks before.

But a look at that 2000 Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg vs. Carhart -- the one that inspired his vote in the New Jersey case -- and the 2007 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal ban on "partial-birth" abortion, Gonzales vs. Carhart, shows the difference Alito's presence has made on the high court.

In 2000, O'Connor was part of the five-justice majority signing on to Justice Stephen Breyer's judgment striking down the Nebraska ban as unconstitutional.

Then Alito succeeded O'Connor in 2005, and changed the equation.

In 2007, the high court again produced a 5-4 majority on "partial-birth" abortion, but with Alito on board, the majority ruled Congress had the right to enact such a ban. Take one vote from column A and put it in column B, and you have a different result.

Significantly, though Alito was willing to sign on to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in 2007, he was unwilling to sign on to a separate opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas agreeing with the majority but going further.

Joined by Scalia, Thomas wrote, "I join the court's (majority) opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. … I write separately to reiterate my view that the court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe vs. Wade … has no basis in the Constitution."

In other words, Alito was willing to join the majority restricting a form of abortion, but would not, at least in 2007, join Thomas and Scalia in asserting that the right to an abortion didn't exist.

Comment on this Story | Printer Friendly | | Send Story to a Friend | Top

Annie's Mailbox

Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

Dear Annie: My parents divorced 18 years ago, and Dad has had numerous partners and wives since. Three months ago, Dad found out he had stage-four colon cancer. Two weeks after his diagnosis, he married "Sue."

Here's the problem: Before he was sick, Dad didn't get along that well with Sue. They argued a lot, and my sisters and I thought he'd eventually break it off. Still, we were all polite to her and invited her to family gatherings. As soon as they married, Sue started pushing us away. Her family members had confrontations with my sisters at the hospital, telling us we were butting in too much.

Dad recently came home. We are determined to do whatever we can to help and be with him until his final day. We used to come over to take out the garbage and mow the lawn, but now Sue has hired people and says we don't need to come by anymore. When we told Dad how upset we were, he said he is too sick to argue with Sue and she can do whatever she wants.

Dad just had a birthday. We gave him a puppy since he told us in the hospital that he wanted one to sit with him through chemo. Sue got rid of it. We think she is emotionally abusive to him. I know he's terribly depressed because he keeps asking for his gun back. We don't want to create problems. We just want to be part of Dad's life before we lose him. Any ideas? -- Confused in Michigan

Dear Confused: This type of situation is sad but not uncommon. Sue needs to control everything in your father's environment in order to cement her position as his wife. She fears you may influence him in a way that does not benefit her. If you think she is truly abusive, call the authorities. Otherwise, do your best to give Sue the control and respect she thinks she deserves in order to find a way to see your father and offer him some comfort.

Dear Annie: My 16-year-old sister has aplastic anemia, a rare bone marrow disorder. She survives off weekly platelet and red blood cell transfusions. She was hoping to get a bone marrow transplant as soon as we could find a match, but none of her potential matches has panned out.

My lovely and amazing sister can only live off these transfusions for another two years, and then that's that. Please let your readers know they could save a life by donating bone marrow. All you have to do is have your mouth swabbed to be put into the system. If more people would do this, maybe we could find someone who is a good match for my sister. I would do anything to save her life, but I need help. -- Carrie

Dear Carrie: You are a loving sister, and we hope a match will become available. Those who are willing to participate in this lifesaving procedure can get more information through the National Marrow Donor Program (marrow.org), 3001 Broadway Street N.E., Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55413-1753.

Dear Annie: I was angered by your answer to "Confused Mom in Omaha," whose husband told his boss their infant daughter had died so he could collect money. You asked, "In spite of his greed, is Alex otherwise a good father?" Are you kidding?

Yes, a child should have a father involved in her life, but only if he is a good, stable person. This father obviously is not. You should retract your advice, apologize and suggest "Confused" consult an attorney. -- Angered in Tallahassee

Dear Angered: We understand, but disagree. Dad did not try to hurt his daughter. He was simply pulling a con job. And while that may not make him a very good person, it doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter, and we don't believe he should be prevented from having supervised visits. For HER sake, not his.

Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, P.O. Box 118190, Chicago, IL 60611. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comment on this Story | Printer Friendly | | Send Story to a Friend | Top

Quote of the Day

Myrtle Reed

"Lots of people think they're charitable if they give away their old clothes and things they don't want."

Comment on this Story | Printer Friendly | | Send Story to a Friend | Top

New Healthy Life Daily Videos

Could acupuncture treatment help breast cancer? Check out this video and learn about the latest research.

More videos like this, including more of the latest health studies and reports from doctors, are available free with a subscription to ArcaMax's Healthy Life Daily Video ezine. Sign up for this brand-new newsletter and get a new video report by e-mail every day!

Susbcribe to the Healthly Life Daily Video ezine instantly.

Find out more before subscribing.

-- From the ArcaMax editors