Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Some Abortions

WASHINGTON - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the first nationwide ban on a specific abortion procedure, restricting abortion rights in a ruling on one of the nation’s most divisive and politically charged issues.By a 5-4 vote, the high court rejected two challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003 after its approval by the Republican-led U.S. Congress.

The decision marked the first time the nation’s high court has upheld a federal law banning a specific abortion procedure since its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a basic constitutional right to abortion.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal Abortion Ban

Law Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the federal abortion ban in the cases Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart. The ban, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, criminalizes abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy that doctors say are safe and the best to protect women's health. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) denounced today's ruling.

"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety," said PPFA Deputy Director of Litigation and Law Eve Gartner, who argued Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. "Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

“Today's decision is a shocking setback for women's health," added Gartner. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent, ‘…the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.’

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Abortion Procedure

WASHINGTON, April 18 — The Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal law today banning a controversial abortion procedure, giving the anti-abortion movement one of its biggest legal victories in years.

so i usually do my daily morning news sweep at the al jazeera website and this morning i caught this article about abortion. initially this was one of the ideas i had for a project topic so stay tuned for lots more posts about this as i do more research. the al jazeera article is pretty short but here it is anyways:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/97463D17-1089-4072-8EDB-995B3C67C5F4.htm

Anyone interested in the deWaal articles, here is a recent article from the Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html

I've noticed in the comments and posting that there appears to be a general skepticism about science among a few students in the class. While the main focus of this class is not evolution or human development, this is Evergreen, and we tend to address issues with an interdisciplinary approach (that includes science). I'll try to outline the main risk I see in taking the view that science in general is "arrogant," "assuming," or "exploitive," and that somehow by studying things in a scientific manner, one becomes part of a system that oppresses people and destroys the planet.

First, the wholesale rejection of science is a choice for ignorance. This is never a good idea. Even if one feels that science is responsible for lots of bad things (nuclear bombs, pollution, etc.), it seems to me that one would still want to know about it just as a form of opposition research. If you believe that knowledge = power, and only the bad people have the knowledge about how to use science as a force for evil, then they have all the power that goes with that knowledge and will be able to do evil things unimpeded. So if you care about the human condition, it would be unwise to place yourself at a disadvantage with respect to your ability to understand and influence what happens in science and its applications.

Perhaps some are not skeptical about science, but see the application of evolutionary principles to the development of the human mind as problematic. To you folks, I recommend that you become more curious about the origins of the mind. It is my view that we will learn the answers to many difficult questions by using evolutionary principles to understand how adaptations shaped our psychology. The chief motivation for me is that if we don't understand what's happening in the human mind, we don't stand much of a chance of making the kinds of choices that will result in a more peaceful, compassionate and cooperative world.

Now, to those who perhaps accept that evolution may have shaped the mind in significant ways, but are concerned that this research will be used to justify patterns of behavior that are oppressive (i.e., sexism, racism, ablism, etc.), I agree that there is a danger. We must be careful to not fall into the trap of assuming that just because a pattern of behavior is evolved, it is somehow more "natural." This is a fallacy. Humans no longer live in the environment in which they evolved, so at some level, nothing is natural any more. What we need to do is use our morals and our intellect to decide what we think is right and fair. But this is a separate question from what is true about how the mind works. I believe that we can decide what is right and fair, but we need to know about how the mind works in order to implement those principles through laws and culture.

Finally, I would simply note that there is also a danger in doing nothing: namely, the perpetuation of the same system we presently have that already oppresses women, minorities, disabled, etc. To my mind, a refusal to look for alternatives to these types of oppression is irresponsible.

Here's an essay by Kenan Malik called "Genes, Environment, and Human Freedom."

The project I would like students to complete for this class is an analysis of the language that surrounds one particular issue that is currently being debated. In particular, I'd like multiple analyses, one from each perspective that has been expressed on the issue. For example, someone could examine the issue of bilingualism in the US. At a minimum, I would expect a project on this issue to include an assessment from the point of view assimilationsists (those who feel that immigrants should learn English), as well as from the point of view of pluralists (those who feel that society should support a multi-lingual environment and the preservation of traditional cultures). Each analysis should include an in-depth description of the identity politics that are in play for each faction.

One of the tools that I would like people to employ in constructing each analysis is a concept map. From wikipedia:

A concept map is a diagram showing the relationships between concepts. Concepts are connected with labelled arrows, in a downward-branching hierarchical structure. The relationship between concepts is articulated in linking phrases, e.g., "gives rise to", "results in", "is required by," or "contributes to".

Here's an example of what a concept map looks like:

Thus, a completed project will include a prose section giving history and/or contextual information relevant to the issue, and then a series of concept maps accompanied by explanatory text describing how the concepts and terms are deployed within that perspective.

Here's another site with examples and references.

 

i found the article below on one of the feeds on the side of the main page. the headline read "sunnis and shiites - why do they fight?" so i dove into the article expecting to hear some thoughtful analysis of the cultural political climate between these two groups since their split hundreds of years ago. what i got however was shocking. this guy says that " Conservatives and Republicans don't hate liberals and Democrats, but liberals and Democrats hate conservatives and Republicans." but offers no explanation. he says he understands it and the reasons for it but doesn't explain it at all... that was my second red flag. the first was the first sentence of the paragraph actually. so, yes, i am irish but it is SO ignorant to classify the conflict between northern and southern ireland as a purely religious thing it shocks me that this guy could manage to get printed. i see absolutely no similarity whatsoever between these two conflicts. i don't understand how this could make it past any editor. third, all the information he spouts off, no matter how educated it may sound, is on wikipedia. everything he says and more. wikipedia. then, at the end of the article, he completely discounts both cultures and any relevance they may have for anyone by talking about violent acts committed by muslims. after this, to close, he says " So what's the point of studying any further? How could 21st century Christians and Jews ever make any sense of that?" which just blew my mind. as if christians and jews aren't just as guilty of massive 21st and 20th century atrocities as muslims. remember george bush praying to god and asking for guidance... and then invading iraq? not to mention whats going on in israel-palestine.