I received an email from a reader about a round table on the Tavis Smiley Show. Apparently, Tavis will have a panel discussing Thomas’s book and his appearance on 60 Minutes. Panelists are Marc Morial, President and CEO of The National Urban League, Princeton Professor Cornel West, and Columbia University President, Farah Jasmine Griffin. If you are in New York, the Tavis Smiley Show airs at 12 midnight on PBS.  If you are in another market, I’m not sure of the time, but you can check you local PBS station.
Did anyone else see the 60 Minutes interview with Thomas?   I thought he came off as really bitter.  He kept using the anchor’s name in a pejorative way.  It was very uncomfortable from my vantage point.  For those interested in abortion and sexual harassment issues, Thomas made the claim that the controversy surrounding his appointment was really about abortion.  The panel on the Tavis Smiley Show will discuss this issue in some depth.

I’ve been called up for jury duty at the county court level. This is the second time in three years that this supposedly random process has chosen me, though my parents have never in their lives been called to serve. I was summoned twice in my 13 years in Arizona too.

Here’s how it generally works: A summons in the mail notifies the recipient that she must serve unless she qualifies for specific exemptions. There’s a questionnaire where she verifies she’s a U.S. citizen, has never been charged with or convicted of a felony, and doesn’t have a disability that would interfere with serving. To each she answers “yes” or “no.” “Yes” to the question about disability requires verification by a doctor, of course.

Every time (four times now), I’ve answered the disability question with a write-in of “maybe.” Is there reliable public transit to get a person with a wheelchair to the courthouse? Is the courthouse wheelchair accessible? Are the courtroom, the jury box, and the restrooms that the jurors use accessible too? Will my personal attendant or nurse remain available to me? Will I be treated respectfully if I need accommodations not immediately available? I figure I’m not the wildcard in this equation.

Marta Russell, author of Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract, wrote about her summons to jury duty in 2002. After some adventures with parking, elevator access, and building security, it was time for a little ableist attitude from a jury administrator:

Those of us who have been using wheelchairs for some time know the routine. No matter where you choose to place yourself you will be told that you are in the way and asked to move. It took about ten minutes but an administrator was soon by my side telling me I was blocking traffic and suggested that I “move over there” pointing to a table against the opposite wall.

There were people using that table to fill out forms so I mentioned that I would be in the way there too. Why is it that some people do not like to be “upped” by a person using a wheelchair? She certainly did not like it and denied that there was anyone using the table even though three persons were in plain sight at the table at that very moment!

As I went towards the table she went over and grabbed the table, then dragged it off into another area. Plainly agitated she came back over to me and asked in a patronizing tone “Is that enough room?”

My wheelchair is about 26 inches wide, the table was about 5 feet long. Agitated myself, I retorted that if the room had been designed to accommodate a wheelchair and had integrated seating, she would not be having this problem now, would she?

Russell’s experience is hardly the most dramatic. George Lane, of the Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, had once crawled out of his wheelchair and up a flight of stairs to reach a second-floor courtroom in Tennessee. When he refused to repeat the process on a different day, he was arrested for failure to appear. (Tennessee v. Lane, itself, is about whether or not a plaintiff can sue a state for damages under the ADA’s Title II.)

Lane was a defendant in a criminal case, but access issues remain the same. Well, in fact, it’s even more important that a defendant be able to attend his own trial, isn’t it?

As for me, my “maybe” means I made it through that initial screening and must wait for my notice of what day I phone the courthouse. At that point, my jury pool group may or may not be required to come to the courthouse that day. I’m on call for this process through the end of 2006.

I could have opted out easily, I believe. There’s the chance that writing “I use a ventilator” instead of “maybe,” or “state-paid nurse will accompany me” would have been enough to get me passed over, but I’m interested in the process, if a little jaded about how welcome I might be to participate.

Being accepted onto a jury would considerably complicate this life I’m starting to adjust to, but I’m following through. Why exactly? First, there’s nothing about my disability that interferes with my ability to make judgments in a courtroom even though there’s a presumption in the disability question that I will be a problem citizen. I come with hired staff to help me. I should be good enough if they look at me with an open mind, eh?

And second, since a doctor’s note to opt out (assuming I needed to) can cost an office visit and money to acquire, there’s an inequality to the initial screening that I object to. Receiving a summons in the mail does not cost most people anything (at the initial stage — salary loss is a whole other thing), they should be fully prepared to accommodate me when I show up. And fairly assess me like everyone else.

Crossposted at The Gimp Parade
Check there for more comments

For obvious reasons, this new ban that will be going into effect in July in South Dakota has caught my eye - that isn’t to say it won’t be splashed all over the news by tomorrow (or it should be, in a sane world!). While of course most of us knew that this ban and others like it would become common place in the near future, it never really prepares us for the reality. Or it doesn’t prepare me, at the very least. So here it is, the first fairly comprehensive ban signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds, signed Monday aimed at challenging the 1973 Supreme court decision.

In defense of his position, CNN quoted Governor Rounds as saying:

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society,” said a statement released by Rounds, a Republican.
“The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.”

The ban itself can only be described as extremist, going so far as to ban abortions in all cases except for medical necessities. Cases of incest and rape are not included in the exceptions:

The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise “reasonable medical efforts” to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.

Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance — even in a case of rape or incest — can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.

As can be expected, both Naral and Planned Parenthood have spoken out quick and harsh against this new law, and are rallying for support to keep this from happening in other states. Nancy Keenan, president of Naral had this to say earlier:

“Governor Rounds’ signing of this bill should spur all Americans to let their governors know that they oppose egregious actions that threaten a woman’s reproductive freedom. This law is a monumental setback for women in South Dakota and across the country. This ban contains no exceptions for women who are rape or incest victims, or whose health is threatened, and has an inadequate exception to protect a woman’s life.”

“Since the South Dakota Legislature first passed this abortion ban, pro-choice Americans have reacted with a renewed commitment to protect a woman’s right to choose. They are right to be concerned because this is not an isolated case. Anti-choice politicians in 11 other states are pushing similar bans. President Bush has created a climate with his judicial appointments in which anti-choice lawmakers feel emboldened to attack Roe v. Wade. Americans don’t want to see this landmark decision overturned, and President Bush and his anti-choice allies will pay a political price for advancing such an out-of-the mainstream agenda.”

Yesterday, I posted a rather doom-and-gloom post, arguing that if they get the chance, Republicans will not be content merely to allow the abortion decision to return to the states. Instead, as the nationwide “partial birth” abortion ban suggests, they will seek to chip away at abortion rights on the national level, stripping away the availability of abortion even in firmly “pro-choice” states like New York.

Nor do I expect Roe to be overturned, because they don’t need to overturn it. Especially if the Supreme Court decides that “the Salerno standard” should be used for abortion law, Roe could be turned into an empty, powerless decision without actually overturning it.

However, I should have also pointed out that even when Alito is confirmed, his anti-abortion views won’t dominate the Court. With Alito on the Court, the person replacing O’Connor as the swing vote will be Justice Kennedy. And although I think Kennedy is worse than O’Connor on abortion (most notably, he voted in favor of vague “partial birth” abortion bans), it doesn’t seem likely that Kennedy - who voted with O’Connor on the Casey decision - would want to eviscerate Roe.

So while it’s not impossible that my doomsday scenario will come about, I don’t expect it to come about just because Alito is confirmed. (But if Bush gets to replace a second pro-choice vote in the Court, and if Republicans keep control of Congress…)

My, did this crack me up. Fuller documentation on educe me.

Curtsy: Pandagon.

Two pro-choice law professors, Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson, debate the question “Should Liberals Stop Defending Roe?” Balkin’s opening case, in favor of defending Roe, is a must-read:

This post was removed by request of the author.

Nathan Newman notes that in newly-released Alito papers, Alito states that he went into Constitutional law partly because of his opposition to the Warren Court’s reapportionment decisions. Newman explains what “reapportionment” means:

For the non-lawyers out there, Alito meant he was against the Supreme Court decisions requiring that all state legislative districts be designed to guarantee “one person, one vote”, instead of giving some districts with very few voters the same representation as urban districts with far more voters. […]

Subtract [the Warren Court’s reapportionment decisions], and our state governments around the country would have remained bastions of racist and anti-democratic prejudice and power.

I’m sure that conservatives have already begun making excuses. But the bottom line is, Alito demonstrated that faced with one of the most important legal questions in US history, he displayed terrible judgement. His view then was not only wrong, with the benefit of hindsight we can see his view was profoundly anti-democracy.

No one who went into Constitutional law because of profound opposition to “one person, one vote” belongs on the Supreme Court.

This post was removed by request of the author.

If you haven’t already read it, check out William Saletan’s fantasy of the questions he’d ask Judge Alito, were he a Senator. I especially liked the last third or half, which shows how an ideological judge can use selective quoting - and selective blindness to the substance of past precedents - to apply his ideology while maintaining a surface of impartiality.

I’ve stayed out of Supreme Court discussions because the system here in the UK is completely different and my ignorance of the whole subject is so profound I have nothing useful to contribute. But this quote from Alito about husband notification stood out so much that I had to say something.

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems”“such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition”“ that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.

Every time I read it, my mind supplies a translation that runs something like this: “Those silly women think they need an abortion, but they don’t really. If they would only do the sensible, rational thing and discuss it with their husbands, they’d realise that.” And I know that, technically, Alito isn’t saying he thinks that - just that the Pennsylvania legislature could have thought it in good faith - but he seems to think it’s a perfectly reasonable way of looking at things.

The “perceived problems” Alito cites - which seem like genuine problems independant of perception to me - are reasons women might have an abortion, not reasons they might do so without their husbands’ knowledge. Whether a married woman discusses her decision with her husband depends less on her reasons for not wanting to continue the pregnancy as on the nature of the relationship between them.

It’s likely that in many cases, a woman will want to avoid telling her husband for the same reason the Pennsylvania legislature might theoretically find it desirable: a belief that he will try to talk her out of it. A fear that he will brush aside her reasons for not wanting to continue the pregnancy or even insist that he is better qualified than she to make this decision. The kind of rational arguments my ex-boyfriend used on my decision to continue with my pregnancy would be no more pleasant for a woman who made a different decision but faced similar opposition.

Trying to enforce “rational” behaviour by law doesn’t work because a decision looks different depending whether it’s viewed from the inside or the outside. When I rejected my ex-boyfriend’s suggestion that I should have an abortion, my fear that I would never have such an opportunity to become a parent and the fact that I already imagined my baby as the person it might become were both factors that influenced me. For me, these were more important than the economic factors that pointed to the conclusion that an abortion was the better choice. For him, the economic factors were all; my reasons for refusing had no place in his analysis. Neither of us could be said in an absolute way to be correct, but I was better able to weigh the factors that made a difference to me and therefore make the decision that was right for me.

As with abortion, so with husband notification. The worry that your husband will dismiss your reasons for wanting an abortion and try to manipulate you into continuing with the pregnancy may sound trivial to an outsider, but only the woman facing it can judge how far it could go or how badly it could affect her. Forcing a woman to convince outsiders that she has good reason to fear her husband’s reaction, when they know nothing about her or the relationship she has with him, undermines her ability to make her own choices based on what she knows. It replaces her judgement with the judgement of a court or panel. I don’t know the precise legal meaning of “undue burden”, but it certainly fits my layman’s understanding of the term.

Cathy Young at The Y Files defends Alito’s argument that the government can require married women to inform their husbands before they can have an abortion:

Jack Balkin points out that if Alito gets confirmed, the person replacing O’Connor as the most frequent swing vote will be Justice Kennedy. So what will Justice Kennedy - the new most powerful Justice in the country - decide?

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.