“Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have looked for judges and justices who could be counted on to oppose the right to abortion. To a startling degree, the fruits of that effort are apparent in the cases now making their way to the Supreme Court,” writes Linda Greenhouse in her column “The Flood of Court Cases That Threaten Abortion.”
Readers shared their perspectives in the comments and Ms. Greenhouse responded to some of them. A selection of those comments and her replies follow. They have been edited for length and clarity. — Rachel L. Harris and Lisa Tarchak, senior editorial assistants
We Had All Better Pay Attention Now, Southwest: Strange how we just take it for granted that our judiciary is partisan. The founding fathers and the Constitution they left for us specifically say that the judiciary is nonpartisan. Yet the Republican Party has been fighting tooth and nail for 40 years to turn our judiciary Republican.
Linda Greenhouse: In fairness, the Constitution doesn’t say the judiciary is nonpartisan and there have been partisan battles over the courts from the very beginning. What we’re seeing now, as you suggest, are the fruits of decades of laserlike focus on the courts by one party, and a kind of laissez-faire attitude by the other — an asymmetry of intentionality, you might say, that’s brought us to where we are today.
Mor, California: The most outrageous of these abortion laws is the one from Indiana, outlawing abortion of defective fetuses. A fetus, whether defective or not, does not know it exists. Aborting it will prevent untold suffering for the resulting child and its family. So what is the point of this law apart from gratuitous cruelty?
L.G.: Laws like this one, giving the state the power to decide whether a woman has the “right” reason for deciding to terminate a pregnancy, not only infantilize women but act to further stigmatize abortion as baby-killing and to cover the woman with moral opprobrium. That is their real purpose.
It seems to me that if the government of Indiana, so eager to criminalize what it cleverly labels discrimination abortions, was actually willing to help families cope with children who need intensive, lifelong care, it would be possible to imagine having a different conversation. It was the former representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts who famously said that from the point of view of such conservatives, “Life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
John Quinn, Virginia.: The real question here is the application of federalism. Some states — New York, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Virginia, Oregon and Colorado — will have laws that allow for unrestricted abortion rights. Other states, like Texas and Louisiana, will restrict or prohibit abortions. This is no different than some states having liquor monopolies (Virginia and Pennsylvania) and some states allowing liquor to be sold by anyone with a license (California and Kentucky). The application of federalism will not end or prohibit abortion, but only allow abortion in states where the practice has significant public support.
L.G.: Your comment reflects a misunderstanding of federalism, which does not mean that states are simply free to disregard constitutional rights. (Not that the right to buy a beer is in any way equivalent to the right to terminate a pregnancy — but for your information, the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, explicitly gives the states the right to regulate alcohol sales).
Every state has its own constitution, which can protect rights more but not less generously than the federal Constitution does. For instance, the right to same-sex marriage was recognized by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts under the Massachusetts Constitution a decade before the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell decision, which interpreted the United States Constitution to do the same thing. States aren’t free to declare, “but not in our state.”
Sam, Virginia: In democratic systems, there are no absolutes. Jurisprudence reflects contemporary politics and culture. To imply otherwise elevates judges and justices, while at the same time denigrating the democratic process.
L.G.: You’re absolutely right — constitutional values are born outside the courts, and can die there as well. There are several names for this process in the academic literature: “constitutional culture” or, in a phrase coined by Prof. Lani Guinier of Harvard Law School, “demosprudence,” jurisprudence that comes from and speaks to the people. Nothing in my column denies this. To the contrary, I’m talking about the actions of judges propelled to the courts through the actions of social movements on our politics. That process continues. It will never stop.
B. Moschner, San Antonio: Texas will suffer if Roe is found to be unconstitutional, even in increments. There is no way our state will legislate abortion at any stage. However, I suspect that these courts will be strategic and slow at chipping away at these rights. Eventually, red states will no longer have clinics offering abortions. The women with means will be able to travel across state lines to a progressive state for the procedure, but the poor women who cannot care for a third or fourth child will be helpless to do the same.
L.G.: Yes, you’re right, that is the plan. There are some states now with only one or two abortion providers, and women have to travel hundreds of miles and jump through multiple regulatory hoops to exercise their constitutional right. Under the Texas law that the Supreme Court overturned in its 2016 decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, there would have been no abortion provider between San Antonio and El Paso, a distance of more than 500 miles, and Texas was O.K. with that.
Further, it’s low-income women who get most of the abortions these days, since women with higher incomes are able to avail themselves of reliable, long-lasting (and expensive) contraception. Readers interested in facts and figures about abortion should look at the statistical picture from the authoritative Guttmacher Institute.
Catracho, Maine: A legitimate religious objection to my tax dollars going to fund warfare, bombing of children and other life-destroying military activities, putting children in cages after separating them from their parents or denying health care protections to children and others should be given the same weight as an equally legitimate religious objection to abortion or even abortion counseling. The courts should affirm this moral equivalence and as a country we can act accordingly.
L.G.: Yes, agreed. And to make your comment more specific to the issue at hand, there are more and more “conscience” based opt-outs being created by the federal and state governments. Employers that don’t like birth control don’t have to include it in the employee health plan (under a newly issued Trump administration regulation that’s being challenged in court) and some states allow pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception if they disapprove of the product. But what about those of us whose conscience would require such products and procedures to be available for the good of society? Our voices are not part of this conversation.
Mark Stave, Baltimore: As a public-interest attorney representing abused and neglected children, I have no difficulty in understanding Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. I have watched as our Maryland circuit court judges trim their rulings to more clearly align themselves with the tendencies of the state’s Court of Appeals. When the higher court leaned toward the rights of children to be free of abuse, they ruled that way more often. When they shifted away from children, toward parents’ rights to raise children however they saw fit, the judges leaned that way. Judge Sutton sees the way the circuits and the Supreme Court are headed, and he changes accordingly.
L.G.: I have enough regard for Judge Sutton to assume that he called this issue the way he saw it — that because doctors have no “right” to provide abortions, they can’t be heard to complain when the state tries to force them to give up their ability to provide abortions in order to continue receiving an unrelated benefit. There is some internal logic to this argument but it flies in the face of 40-plus years of common-sense precedent that holds that doctors stand in the shoes of their patients, who would not otherwise be able to get into court to assert the rights that they indisputably have.
Gerard, Pennsylvania: The real question is whether the government should enforce the consequence of one opinion. There are strong convictions on both sides of this issue, and it is appropriate to debate whether abortion is morally right or wrong. But it goes against the principles of freedom and liberty to enact laws to enforce one view on every individual. We should defend an individual’s choice, lest one day our choices on other matters may be reduced by the convictions of others.
L.G.: Personal choice, absolutely. The best bumper sticker I’ve ever seen read: “Opposed to abortion? Don’t have one.” But if you mean that we should be able to exercise personal choice not to obey laws of general applicability — anti-discrimination laws, for example — you lose me there, so I’m assuming that’s not what you mean.
Wysiwyg, U.S.A.: Once again, I am reminded of Kamala Harris’s question during the hearing on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?”
Equality and equity in legal decisions are the significant issues here. To allow judges to inject their personal beliefs into making such decisions is contrary to the Constitution’s tenets on its face.
L.G.: Yes, and it was a great comment by Senator Harris. But I don’t actually think that judges, for the most part, believe they are injecting their personal views into their jurisprudence. They believe they are acting as judges. But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said years ago (in the “wise Latina” speech that she was so unfairly slammed for), we are all the product of our life experiences. The challenge for a judge is to recognize that fact and do the hard work of setting aside the prejudices and preconceptions they bring to the table as people.
As an aside, that is not the challenge that faces an opinion columnist. I’m always amused by reader comments that accuse me of having an opinion. An opinion column without an opinion is a failure!
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
今晚95期开什么码【鸣】【人】【眼】【里】【冒】【着】【星】【星】：“【想】【学】，【当】【然】【想】【学】【啦】！” “‘【螺】【旋】【丸】’【可】【不】【是】【那】【么】【好】【学】【的】【哦】！” 【日】【向】【镜】【嘴】【角】【一】【扬】，【笑】【了】【笑】。 【说】【起】‘【螺】【旋】【丸】’，【他】【自】【己】【其】【实】【也】【才】【刚】【刚】【学】【会】【不】【久】，【而】【且】【还】【是】【专】【门】【请】【教】【了】【自】【来】【也】【后】【才】【学】【会】【的】。 【他】【虽】【然】【知】【道】‘【螺】【旋】【丸】’【是】【四】【代】【受】【尾】【兽】【玉】【的】【启】【发】【而】【开】【发】【出】【来】【的】，【也】【隐】【约】【记】【得】【一】【些】【修】【炼】‘【螺】【旋】【丸】
【身】【为】【运】【动】【品】【牌】Reebok【代】【言】【人】【的】Gigi Hadid，【今】【年】【初】【首】【度】【参】【与】【设】【计】，【为】Reebok【打】【造】【一】【系】【列】【时】【髦】【联】【名】【商】【品】，【时】【序】【进】【入】【秋】【冬】，Reebok【再】【宣】【布】【与】Gigi Hadid【联】【名】【系】【列】【将】【回】【归】。
【天】【庭】，【瑶】【池】【仙】【境】 【昊】【天】【与】【瑶】【池】【看】【着】【不】【远】【处】【悬】【浮】【着】【的】【昊】【天】【镜】，【昊】【天】【一】【副】【淡】【然】【表】【情】，【对】【于】【镜】【中】【所】【呈】【现】【的】【画】【面】【并】【不】【在】【意】，【但】【瑶】【池】【却】【不】【一】【样】，【虽】【然】【也】【神】【色】【平】【静】，【但】【眼】【中】【却】【闪】【过】【一】【丝】【凝】【重】【之】【色】，【显】【然】【是】【对】【镜】【中】【画】【面】【十】【分】【在】【意】。 【这】【镜】【中】【的】【画】【面】【正】【是】【花】【果】【山】【的】【所】【在】，【早】【在】【牛】【魔】【王】、【蛟】【魔】【王】【他】【们】【前】【往】【花】【果】【山】【之】【时】，【便】【已】【然】【被】【天】【庭】【探】【知】
【陆】【念】【临】【还】【没】【有】【说】【完】【的】【话】【就】【这】【样】【卡】【在】【了】【喉】【咙】【里】，【眼】【巴】【巴】【的】【看】【着】【陆】【遇】【深】，【眨】【巴】【了】【眨】【巴】【眼】，【感】【觉】【自】【己】【像】【是】【见】【鬼】【了】。 【他】【还】【什】【么】【都】【没】【说】【呢】。 【难】【道】【是】【因】【为】……【他】【嫂】【子】【这】【座】【靠】【山】【他】【可】【一】【定】【得】【靠】【紧】【了】，【关】【键】【时】【候】【那】【都】【是】【能】【救】【命】【用】【的】。 【听】【到】【陆】【遇】【深】【的】【回】【答】，【沈】【恋】【这】【才】【满】【意】【的】【点】【了】【点】【头】。 【陆】【遇】【深】【也】【跟】【着】【松】【了】【一】【口】【气】。 【至】【于】
【而】【听】【见】【有】【更】【好】【的】【器】【械】【以】【后】，【那】【欧】【阳】【白】【眼】【冒】【神】【光】，【然】【后】【大】【喝】【一】【声】：“【养】【兵】【千】【日】【用】【兵】【临】【时】，【雪】【鸡】【雪】【鹅】【速】【速】【归】【位】！”【以】【后】【便】【去】【抓】【了】。 【院】【中】【立】【马】【鸡】【犬】【不】【宁】，【皇】【战】【听】【完】【以】【后】【心】【中】【却】【是】【无】【奈】，【然】【后】【一】【笑】，【不】【过】【想】【到】【本】【人】【身】【上】【这】【些】【器】【械】【皇】【战】【确】【凿】【有】【少】【许】【能】【给】【欧】【阳】【白】。 【爆】【炒】【土】【蛙】、【雪】【莲】【羹】、【炖】【雪】【鹅】、【考】【雪】【鸡】【等】【等】，【这】【一】【餐】【很】【丰】【厚】，今晚95期开什么码【大】【概】【十】【分】【钟】【左】【右】，【救】【护】【车】【停】【在】【叶】【瞳】【家】【门】【口】。 【医】【生】【和】【护】【士】【将】【叶】【妈】【抬】【上】【救】【护】【车】，【叶】【瞳】【和】【王】【大】【爷】【一】【同】【坐】【上】【救】【护】【车】。 【救】【护】【车】【拉】【响】【警】【笛】，【启】【动】【车】【子】【往】【附】【近】【的】【医】【院】【行】【驶】【而】【去】。 【在】【抢】【救】【室】【门】【口】…… 【叶】【瞳】【蹲】【在】【门】【口】，【双】【目】【乏】【红】，【看】【着】【抢】【救】【室】【的】【灯】。 【王】【大】【爷】【在】【一】【旁】【看】【着】，【要】【不】【是】【医】【院】【不】【允】【许】【抽】【烟】，【说】【不】【出】【他】【现】【在】【已】【经】【点】
【奥】【地】【利】【使】【馆】，【一】【名】【年】【约】【三】【十】【来】【岁】【的】【工】【作】【人】【员】【汇】【报】【道】：“【公】【使】【阁】【下】，【这】【是】【我】【们】【最】【近】【收】【集】【到】【的】【情】【报】。 【值】【得】【注】【意】【的】【是】，【在】【麦】【克】【林】【侯】【爵】【来】【访】【的】【同】【时】，【英】【国】【外】【交】【部】【常】【务】【次】【长】【克】【劳】【也】【同】【一】【时】【间】【进】【入】【了】【法】【国】【使】【馆】【中】。 【两】【人】【在】【密】【室】【中】【会】【谈】，【具】【体】【内】【容】【没】【有】【人】【知】【道】。【初】【步】【判】【断】【他】【们】【的】【谈】【话】【内】【容】，【应】【该】【和】【近】【东】【战】【争】【有】【关】，【有】【一】【半】【的】【可】【能】
【魔】【章】【皇】【的】【噬】【血】【蚀】【骨】【雾】【歹】【毒】【无】【比】，【凡】【是】【身】【体】【接】【触】，【都】【会】【被】【腐】【蚀】，【更】【别】【说】【是】【吞】【下】【去】【了】， 【码】【头】【上】，【所】【有】【的】【吃】【瓜】【群】【众】【都】【看】【呆】【了】， 【他】【们】【猜】【想】【过】【无】【数】【种】【可】【能】，【无】【数】【种】【叶】【大】【师】【收】【走】【噬】【血】【蚀】【骨】【雾】【的】【方】【式】，【但】【却】【绝】【对】【没】【想】【到】【这】【种】【方】【式】， 【这】【时】，【他】【们】【更】【是】【开】【始】【怀】【疑】【人】【生】， “【孔】【兄】，【我】【不】【是】【在】【做】【梦】【吧】？” “【是】【吗】，【现】【在】【呢】？
【沈】【汀】【兰】【勾】【了】【勾】【唇】，【没】【有】【说】【话】，【嗯】，【有】【两】【个】【美】【人】【跟】【着】【她】，【她】【也】【很】【高】【兴】，【她】【一】【定】【会】【保】【护】【好】【美】【人】【的】。 【雷】【仙】【儿】【看】【了】【她】【一】【眼】，【在】【心】【里】【翻】【了】【个】【白】【眼】，【一】【开】【始】【还】【以】【为】【这】【位】【魏】【国】【候】【有】【多】【难】【缠】，【以】【为】【对】【方】【定】【是】【心】【思】【莫】【测】【之】【辈】，【结】【果】，【就】【是】【个】【小】【姑】【娘】，【还】【是】【个】【喜】【欢】【美】【人】【的】【小】【姑】【娘】。 【跟】【着】【她】，【自】【己】【反】【正】【是】【受】【不】【了】【什】【么】【委】【屈】【的】。 【驿】【馆】【里】