November 30th. Winner take all. Reason they want Miers confirmed.

[Horse with no Name]

In six weeks - November 30 - the Supreme Court will hear the first case related to women's reproductive health in five years.

Cases like this rarely make front-page news, so here are the two most important things you need to know about Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England:

It could eliminate the constitutional requirement that any laws restricting abortion care must include an exception to protect women's health.
It could drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the ability for pro-choice advocates to challenge anti-choice laws in court.
It would be an understatement to say that a lot rides on this case. Ayotte could affect virtually every abortion-related case and law in the country.

That it's so broad and dangerous is exactly what anti-choice lawmakers in the New Hampshire legislature intended. Fran Wendelboe, the state representative who sponsored the bill, candidly told the Associated Press: "We didn't mistakenly forget to put in a health exception. We purposely crafted the bill without an exception." And as you probably already guessed - the Bush administration has weighed into this case on the anti-choice side.

What's even worse about Ayotte is the timing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor frequently cast the deciding vote in cases that protected privacy and choice. Her replacement may cast the deciding vote this time. Even if O'Connor is still sitting on the Supreme Court when the case begins on November 30, it’s unlikely she will get to vote on the case. If her replacement is confirmed before the case is decided, then either the Supreme Court will rehear the case with the new justice or let the lower court's decision stand. That's why the Bush administration is working so hard to see nominee Harriet Miers confirmed before the case begins. Jay Sekulow of the anti-choice American Center for Law and Justice and a Miers supporter has said that, "I don't think there's ever been this significant in Supreme Court history. For both sides, it's winner-take-all, loser-take-nothing."

Like most Supreme Court cases, Ayotte is complex. We hope you take a moment to learn more about the case – visit our website for a summary of the bill and the key issues.



We'll continue to keep you informed about Harriet Miers' nomination and the issues surrounding the Supreme Court.


www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/ayotte.cfm

[ClassWarrior]

1. They don't want her for abortion. They want her for corporate corruption.

Abortion is too valuable a political wedge for them to throw it away by outlawing it. Miers and Roberts are corporatists, and Miers is a Bush** crony. This is all about the corporate takeover of America.

NGU.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Problem is as I see it though

With them owning the voting machines...wedge issues aren't going to factor in.
They will be able to do what they want without worry.

[TimeChaser]

3. Fucking sick bastards

"We didn't mistakenly forget to put in a health exception. We purposely crafted the bill without an exception."

Absolute proof that they don't give a shit about the life of a women.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: