Alito

[Gemini Cricket]

More info:

Alito, 55, is nicknamed "Scalito" because he reminds analysts of ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He once voted to uphold a law requiring a wife to get her husband's permission to get an abortion.

Source
Her husband's permission?!

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

More info:

Source
Her husband's permission?!

yup- cause heaven forbid a man know his wife is killing his kid.

In the finance world husbands and wives have to sign off on all kinds of things- from beneficiaries down to a distribution from an account- but it's a horror when someone expects a man to be notified that his wife plans to off their kid?

I'm going to enjoy this-I do wonder if Miers was some sort of test- to see if the conservative base was as fired up as they used to be about this issue. Once that had been settled she bowed out- as planned. I wonder-

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

In the finance world husbands and wives have to sign off on all kinds of things- from beneficiaries down to a distribution from an account- but it's a horror when someone expects a man to be notified that his wife plans to off their kid?

Of course, this presumes the "kid" is her husbands...

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Of course, this presumes the "kid" is her husbands...

well- yes...that is the basic assumption I made.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

More info:

Source
Her husband's permission?!

I've looked into this a bit.

Actually, what his opinion was was that there was no constitutional prohibition to a law that required such. I beleive the way the article was written was done in such a way as to make it sound as if he supported such a law. His opinion says nothing about whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. He ruled on the constitutionality of the law, which is what I suppose he is supposed to do.

Here is the opinion in question:
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1764#comment-62642
It is extraordinarily lengthy.

I am wondering if anyone knows what the case was all about.

The spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions (like can't find the hubby, he might beat her up, etc.).

The key quote from his decision, I beleive, is the following -
"Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."

So, this is far from how it is being portrayed by some. In no way did Alito support a law requiring a woman to to get a husbands permission for an abortion. It is notification and notification only. Reading his opinion (while long and tedious, most certainly), I saw nothing even close to unreasoned or inflamatory.