Subscribe via RSS Feed

I Am Intolerant…Of Illogical Arguments

[ 0 ] February 20, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

I’m not surprised that someone would write a post claiming that Anne Lamott’s superb piece is “intolerant.” Yes, because calling women who get abortions “murderers” is perfectly tolerant, but strongly defending their rights isn’t. You’ll notice nothing in her article about how pro-state violence to coerce women to bring their pregnancies to term faction shouldn’t be permitted to speak, or were to be excommunicated from the Democratic Party (I did not notice her demanding that Harry Reid step down as minority leader); she was just defending her principles strongly. One sees this rather idiosyncratic definition of “tolerance” all the time where abortion is concerned; apparently, the only acceptable way to debate the issue is to simply accept that anti-choicers are right on all the underlying issues, and then perhaps we can debate whether abortion should be illegal or nominally-legal-but-heavily-regulated; as long as it’s not the dread”abortion on demand” position that so intolerantly credits the ability of women to make their own moral judgments.

Anyway, I now forgive Jane Smiley for writing that essay about how Uncle Tom’s Cabin is a vastly better novel than The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

How To Ban Abortion For Poor Women

[ 0 ] February 20, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

In addition to the legal quirks, the recent 6CA case about the (nearly successful) efforts by the state to force an abortion clinic to close provides a good window into the strategy of incrementally dismantling Roe, as well as the folly of the appeasement via “resonable regulation” strategy.

The case (Women’s Professional Medical Corp. v. Baird) concerns an Ohio regulation, requiring abortion clinics to have a “written transfer agreement,” that has forced a clinic in Dayton to close. The court, as iocaste explains, eventually allowed the clinic to stay open on a technicality, but rejected the claim that the regulation as applied constituted an “undue burden” to abortion, which is the standard by which abortion regulations are evaluated under the controlling case. These kinds of licensing regulations, as anyone who say the chilling Frontline documentary about abortion in Mississippi knows, are a very effective way of preventing clinics from operating, and should the Court uphold them the effect on abortion access will likely be severe.

This case is initially tricky, because on its face the regulation seems reasonable; all ambulatory surgical facilities have to have a license, and the director of the Ohio Department of Health can create regulations to require a license, and issue a waiver. The requirement that a clinic have an agreement with another hospital to treat patients in an emergency does not, on its face, constitute an undue burden; protecting the health of patients is certainly a legitimate state interests. So the question is, is the regulation actually trying to protect health, or is about trying to shut down abortion clinics for no good reason? It’s an easy question when you examine this history. Dr. Haskell’s clinic applied to an agreement, and one hospital accepted. However, “Dr. William Stalter, a pro-life advocate and member of the Board of Trustees of Miami Valley, objected to the written transfer agreement. He called the head of Premier Health Care, the owner of Miami Valley, to voice his concerns. Within four days, Miami Valley rescinded its written transfer agreement with the Dayton clinic, offering no explanation for its decision.” He then applied for a waiver for the requirement, noting that he received a letter from the Miami Valley Hospital Emergency and Trauma Center that it would “be available to any of your patients that have an emergency medical condition,” in addition to a tacit agreement with doctors (who did not want to identify themselves for understandable security reasons.) So how, and why, did the government react?

“Also during this time period, Jodi Govern, Chief Counsel for ODH, communicated on a regular basis with representatives of right-to-life groups regarding the status of the license application. Before Miami Valley rescinded its transfer agreement, Govern communicated with a member of Ohio Right to Life to tell her of two deficiencies in the Dayton clinic’s application. She told the Ohio Right to Life member that she “would appreciate it if [she] could share this information with [her] colleagues in Dayton.” After Miami Valley rescinded the transfer agreement, representatives of Dayton Right to Life and Ohio Right to Life asked Govern for another update. Govern responded that the agreement would no longer be in effect after December 20, 2002 and that “we are exploring options that we can exercise subsequent to that date, and will keep you appraised.” A Dayton Right to Life member then asked for more detailed information on what could be expected. Govern e-mailed her and the Ohio Right to Life representative stating that “we have no intention of letting this drag out.”

On January 9, 2003, Director Baird denied the waiver request, citing the lack of a written transfer agreement. In a letter, he stated, “It is my belief that the tacit agreement made between the Women’s Medical Center Medical Director and unnamed members of an area Obstetrics-Gynecology practice is not a sufficient protection” for patients. That same day, Director Baird ordered Dr. Haskell to cease operating the Dayton clinic.”

So, the Ohio government, acting in collaboration with various anti-choice groups, ordered the clinic shut down. But might there be a valid medical reason here, even if the decision was transparently made to shut down the clinic?

Dr. Haskell testified that, in his experience, patients rarely need to be hospitalized. If they do need to be hospitalized, it is usually for problems that “are not truly immediately life-threatening” but require observation and care in a hospital. Approximately once every two years, a patient at either the Cincinnati or Dayton clinic needs an urgent transfer to the hospital. Only on one or two occasions in twenty-five years did the clinic need to call 911 for an immediate hospital transfer, because the patient was suffering life-threatening complications. Not once have patients requiring medical attention been denied admission to Dayton hospitals.

Dr. Haskell further testified that his clinic has a written protocol that the staff follows in medical emergencies. The clinic also has a back-up medical group that its staff can call for assistance and to ensure a transfer to a local emergency room. The clinic has used the back-up group approximately four times over the last twenty years.

A Miami Valley emergency room physician testified that the Miami Valley emergency room would triage, screen, and stabilize any patient presenting at its hospital, including WMPC’s patients. Another physician testified that he was not personally aware of a single instance in which the presence of a transfer agreement made a difference in the care a patient received. Expert witnesses agreed that written transfer agreements do not ensure optimum patient care.

So the regulation was shutting down the clinic despite the lack of any evidence that the regulation applied in this way was protecting patients at all. (Does anybody think that a hospital wouldn’t admit an emergency patient because she had just had an abortion, whether there’s a written agreement or not?) So it’s pretty clear: as applied the regulation was not about maternal health, but about trying to restrict abortion access by forcing a clinic to close. So surely this is an “undue burden”?

We conclude that, while closing the Dayton clinic may be burdensome for some of its potential patients, the fact that these women may have to travel farther to obtain an abortion does not constitute a substantial obstacle.

So, the state can close a clinic entirely, as a transparent attempt to limit abortion access and that is not an “undue burden” because some women can just travel farther. The court also seems to assume that the few remaining clinics can simply absorb the 3,000 patients a year left stranded, a rather problematic assumption. (Needless to say, the fact that women in non-salaried jobs, or who may be single mothers, or who can’t afford hotel rooms may be seriously burdened by this is irrelevant; as with all such abortion regulations, they seem to be evaluated with a generic middle-class woman who has plenty of resources at her disposal), and despite the fact that as applied the regulations have no discernible relationship to a legitimate state interest (in other words, the regulation is both “undue” and a substantial “burden.”) And the court also evaluates the regulation in and of itself, and not in combination with the other regulations to analyze any cumulative effects.

In other words, the trimester framework of Roe clearly provided more protection than the “undue burden” standard of Casey, at least given the minimalist readings given to the latter by many courts. Basically, when 1)the only apparent standard used is the total number of women denied abortions by a particular regulation, 2)the effects of regulations on different classes of women is ignored, and 3)the effect of the regulations is evaluated discretely, then virtually no regulation will fall. And as states continue to get more creative, this is chilling indeed. We’re stuck with Casey (as long as there’s any constitutional protection at all) but at least it needs to be given some teeth, and striking down state actions such as these is a good start.

Global Warning Is A Myth: Ask This Scientician!

[ 0 ] February 19, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

OK, this is probably the essence of Bushism–getting scientific information about crucial issues from fourth-rate hack novelists:

In his new book about Mr. Bush, “Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush,” Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, “State of Fear,” suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as “a dissenter on the theory of global warming,” writes that the president “avidly read” the novel and met the author after Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, arranged it. He says Mr. Bush and his guest “talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement.”

“The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more,” he adds.

And so it has, fueling a common perception among environmental groups that Mr. Crichton’s dismissal of global warming, coupled with his popularity as a novelist and screenwriter, has undermined efforts to pass legislation intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that leading scientists say causes climate change.

Mr. Crichton, whose views in “State of Fear” helped him win the American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ annual journalism award this month, has been a leading doubter of global warming and last September appeared before a Senate committee to argue that the supporting science was mixed, at best.

“This shows the president is more interested in science fiction than science,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said after learning of the White House meeting. Mr. O’Donnell’s group monitors environmental policy.

While I’m not sure if the worse crime here is political or aesthetic, I know I particularly enjoyed the bit about him winning a journalism award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Athenae predicts: “Next week: Bush consults with Danielle Steel on marriage initiatives, interviews John Grisham for a job in the White House counsel’s office, orders every book in NASA’s library chucked out and replaced with Piers Anthony stories, appoints Tom Clancy head of the Joint Chiefs, Robert Ludlum chief of the CIA, and hires fucking Scott Turow as Attorney General.” (Actually, Turow as AG would be a gigantic improvement.) And as Michael notes, this could be a bad sign for trade relations with Japan. (If only Clinton had been aware of the real truth about sexual harassment.)

As Chris Mooney demonstrates, the novel is of course as scientifically inaccurate as it is bad.

The Essence of Bushism

[ 0 ] February 19, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

George W. Bush wants people to visualize wealth, man:

In an hourlong speech in one of the most politically troublesome states for Republicans in this year’s midterm elections, Mr. Bush took on critics of his plan, who say that poor or underemployed people cannot afford the accounts.

“It’s kind of basically saying, ‘If you’re not making a lot of money, you can’t make decisions for yourself,’ ” Mr. Bush told Wendy’s employees assembled in the company’s lobby. “That’s kind of a Washington attitude, isn’t it. ‘We’ll decide for you, you can’t figure it out yourself.’ I think a lot of folks here at Wendy’s would argue that point of view is just simply backwards and not true.”

When those (other) Washington elites tell you that my accounts are completely worthless if you don’t have large amounts of discretionary income, they’re restricting your autonomy! But you’re capable of deciding exactly how you’ll put no money into a health savings account! And you’re capable of explaining to a doctor why they should accept your empty account as payment! And allowing people to put more money into the accounts will make the no money in your account go even further, and the lessening tax revenues will make Medicaid even better-funded! Poverty is over…IF YOU WANT IT!” (Takes extra long bong hit, goes to look for some brownies smothered in bourbon.)

Sunday Battleship Blogging: IJN Kongo

[ 0 ] February 19, 2006 | Robert Farley

The Imperial Japanese Navy of Togo Heihachiro, including the fleet that destroyed the Tsar’s armada at Tsushima, was primarily constructed in Great Britain. Although relations between Japan and the United Kingdom remained close, the Japanese understood the need for a domestic shipbuilding industry. The next four major IJN units (Satsuma, Aki, Kawachi, and Settsu) were constructed in Japanese yards with varying percentages of British parts.

The IJN understood that war in the Pacific was likely to be of a different character than war in the Atlantic. Because of the size of the Pacific, capital ships were less likely to find each other and fight. More common would be cruiser actions. The IJN found the battlecruisers of the Royal Navy very attractive, and decided to procure four battlecruisers to provide the basis for a new fleet. Finally, the Japanese decided that the first battlecruiser, Kongo, would be built in a British yard, although to a Japanese design. The British had experience with battlecruisers, and the Japanese wanted to take no chances with these expensive warships.

Kongo was commissioned in August of 1913. She was a magnificent ship. Kongo was the first warship anywhere in the world to carry 14″ guns, of which she possessed eight in four twin turrets. Kongo could make 30 knots, enough to outpace existing British battlecruisers, and displaced 27000 tons. When commissioned, Kongo was one of the most powerful warships in the world. Fortunately for the Japanese, Kongo was dispatched to Japan prior to the beginning of World War I. Had her construction been delayed a few months, it is possible that Winston Churchill would have been unable to give up the most powerful ship at his disposal, just as he was unable to give up Turkish and Chilean battleships under construction in 1914. Whether the Japanese, closely allied with Great Britain in 1914, would have taken this lying down is an open question. When the Royal Navy attempted to lease the Kongo and her sisters during World War I, the IJN refused. The presence of Kongo and her sisters at Jutland might well have turned a draw into a rout; their heavy weaponry would have made short work of Hipper’s battlecruisers.

Kongo was rebuilt twice during the interwar period. The first reconstruction was designed to bring her up to the armor standards of contemporary battleships. It resulted in a slower, but better protected, warship. Unfortunately, it also resulted in a less useful unit. More sensible heads prevailed in Japan, and the second major reconstruction of Kongo lengthened her hull, improved her machinery, and restored her speed to 31 knots. Even with the first reconstruction, Kongo’s protection remained inadequate to combat against other battleships, but her speed meant that she could perform carrier escort missions.

On December 7, 1941 Kongo and her sisters were, in spite of their age, the most useful units in the Pacific theater, with the exception of Prince of Wales. While any American battleship could defeat Kongo in single combat, none of them could actually force that combat because of their slow speeds. While the experience of the British battlecruiser squadron at Jutland left a bad taste in the mouth of most major navies after World War I, it turned out that the superior speed of battlecruisers made them more useful units in World War II. The British almost certainly erred in disposing of the battlecruiser Tiger, in 1930, instead of one of the slow “R” class battleships. Had the United States decided in 1918 to press ahead with the construction of three Lexington class battlecruisers instead of the three Colorado class battleships, the United States might well have possessed two useful ships in the wake of Pearl Harbor, instead of two more old, slow battleships.

Kongo’s first World War II duty was to counter the British battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales, both operating out of Singapore. Japanese aircraft dispatched both ships before they could meet Kongo or her sister Haruna, which freed Kongo for other duties. Kongo participated in almost every major action of World War II, including the Battle of Midway, the Battle of Gualdalcanal, the Battle of Philippine Sea, and the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Kongo and Haruna served together in every engagement, up to and including Leyte Gulf. At Leyte Gulf Kongo was part of Admiral Kurita’s main force, which included the battleships Musashi and Yamato. Kurita’s force intended to attack and destroy the American invasion fleet off Leyte after the main US force had been drawn off by Japanese decoy carriers. Shockingly enough, the decoy plan worked; Admiral Halsey and his battleships left their position off Leyte in a futile attempt to destroy the Japanese carriers.

Off the island of Samar, Admiral Kurita’s force of four battleships, ten cruisers, and eleven destroyers met an American force that consisted of three destroyers and four destroyer escorts. The US force was covering a group of eighteen escort carriers, small, slow ships with almost no defensive armament. In desperation, the US destroyers attacked. Miraculously, they won. The American destroyers, along with aircraft launched by the escort carriers, managed to sink three Japanese cruisers and to disrupt the Japanese attack. The Japanese battleships, expecting to meet battleships, had armed themselves primarily with armor-piercing shells. These shells passed through the unarmored American ships, causing only minimal damage. Eventually, terrified that the American battleships would return and cut off his retreat, Kurita ordered his fleet to turn around and escape. Kongo suffered heavy damage from ensuing air attacks.

Off Formosa, on her way to a refit in Japan, Kongo was hit by three torpedos from the US submarine Sealion. Yamato and Nagato were in line with Kongo, and the latter barely managed to avoid another set of torpedos. Fires started by the torpedo hits spread to Kongo’s magazines, and she exploded and sank. Had her captain not insisted on maintaining a high speed, the damage might have been contained, but he feared additional torpedo attacks. 1250 sailors died when Kongo sank.

Trivia: What was the only dreadnought lost in World War I to torpedo attack?

America’s Greatest Hero

[ 0 ] February 18, 2006 | Robert Farley

Michael Berube.

There really in no better response to Sean Hannity and David Horowitz than laughter. They are fundamentally ridiculous characters.

Best Miniseries

[ 0 ] February 18, 2006 | Robert Farley

I won’t fully engage, but any list of the best miniseries ever that doesn’t start with I, Claudius and the Dekalog isn’t worth the bandwidth it’s typed on…

Imagination and Delusion Are Separate Concepts

[ 0 ] February 18, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: If BSG’s writers were more imaginative, using state coercion to force women to carry pregnancies to term would be about…freedom! They should hire Jeff Goldstein to write some snappy one-liners for the characters after the comic high point, when a woman dies from an illegal abortion!

…as Rob notes in comments, the funniest part of the post is that he seems to think that the show is unrealistic if it doesn’t (like Marxism at its flakiest) accept Goldberg’s premise that technology elminates social conflict. Yes, if only we had the technology to prevent unwanted pregnancies, all these problems would vanish! Maybe in the future someone could develop one…

Silver Lining

[ 0 ] February 18, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

Normally I would be pretty depressed that Canada was losing to Switzerland in the 3rd period (granting that the Swiss have already beaten a top 3 team–when the hell did they become credible?). But seeing Todd Bertuzzi take an idiotic penalty (and yet another crease violation) reminds me that my emotional commitment will be rather less than usual. I’m proud of my country, but not blindly, and between this and Gretzky’s nepotism, this is probably poetic justice. Live by the thug, die by the thug…

wow.

…Yet another Canucks asshole mars the Olympics:

Jaromir Jagr, the NHL’s leading scorer, was assisted off the ice with a bloody cut forehead after being slammed into the boards, and the Czech Republic suffered a 4-2 loss Saturday that kept Finland as one of two unbeatens in the tournament.

Afterward, Czech coach Alois Hadamczik said Jagr did not suffer a concussion while being driven into the boards by Finland’s Jarkko Ruutu in the second period, resulting in Ruutu’s ejection. The coach was incensed with the hit and said it marred the game.

“The shadow of this game is the foul on Jaromir Jagr,” he said.

Makes A Fellow Proud To Be A Blue-Stater

[ 0 ] February 17, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

Ah, that’s very good to see (and I think we’re the city’s second most conservative borough.) Aside from the parochial back-slapping, however, the article contains important information for the clueless “overturning Roe will just return the issue to the states” crowd:

The 109th Congress passed a number of abortion issues in 2005. These bills included the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which calls for parental notification in abortion cases, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which addresses the use of pain killers for unborn children during abortion, and reductions in abortion access for women depending on the federal government for health care. The majority of Congress members in New York state have voted pro-choice on all such issues.

But I’m sure Congress will stop passing abortion regulations as soon as the Court permits them to pass more!

[ 0 ] February 17, 2006 | Robert Farley


Friday Cat Blogging… Nelson and Starbuck

Now Appearing In Non-Sequitur Theater

[ 0 ] February 17, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter K-Lo: If feminists were serious about women’s rights, they would obviously want women to be subject to a bewildering, irrational, and inequitable obstacle course studded with scientifically inaccurate nanny-state propaganda before they choose to obtain an abortion.

Obviously, to people who support women’s rights, or (to bring up a concept wholly alien to most American pro-lifers) actually believe that women are capable of being responsible moral agents, the news that chemical abortions performed at home are safe is obviously terrific news. It would wonderful if women had broader access to abortion, and could choose medical care based on their own needs rather than based on state coercion that was intended to obstruct their rights rather than to protect their health and liberty, and geographic inequities in abortion access will be greatly reduced. Should these technologies continue to develop (and approved by a Democratic administration) this will be also crucial means for women to retain their rights in light of a Throw-Roe-From-The-Caboose strategy: illogical regulations will mean less if women don’t have to obtain abortions from clinics. (This also explains the war against the perfectly safe RU-486: maintaining the state’s dominion over the uterus makes it crucial to prevent the option from becoming available.)

  • Switch to our mobile site