Alito: Still Bad For Reproductive Rights

A very instructive report on the language used by Coathanger Sammy to justify an Illinois anti-abortion and anti-birth control statute that had been held unconstitutional. First, he defended the part of the statute that required doctors to describe ordinary birth control as being “abortifacients.” Secondly, Alito defended the statute’s “informed consent” requirement as reflecting “the consensus of scientific opinion” and being “non-inflammatory,” despite the fact that the state forced doctors to say–irrespective of the stage of the pregnancy–that “The State if Illinois wants you to know that in its view the child you are carrying is a living human being whose live should be preserved. Illinois strongly encourages you not to have an abortion but to go through to childbirth.” (And, again, it’s important to remember that it’s doctors being forced to say this, not a politician–it implies to the patient that these highly contestable ethical claims reflect a consensus in the medical community.) If that passes the test, it’s impossible to imagine what wouldn’t pass the test–which, of course, is Alito’s approach to abortion regulation generally. There’s no question that he would vote to uphold any regulation short of a complete ban, and there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t vote–like the somewhat more libertarian Scalia and Thomas have–to uphold a complete ban either.

Meanwhile, Ann Althouse–who at least seems to have given up her argument that Alito is considerably more moderate than Thomas or Scalia, which is a good thing since in umpteen posts she didn’t produce the slightest scrap of evidence for that claim–argues that since the ABA has given a thoroughly unsurprising “well qualified” rating to Alito, “Alito’s opponents shouldn’t think so much about defeating him.” But of course there’s no reason for this, since nobody could dispute that Alito has the most basic qualifications for the job; the rating doesn’t provide any new information. But since that’s not the only criterion used by the President to select nominees, there’s no reason that’s the only criterion that should be considered by the Senate. What’s particularly ludicrous is that the man who appointed Alito argued ABA ratings should not be given a “preferential role” in judicial appointments. If the President himself doesn’t think that ABA ratings should carry a large amount of weight–let alone dispositive weight–why on earth should anyone else? (Unless you’re trying to uncritically defend Alito while maintaining your nominal pro-choice and feminist credentials, I mean.)