From: Ellen K. 

Re the case about a married woman's husband being notified prior to an
abortion being performed, isn't the baby as much his as hers?  So why
shouldn't he at least be informed?   Granted, I suppose this reasoning
wouldn't apply in the case of a woman aborting a child whose father is not
the husband but as a society do we really want to support that?

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:21:55 -0500, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message :

>
>"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>news:4366329b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> He's not the most conservative scholar and intellectual that Bush could
>> have
>> nominated, but he is 10,000 times better than Harriet Miers.
>>
>> By dropping the bullshit quota he imposed on himself and going with one of
>> the best qualified candidates, male or female, Bush's approval ratings
>> will
>> rise over the next week or two as a result of this pick.
>>
>> He pretty much had to pick a man it seems, because he painted himself into
>> a
>> corner with Miers by stating she was the most qualified pick available
>> (which since it was known he only considered women was the same thing as
>> saying she was the most qualified women pick)  Had he picked another
>> women,
>> the press would have dogged him by saying the pick was less qualified than
>> Miers according to Bush.
>>
>> So far early reaction is that Gary and the conservatives will be very
>> happy
>> and very reconstructed with this pick.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:4366202a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100
227.html
>>>
>
>
>Well the left has been energized. I'd rather see reasoned debate on his
>views rather than the blurby 'the sky is falling' approach that opponents
>have started
>http://thinkprogress.org/
>
>ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned
>Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the
>restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature
>in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was
>wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before
>having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to
>reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
>Casey, 1991]
>
>ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision
>in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated
>against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have
>protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of
>Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate
>was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
>
>ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical
>College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving
>disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so
>restrictive that "few if any.cases would survive summary judgment."
>[Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
>
>ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and
>Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid
>leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA
>[Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which
>found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v.
>Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
>
>
>ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued
>that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip
>searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search
>warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v.
>Groody, 2004]
>
>
>ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of
>immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In
>Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the
>statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki
Se Lee v. Ashcroft,
>the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of
>statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft,
>2004]
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5