Bil wrote: It shows that the Court is now in the business of defining family relationships. Even if some mothers see a fetus as just that, or if we're talking about family structures that don't include a mother/child bond, the relationship between a mother and a child is still the ultimate expression of respect for human life, and it would logically follow that the Court believes that it should be protected above other forms of parent/child bonding, so wait and see what these five heterosexuals think about non-McFamilies. I'm not saying that this will have a legal implication necessarily, but it does provide some insight into just what these justices are thinking.

After reading this I had to go down and look at the article on PlanetOut to see who had written, "the articles that they run tend to be .... all with that "gay community" mentality." And sure enough it was you. Cause, the way you dug this out and had to make it out as a problem for gay families, reminded me of that "gay community mentality." I do not think the Supremes are defining family relationships with that statement in the least. They are recognizing what is almost universally held by all humans (even us queers) to be a truth concerning the mother/child bond. I sure wouldn't deny it to a lesbian mother.

As far as your idea concerning regret... I regret ever having sex with a woman. Should we outlaw heterosexual sex?

Also, considering that this case related directly to medical procedures, what if Congress or a state decided to ban transitioning?

And all that regret over any cosmetic surgery. Regret over marrying... regret over planting soybeans instead of corn this year.... outlaw soybeans!

The Feminist Law Professors think this is the worst passage:

The Act's failure to allow the banned procedure's use where "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the [mother's] health," Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 327-328, does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right.

I'll defer to them.....

Lynn~
First, I wrote both these posts, not Bil.

Second, I think you misunderstood both of them (or I wrote them confusingly). "The gay community" mentality was a phrase that I used to describe people who were in fact not focusing on all queer people, just one segment - white, middle- to upper- class, gay, urban. In other words, not really caring about all the different LGBT communities.

This post was specifically about the effects of the Court decision on LGBT people. Yes, it will affect mostly heterosexual women (by numbers), but that's being covered already by oh so many people, like feminist law professors, feministing, and non-feminist blogs and columnists and everyone else. The point of this was to show queers that might not normally think outside what gets labeled as "gay issues" to see how they can impact them. A gay man might not instantly see why an abortion decision will affect him personally, and so I thought of a few reasons.

Third, I don't think that the bond between a woman and her fetus is the "ultimate expression of respect for human life", and I don't think that statement is anywhere near universally accepted. But the real problem I have is the Court deciding that for others and imposing it on women who don't feel that way. And if that's the ultimate expression of human life, what does that say about adopting parents who don't have a fetus-to-woman bond? Are they now inferior parents? It just crosses so many lines....

Fourth, yeah, outlaw heterosexual sex. More business at my door!

I agree that this decision is a major wake up call to every progressive in the nation. It is clear they are ready and willing to use morality, and even merely the perception of moral obligation to lessen any of the liberties we have gained over the last few years. Although Im not too tuned in the the actual definitions of abortion lingo (i.e. partial birth, late term etc), the reasoning behind the ruling is frightening. This really is the big fear everyone has had all along about Bush in the big seat for the 2nd term. I am also worried to death that the other more moderate justices may not be able to hold out. I say we join the forces to start impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney. By the time a justice announces their intentions to leave it may be too late. Our loss of O'Connor was tremendous, we may already be too far gone..

I think the issue being brought up by Alex here is a tricky one...

Do we give in to essentialist thinking as the Court majority in this matter clearly has and state that the ultimate bond is between mother and the life that she carries. Or, should we be more socially constructive in our thinking and suggest that there is nothing unique about a mother's connection to her fetus or infant. It's an interesting issue. To me, the issue is a little of column A and a little of column B. It's fair to think that a woman who carries a child may have a much different connection to that baby than a gay man who adopts. But, that isn't to say that the second scenario is any less important, however I think it would be a little misguided to treat them as the same in the realms of emotional, physical, and mental experience.

Yeah, let me re-iterate: I don't write all the content on the site anymore. (Not for a long time now - years!) This post was written by Alex.

But, I have to say that I agree with him. This is an issue that the queer community should also rally around. Carrie makes a good point too about the differences between an adoptive parent (no matter the sexuality) and the birth mother. The connections, while different, are no less important.

Totes, Carrie. My thoughts on essentialism vs. rampant individualism, which I stole from the awesome critical race theorist Patricia Williams, are similar to yours. Like there may be things that unite a class (like a race, a sexuality, a gender, or, in this case, a bond), but it doesn't make them all the same. Also, it's silly to assume that every person is different in a class and everything is what they make for themselves (As is often thrown at working class people)... especially since that gets used as an excuse for apathy.

In this case, the Court's essentialism is only serving one function: de-feminize the women who have chosen or might choose to have an abortion so that their decisions aren't respected. It's so much easier to decide for all women when you develop an idea of what women really are, because then you can just say that you're protecting them from some outside influence. It's a way to make misogyny at least sound, to some people, pro-woman. That's my thought.