ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, HE'LL NEVER BE PRESIDENT. Vanity presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-Bank of America) says that he agrees with the outcome in Cahart II but that the Court's "paternalism" constituted an "intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban." What he doesn't share with us is what an "intellectually honest" justification for upholding the ban would look like. It certainly can't be that the ban protects fetal life, because it doesn't, or because it protects a woman's health, because it actually has a negative impact on women's health.
THE 2000 ELECTION AND THE SMEARING OF THE FLORIDA COURTS. Like Kevin Drum, I'm going to skip the meta-issues in Jon Chait's article about the netroots and instead highlight this important point about the 2000 election:
IT'S ANNOYING ABORTION CONTRARIAN DAY!Will Saletan has many of the annoying tics of the blue-state male abortion "centrists" who dominate editorial discourse on the topic, such as viewing national elections as referenda on abortion, and originating policies that prominent pro-choicers have been advocating for decades.
SUNSTEIN ON REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND GENDER EQUALITY. Law-blogger Bean points us to this op-ed by Cass Sunstein, who argued that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Carhart II -- which rooted a woman's right to obtain an abortion on the basis that most attempts to interfere with this right violate a woman's equal citizenship -- may well become the Court's majority one day. In the long sweep of history, this is probably right, and certainly this provides a compelling doctrinal basis.