Tell us the truth, Alito: What do you really mean?

Blogging For Choice: Today is the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade!

In June 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. In this case, Michael Newdow, the father of a 3rd grade girl, argued that she should not have to say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, addressing the issue of separation of church and state. In a clever escape, the court ruled that he didn't have standing because he did not have custody of the child, and dismissed the case. In fact, Newdow had never married the mother of his daughter and they were locked in a custody battle.

When Dr. Brazen Hussy heard about this, her immediate response was: well, when a woman is pregnant, clearly she has custody of the fetus, and the father should have no say in what happens to it. (Yes, she has a one-track mind.)

I was entertained by the fact that conservatives believed that Newdow had no say over an existing child, but that some of them would say that he should have choices regarding a three-week old lump of cells inside his girlfriend's body.

In the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court rejected Spawn of Satan ScalitoAlito's position that a woman should be required to inform her husband of her intention to remove an unwanted clump of cells from her uterus. This spousal notification law was judged to be an "undue burden" on the woman and thus was considered unconstitutional.

Let's ask Alito: how do you reconcile your position in Planned Parenthood v. Casey with the Supreme Court's position in the Newdow case? Either he rejects Newdow, which would prove his assertions that he would uphold precedent to be utter bullshit, or he upholds the Newdow precedent, and would have to support the most aggressive definition of abortion rights. If a man has no say in the education of a child that has already be born, how in the world can you claim that he should be part of the decision of whether it should be born in the first place?

Unless, of course, what he really means is that women are the property of their husbands. Go ahead, Alito, I want to hear you say it.

(Cross-posted at What the Hell is Wrong With You?.)