For today, if you'll indulge me, I link to my own post of July 2, which starts off by citing this passage from the 1992 decision regarding Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey:

Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition, and so, unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

More.

That is why this isn't just about privacy, as some would argue.

It will be especially telling how the Democrats in the Senate handle the confirmation hearings, and how that affects the upcoming mid-term elections, because since the Democratic Party dropped the ERA from its platform, and is now wrestling with the opportunistic temptation to welcome the "Democrats for Life," I don't think any of us knows just where women stand with the Democrats.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.