True … although, I don’t know if even the Gang of 14’s magical spell can dispel the entrenchment that was strongly implied during the opening session.

It would appear as if the committee is more determined to making a stand with this nominee.

Very interesting point about the business elements of abortion – that’s an aspect which hasn’t received the attention it deserves, yet it is quite relevant to the debates being engaged.

Informed consent should be a part of the equation and right now that equation does appear to be out of balance.

This could be quite a catfight, but only if the senators on the Judiciary Committee prove to be more coherent than they were with Roberts. I’m not holding my breath.

What is interesting about the memo (to me anyway) is how it brings the grisly abortion world into sharp relief. Abortion is more that just a constitutional right (for the time being) in the U.S. — it is business. The galvanized, polarized, explosive issue of abortion is…regulatory in nature.

Regulation effects the market — for the true abortion lover, any regulation that decreases demand for abortion is bad or any regulation that curtails the abortion supply is bad. The term “abortion on demand” refers to a completely unregulated abortion market, because a woman would presumably be able to get an abortion instantly given the resources and information. In such a world, the price for abortions would go down dramatically because of an increased supply of abortionist — barrier to entry in the abortion market would be nothing.
This is the world that pro-choice zealots wish to inhabit — one where the slightest regulation which effects the demand of abortions is stopped, in favor of abortion.

I have no respect for the Roe decision and watching its constitutional “erosion” will be a lesson in the genius of the self-correcting democracy. In every sense, the further erosion of Roe will increase the humanity of this country. I say this firmly believing the overturning of Roe will only effect the abortion world at its margins.

And the abortion market should have no margins — no “barely didn’ts”, no “twenty more bucks.” The most vulnerable people are in the margins and the state should have a right to protect their most vulnerable citizens from the abortion business to some extent.

If you read the ‘85 memo, you’ll see Alito poses the question: If it is truly a “choice” as the Supreme Court has said, then how could it be unconstitutional to provide non-inflammatory, factual information for INFORMED consent. Doesn’t a “choice” necessitate having the information upon which to “chose”.

It should be interesting to see how it plays out.