This three-part series will cover the response to the latest political news that the Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of banning a late-term abortion procedure.

A mix of well-known and not so well-known feminist blogs will be included.

Shakespeare's Sister, And so it begins...: "The big question, of course, is what is the point of ramming through this legislation without a provision that allows it in cases where the mother's life it as risk? And the obvious answer is that anti-choicers don't trust women and their doctors to make that decision honestly-a position which pulls back the curtain on their 'pro-life' Emerald City and reveals the contempt for life they actually have, in spite of their claims to the contrary. Only a person who has no respect whatsoever for human life could assume that women would invoke this rationale to terminate a pregnancy for no good reason, that expectant mothers who carry a pregnancy nearly to term would suddenly and randomly change their minds, with as much forethought as one might give to rearranging the living room furniture."

Fiat Lux, They Didn't Wait Long, Did They?: "I might suggest that perhaps it's a specific contempt for women's rights and autonomy rather than a lack of respect for life in general, but [Shakespeare's Sister] could be right. Either way, who cares? The net result is no good at all for women, regardless of the motivation."

Feministing, Supreme Court will hear "partial birth" abortion case: "Supporters of the Act claim that it simply bans a certain procedure used in late-term abortions. Yeah right. Outside of the fact that the legislation has no health exception—which is generally why women obtain late-term abortions—the language of the act is deliberately vague and could potentially ban all abortions."

Arse poetica, Project for the Fascist Control of Women's Bodies Near Completion: "This makes me physically ill."

Bitch, Ph.D., Ladies, Look for Your Uterus-Registration Cards in the Mail: "Well, the new and improved O'Connor-free Supreme Court is going to decide on the constitutionality of banning specific abortion procedures without any provision for the life and health of the woman needing it. Despite the fact that three federal appeals courts have ruled that the 2003 law is unconstitutional, mainly because it lacks an exception to the ban when an abortion procedure outlawed is necessary to protect the woman's health. Congress said there was never a need for the banned procedure for health reasons."

Reproductive Rights Blog, Is Abortion Bad?: "Have y'all been reading the Slate back and forth on 'Is Abortion Bad?' Here's Friday's entry, Thursday's and Wednesday's... This really is a debate between two pro-choicers; one arguing that pro-choicers should try to reduce the rate of abortion through sex ed & contraception, the other arguing, to some extent, that abortion should be available without apology. In essence, it's a debate that's going on a lot, but it's splintering the pro-choice community."

And finally, two political cartoons:

Feministe: No Further Comment Necessary (from earlier this month).

Feministing: Dr. Alito Knows All

Melinda Casino, Contributing Editor, Feminism & Gender
Sour Duck / Sour Duck's Link Blog