30 years ago today, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote in the decision:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution…

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

This evening at 5:30 PM there will be a 30th Anniversary Vigil in front of the U.S. Supreme Court (First Street and Maryland Avenue, NE) in Washington DC. NOW President Kim Gandy says:

On this day, the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, women and men across the United States will honor one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in our history…Today we remember the women who died from illegal abortions; we thank the brave doctors who have risked their own lives to provide full reproductive health services; we applaud the millions who have stood up to protect these rights over the years; and we recognize the gains and contributions women have made in society since they have been able to freely plan their families.

The Economist wonders in the article, Emperor, shedding clothes? if the Bush administration's diplomacy is doomed, due to its inconsistent and erratic policy with regards to Iraq and North Korea:

After saying for weeks that America would not negotiate with North Korea because to do so would mean giving in to blackmail, on January 14th Mr Bush said he would consider food aid and energy shipments — even diplomatic relations and security arrangements…How bad is this? The offer of negotiations certainly casts an unflattering light on the inconsistency of Mr Bush's North Korea policy for the past two years — sometimes proposing talks, more often issuing general criticisms. The offer also contradicts the aggressive Bush doctrine towards the "axis of evil".

Bush Declares Sanctity of Human Life Day. What a load of crap. A more appropriate name would be "Sanctity of fetus but once you're born you better damn well have connections and money or you'll be shit out of luck because we don't really give a damn about educational funding or true welfare reform or universal health care or making sure you're actually taken care of and not left to die on the streets Day." Another alternative: "Sanctity of Human Life unless you kill someone, or maybe were just convicted of killing someone regardless of whether you actually did it or not, and then we'll kill you because you deserve to die Day." Perhaps most appropriate: "Sanctity of Human Life (except Iraqis) Day."

I'm not sure how I missed this New York Times Op-Ed from January 12 on the Bush Administration's War Against Women:

What is important is the actual impact of the presidential assault: women's constitutional liberty has been threatened, essential reproductive health care has been denied or delayed, and some women will needlessly die.

Along those lines: 30 Reasons We're Still Fighting for Choice.

Last's week's This American Life on our Secret Government is available online (warning: Real Audio link).

It's been said often that the Bush Administration is one of the most secretive Presidencies ever. But really, just what does that mean? Three case studies of some of the newly-minted secrets.

The first story concerns an American citizen being held without charges and without access to his lawyers in South Carolina. Yes, you read that right: an American citizen in America whose basic Constitutional rights are being violated. [via Adina]

There was an interesting Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, A Brave New Insurance back in December by William Brody, the president of The Johns Hopkins University, in support of universal health coverage. A snippet of his reasoning:

In the years ahead, genetic testing will become gradually more pervasive, and at the same time, our knowledge of the risk of disease associated with the results of those tests will become increasingly refined. The result could be the end of private health insurance as we now know it.

If legislatures pass laws banning insurers from using genetic screening data, those companies will protect themselves by continually raising premiums to consumers. Some may even go bankrupt because purchasers of insurance will be the more knowledgeable in the transaction.

Yet if we allow insurers to use genetic data, many more individuals will be left without coverage because they will be deemed too high-risk to warrant insurance at affordable prices. Given this conundrum, there is only one solution that can preserve the concept of health insurance: universal coverage.

Whatever it takes to get universal coverage, I'm all for it. My quest for basic health insurance in the NYC area has turned up several options, the cheapest of which is nearly $300 a month (that's just individual coverage)! It's no wonder so many people go without. [via Scott Rosenberg]

The Eldred v. Ashcroft verdict is in and the Supreme Court upheld the copyright protections enacted by Congress in 1998. Just another example of government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Wow, this is an interesting transcript from a White House press briefing where a reporter asks Ari Fleischer point-blank, "why does [President Bush] want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?" And all this time I thought the press weren't asking any important questions. I guess they are, they're just not turning into stories. [via tom tomorrow]

The other day I wrote about UN conference on population and the unanimous rejection of the US' position against condom use and other family planning. Over the holiday I found out something else from the UN Foundation site:

Earlier this year, President George Bush decided to withhold $34 million appropriated by the U.S. Congress for the UN Population Fund's (UNFPA) work in the developing world.

With a budget of only $270 million worldwide, UNFPA will be hard-pressed to serve women throughout the world without the U.S. contribution. According to UNFPA estimates, the $34 million could prevent 4,700 maternal deaths, 60,000 serious maternal illnesses, as well as more than 77,000 infant and child deaths.

Behold the 34 Million Friends campaign, an attempt to "bridge the funding gap" of $34 million by asking for $1 from 34 million "friends" in the US. In less than five months, the campaign's raised $155,000. That's a lot, but it's hardly $34M.

Funds raised from the "34 Million Friends" campaign will go towards UNFPAs core programme budget, to compensate for the loss of United States support. This includes giving women and men in over 140 developing countries access to quality reproductive health information and services.

I'm donating $100 that I received for Christmas towards the 34 Million Friends campaign. Please spread the word and if you can, join me and contribute. Even the smallest amount — the cost of a latte at Starbuck's — can help make a difference. [via Ellen Goodman and my mom who cut out the article from the paper]

A Salon premium article (so I only read the intro) about Assistant Secretary of State Arthur E. Dewey's remarks, on behalf of the United States, at the United Nations conference on population. "The United States supports the sanctity of life from conception to natural death," he said as US delegates demanded that phrases such as "reproductive health" and promotion of condom use be stricken from the proposed policy. (Aside: are electrocution and lethal injection natural forms of death these days?)

The New York Times responds with an editorial, An Anti-Life Crusade, pointing out that a refusal to promote condom use ("on the theory that it encourages underage sex") can lead to far more dangerous consequences than pregnancy (such as AIDS in teenage girls pressured into sex with older men). Fortunately, the United States position was unanimously rejected by the 30+ representatives of Asian countries in attendance.