The book itself is divided into Part I, Fertility Control in Theory and History, Part 2, Abortion Practice in the 1970’s and Part III, Sexual Politics in the 1980’s. The only portion of the book which supposedly deals with the great “economic and social” benefits which Roe v. Wade brought to women is Part II, section 4 which is entitled “The Social and Economic Conditions of Women Who Get Abortions.” This section is itself divided into Recent Trends in Abortion Practice 142, Class and Race Differences in Resolving Nonmarital Pregnancies 148 and Abortion Access for Poor Women. Thus, even a glance at the book’s table of contents reveals that this book does not even deal with the so-called “social and benefits” of Roe v. Wade for women. Worse, the section that comes closest to dealing with the great benefits which the majority in Casey claims Roe v. Wade bestowed upon women, Abortion Access for Poor Woman, is fraught with extreme logical and evidentiary flaws.

For example, on page 157, the author states that “Moreover, legalization and the increased availability of abortion services have meant definite public health benefits for poor and minority women.” However, the author then produced no evidence whatsoever linking abortion to such allegations. None. The author does provide a quotation which states that since 1973 “abortion-related deaths have decreased by 73 percent.” But the author provides this quotation without even stating where it comes from or who performed the study that came up with this data. There isn’t even a footnote. For all we know, the author could have simply invented this statement herself and placed it in quotations. As a member of law journal, I was forced to footnote almost every single sentence of my case note to provide evidence backing up my allegations. Yet, here is a case where an author makes a statement without even providing any evidence of where it came from. By legal standards, such a work would be unpublishable. And yet, the majority in Casey utilizes this work to support its upholding of Roe v. Wade because of the supposed economic benefits which women derived from Roe.

Not only does Petchesky’s book suffer from insufficient evidence, the author also suffers from significant logical reasoning flaws. For example, referring to the quotation above, the author stated that Roe led to significant public health benefits for poor and minority women. Then, the author cites an unnamed source stating that abortion-related deaths decreased by 73 percent since Roe v. Wade. Yet, as any LSAT taker can tell you, the logic doesn’t match. Just because abortion-related deaths decreased by 73 percent since Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean that Roe provided significant public health benefits for poor and minority women. Indeed, a more logical explanation would be that the abortion-related death decreases might well have been among wealthy or upper-class women who were able to afford an abortion but pre-Roe were not willing to do so because it was illegal. Because the author provides a complete lack of evidence linking the decreased abortion death rate to poor and minority women, we are completely left in the dark as to how she came up with this conclusion. The author simply states that “Since poor and minority women are the main ones to suffer such deaths and morbidity, these declines are an important indication that legalized abortion has meant better reproductive health for them.” And that’s it.

Sadly, not only does the author not provide evidence linking improved health among poor and minority women to abortion, but she also presents evidence that directly refutes her assumption in the next sentences. “Neither the undeniable benefits to their health nor the high rate of use of abortion has guaranteed access to abortion services for poor women. The reverse is true. Poor women are both three times more likely than other women to get abortions and much more likely to be denied access to abortion. The years following Roe v. Wade painfully brought home the lesson that abstract legal guarantees of “a woman’s right to choose” are not equivalent to the actual delivery of adequate abortion services to all women who need and want them”

Huh? But didn’t the author just claim that Roe v. Wade provided great benefits to poor and minority women by allowing them to have abortions legally? Now, the author is seemingly contradicting herself in indicating that Roe v. Wade did not increase the opportunity of poor and minority women to maintain adequate aboriton services. And this statement indicates that the decrease in mortality rates caused by abortions was more than likely among rich or upper-class women who could already afford to have an abortion, rather then poor or minority women. By the author’s own statements, poor and minority women benefited little from Roe. But then, logic and evidential support are not exactly high points of Abortion and Woman’s Choice.

The rest of the section refers not to the great benefits bestowed to women by Roe v. Wade but about differing religious viewpoints among doctor’s who decide to perform abortions and the Hyde Amendment. The author ends her work with a seemingly pro-life argument that exceptionally poor women are often coerced into having an abortion both for population control and so the abortionists can make more money. “Especially in locales with large concentrations of poor blacks, Puerto Ricans, Haitans, Chicanos, and Native Americans, a more serious problem regarding abortion may stem, not from its denial, but from its forced imposition…poor women of color may find that a positive pregnancy test automatically results in an aggressive attempt to persuade them to undergo abortion.”

The only part of this section which the Supreme Court may conceivably have derived the notion that women made substantial “economic and social” gains thanks to abortion is found in the last paragraph of this section. The author states that “the rise in legal abortions coincides with major gains for women as a whole….” But once again, there is no footnote for this sentence and absolutely no evidence whatsoever produced by the author to back up this allegation. Amazingly, the author concludes this section by admitting that the only true benefit legalized abortion offers women is that it gives her “a little more control over her life…” Again, in making this statement the author is contradicting herself since she previously stated that abortion coincided with “major gains.” Which is it…major gains or a little more control? And, if abortion is so great for women then why does the author note the negative effects of women, such as being pressured into having an abortion.

This begs the question, where is the evidence for the majority in Casey’s claim that abortion led to substantial “economic and social gains” for women. Like so much of Casey, the evidence just isn’t there. The majority referenced a 400 page social/feminist policy book that briefly examines the effects of abortion in some circumstances, but even this doesn’t even contribute to the majorities decision. Perhaps the majority never even read the book and were hoping that nobody else would either. Possibly, they assumed that if it sounded serious enough and scholarly enough, people wouldn’t bother to double check their references. Unfortunately, a closer examination reveals the hollowness and fallacy of the majorities decision in Casey, and this regarding only one aspect of their tragic decision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4552748)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4553129)

point your fingers at yourselves. 95% of the time it's not academia's agenda... it's just that there aren't that many conservatives who are willing to be underpaid and often underappreciated professors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4553218)

Edit: and all of academia should respond to creationism theory that way. let's not water down academia for the sake of embracing an extremely unacademic subject.

your equating conservatism with the idea of teaching creationism as science would likely raise red flags to most conservatives as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4553369)

"The years following Roe v. Wade painfully brought home the lesson that abstract legal guarantees of “a woman’s right to choose” are not equivalent to the actual delivery of adequate abortion services to all women who need and want them”

Huh? But didn’t the author just claim that Roe v. Wade provided great benefits to poor and minority women by allowing them to have abortions legally? Now, the author is seemingly contradicting herself in indicating that Roe v. Wade did not increase the opportunity of poor and minority women to maintain adequate aboriton services."

The point of this section is that the rich are more likely to have access to abortion services even though a woman's right to choose has supposedly been legalized; the religious right has slowly made it more and more difficult for anyone, but ESPECIALLY poor women to get abortions by placing new restrictions on the procedure such as 24 hour waiting periods, etc. Since the right's assault on abortion has successfully led to the closing of most abortion clinics in the nation, many women have to travel to an abortion provider and then pay for a hotel and miss two days of work. This is not feasible for many poor women, esp when you factor in the cost of the procedure itself.

Your willful misunderstanding of this passage is amusing, since you seem to think that you ought to be an academic and apparently think yourself more insightful than others studying this topic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4553307)

"Neither the undeniable benefits to their health nor the high rate of use of abortion has guaranteed access to abortion services for poor women. The reverse is true. Poor women are both three times more likely than other women to get abortions and much more likely to be denied access to abortion. The years following Roe v. Wade painfully brought home the lesson that abstract legal guarantees of “a woman’s right to choose” are not equivalent to the actual delivery of adequate abortion services to all women who need and want them"

First, I have not read the book, but find it difficult to believe than an author would speak of "undeniable benefits" to poor women's health without some discussion. I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

I am not sure why you assume that this means that poor women are never able to access abortion services. All the passage implies to me is that the author feels that it si more restricted than it ought to be, considering that it is legal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4557142)

It's often misused in place of "leads to the question," which is what you did. HTFH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4557116)

I once found myself in a precarious situation involving a wench of ill repute. A large shipment of exotic spices financed by my firm had come into port in the early afternoon. I was very pleased with the cargo, and after my inspection, I decided to carouse with a band of sailors in an ale house at the dockyard. All of the sailors spoke of the wondrous delights that a certain woman of Irish descent provided for a nominal fee. Intrigued, I approached her and made her acquaintance. She invited me to her rooms and I, being quite tight, accepted her gracious invitation. Once there, it became apparent that the woman was nothing more than a common whore! Fretting about potential damage to my personal reputation, I struck her about the shoulders and head with my walking stick. That was the last time she bamboozled an innocent gentlman carousing in that dockyard, I assure you!

I remain, as ever,

Very Truly Yours,

Melungeon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4557190)

Dat laffy taffy (candy gurl)

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy (candy gurl)

Dat laffy taffy

I'm lookin fa Mrs. Bubble Gum

I'm Mr. Chik-O-Stick

I wanna (dun dun dunt) (oh)

Cuz you so thick

Gurlz call me Jolly Rancher (Oh)

Cuz I stay so hard

You can suck me for a long time

(Oh my god!)

Gurl dis ain't no dance flo'

Dis a candy sto'

And I'm really geeked up

And I got mo' dro

I pop, I roll

It's soft I know

It's da summer time

But yo laffy taffy got me froze (oh)

Gone get loose (oh)

Gone get low (oh)

don't be shy

H** I'm Faybo? (oh)

I kno' you wanna ride

You a star and it shows

(What's happening? What's up? What's up? Let's go, let's go, let's go)

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy (candy gurl)

Dat laffy taffy [Repeat 2x]

Cum on trick cum on trick

Here go Mr. Chocolate

I like da way you break it down

Waddle, stop you watchin me

Laffy taffy I'm likin' dis

Big ol a** you shakin b****

Close yo mouth and don't say s***

Bend on ova and hit a split

Work dat pole and work it well

Stacks on deck, yo ankles swell

Gurl let me touch ya

I will neva tell

Security gaurd don't scare nobody

Damn right I touched dat h**

All da money just hit da flo'

D4L I'm ready to go

H** can't even shake no mo

Dey tired out

Lets ride out

B**** you wanna go

Den she can go

She get in my car

I ain't playin no mo

Start movin on my Faybo

B**** she probably already kno'

Let me see dat laffy taffy

(dun dun dunt)

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy (candy gurl)

Dat laffy taffy [repeat 2x]

Say baby gurl

A wat you gon' do

I got a hundred 1s

I wanna pour on you

Just keep dat a** shakin

And I keep tippin' you

While I sit back like a playa

And sip dat grey goose

Feelin' all loose

Cuz gurl you on your job

You got my d*** hard

Da way you touch dem toez

Workin' dem micros

On da stilletos

You made it skeet skeet skeet

Like a water hoez (candy gurl)

Got me goin' in my pocket

Pullin' out mo' dough

Let da waitress kno' I need to order

Five hundred mo'

You besta believe lata on we headed 2 da mo'

So gone and pack dem bags

And let's mothaf***in' go

I'm waitin' on yo fine a**

At da front doe

Gurl you don kno'

Ima toss da laffy taffy

Toss it flip it and slap it

Bust a couple of nuts

And get right back at it

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Gurl shake dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy

Dat laffy taffy (candy gurl)

Dat laffy taffy [repeat 2x]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=319110&forum_id=2#4638471)