Kennedy May Be Key to Abortion Limits

Kennedy May Be Key to Abortion Limits

Kennedy May Be Key to Abortion Limits

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Legal efforts to further restrict access to abortion will depend, in the short term, on whether Justice Anthony Kennedy is willing to go along.

The majority opinion he wrote upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act offers hope both for those who think the impact of Wednesday's decision will be limited and for those who think it will be profound.

While Kennedy adopted some language favored by abortion opponents — "life of the unborn,""abortion doctor,""respect for life" — he also carefully distinguished the controversial procedure that was the focus of the Supreme Court case from a more common abortion method used after 12 weeks of pregnancy. The latter was unaffected by the ruling.

There was widespread agreement that the court's ruling was important, upholding for the first time a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure. The key difference from earlier rulings was in personnel, with Justice Samuel Alito replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The majority — Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito and Kennedy — consists of five Catholics who were appointed by Republican presidents who believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

For the moment, though, Kennedy holds the balance of power. He has written key decisions on both sides of the long-standing divisive issue.

Particularly since O'Connor's retirement last year, what he thinks probably is where the court will come out when asked to consider new abortion restrictions enacted either by states or Congress.

Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Scalia and later an official in the Bush administration Justice Department, said the decision most likely would invite new state laws banning the same procedure covered by the federal law and requiring that women seeking abortions be given detailed warnings about the dangers of terminating their pregnancies.

"Those regulations seem to me far more likely to be sustained," Whelan said.

But David Garrow, a Cambridge University historian who has written about the court, said the prospect of reducing the availability of abortion is remote, based on Kennedy's opinion.

"I not only don't think that the Kennedy opinion illuminates a path towards doing that, I actually think it creates obstructions, serious obstructions," Garrow said.

By contrast, Roger Evans, public policy director at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said Kennedy opened the door to wide-ranging restrictions and, perhaps as importantly, signaled abortion opponents that they should test the limits of the constitutional right to an abortion that the court established in 1973.

Evans pointed to the court's about-face regarding the necessity of carving out an exception if the procedure is necessary to protect a woman's health. In past decisions, medical uncertainty on this topic was resolved in favor of allowing the procedure to be performed.

Kennedy changed that standard Wednesday. "Where there is medical disagreement, the tie no longer goes to protecting women's health," Evans said. "That's a troubling green light."

Prominent abortion opponents also suggested the door was open to more aggressive action.

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue in Wichita, Kan., said: "This is a new day in the abortion battle. After 34 years of innocent children dying throughout the country we now have a new court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, that has a plan to end abortion in America."

Evans, an abortion-rights supporter, said the most salient common trait of the five-justice majority is that they were chosen by GOP presidents who oppose abortion.

Whelan, an abortion opponent, said the majority deferred to a democratically elected Congress. "They were not imposing their own views," he said. "It would seem to me that their religious faith was irrelevant."

The Christian Chronicle - Mary Winkler's state of mind key for jury now deciding her fate

The Christian Chronicle - Mary Winkler's state of mind key for jury now deciding her fate

News - Mary Winkler's state of mind key for jury now deciding her fate

News - Top StoriesBy Tamie Ross
The Christian Chronicle

Mary Winkler killed her husband.

But which Mary Winkler?

The answer could convict or vindicate the 33-year-old preacher's wife and mother of three.

After hearing more than a week of testimony and arguments, a Tennessee jury began deliberating Winkler's fate about 9 this morning. She is charged with first-degree murder in the shotgun slaying of her husband, Matthew Winkler, minister of the Fourth Street church in Selmer.

Deliberations continue at this hour, with word that jurors have asked court officials one question and have eaten lunch. It is not known when they will reach a verdict, which must be unanimous.

Prosecutors depicted a financially desperate woman characterized by thousands of dollars in overdrafts, fraudulent deposits and check-kiting scams at multiple banks. This Mary Winkler was so desperate to hide her money problems, prosecuting attorney Walt Freeland said, that she shot her 31-year-old husband. The day of the shooting, the Winklers were to appear at a bank meeting to discuss her financial schemes, bank officials testified.

Defense attorneys painted a different portrait of their client. This Mary Winkler was physically, mentally, emotionally, verbally and sexually abused, they claimed. Still reeling from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder caused by the loss of her handicapped sister 20 years earlier, she internalized this abuse until she could stand it no more, the defense said. Provoked by Matthew Winkler placing his hand over the mouth and nose of the couple's toddler, they argued, she confronted him with a gun in hopes it would force him to talk. Instead, the 12-gauge shotgun accidentally misfired, killng him within minutes, the defense begged the jury to believe.

As 10 women and two men deliberate her fate, Mary Winkler is waiting at the home of a friend in Selmer, Tenn., for word of a verdict. And a host of other interested parties — among them women's rights advocates, trial watchers and Church of Christ members — wait as well.


Judge Weber McCraw told the jury that they may decide Mary Winkler is guilty of first-degree murder or a lesser charge, or they may decide she committed no crime. If the jury doesn't think the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then second degree murder can be considered, as can voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide or negligent homicide. Each carries its own burden of proof for the prosecution, as well as maximum sentence.

Six days of testimony gave those in the courtroom — and around the globe, thanks to live, streaming video — a glimpse into the family life of the Winklers.

Matthew Winkler grew up attending Churches of Christ from birth. So did Mary Carol Freeman. Each was raised in a conservative home with parents who expected them to do well in school, obey their elders and conduct themselves as Christian young people.

Each attended a university affiliated with Churches of Christ. Matthew Winkler enrolled at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tenn., upon graduating from high school. Mary Carol Freeman chose Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tenn., then transferred after two years to Freed-Hardmeman to pursue a teaching degree in special education.

They met at Freed-Hardeman, enjoying a three-month, whirlwind courtship before Matthew proposed. They were married on April 20, 1996 — 11 years ago Friday.

Trial testimony followed the couple through job-related moves, the births of three daughters and other life events. Family members, friends of the couple, fellow church members and Mary Winkler testified about other kinds of events and exchanges.

Mary Winkler delved into the couple's home life. She testified that Matthew Winkler began to intimidate her to the point of domination early in their marriage. She drew a timeline over the years where that turned into — according to her allegations — him belittling her, alienating her from others she loved, physically harming her and forcing her to perform sexual acts that embarrassed and hurt her against her will. She described the allegations in detail to the court under direct testimony.

Mary Winkler asked Matthew Winkler for a divorce in 2002, she said, and he refused. She said she never tried to leave, citing threats against her as the reason why. She told no one about details of her life, she said. No witnesses corroborated her testimony. No one who testified saw injuries that Mary Winkler confirmed to them were abuse either, according to testimony.

Matthew Winkler's parents, Dan and Diane Winkler, told jurors they knew nothing about their son and daughter-in-law struggling with their finances or their marriage. Dan Winkler, pulpit minister of the Huntingdon, Tenn., church, said his son made the decision to become a fifth-generation preacher without pressure from his parents. They said they never saw signs of abuse.

Both parents testified for the prosecution. Both sat in the courtroom listening to testimony afterward. Both cried. They went home each evening to care for their three granddaughters, Patricia, Allie and Brianna, whose custody can't help but be affected by the outcome of their mother's murder trial.

The Winklers were among at least 10 witnesses in the case who identified themselves as members of a Church of Christ. Six of those were prosecution witnesses. The other four — including Mary Winkler — were called by the defense.

Witnesses' personal beliefs about their faith became the subject of questioning and commentary at times. Women were often asked by defense attorneys about gender-assigned roles or responsibilities within Churches of Christ. Men were asked about their roles as head of the household, and whether that meant they were the "boss" of a family.

Support Network for Single Moms

I can tell you this ... it's not easy being a single mom. 

I'm not a single mom myself, but I have recently had a taste of it as my husband
is a truck driver and has been gone for days at a time.

I quickly found which areas are my 'weak' spots in parenting,
housework and life in general. 

If it hadn't been for the fact that I already had a support system in place,
I know I would have had a much harder time of it.

I believe a support system is definitely a must for every single
parent because it can sustain you on those days when you just
feel like giving up.

Also, it really helps to hear another person's perspective on your most current challenge.
They might have actually gone through this challenge themselves and can give you great
advice or they can be there for you and encourage you as you walk through it.

For that reason, I like Bethany Davis' The Single Mom's Survival Guide because one of the
first things she mentions in her inexpensive ebook is forming a support network.  She knows
how important this step is to single moms.

If you're a single mom, I'd encourage you to also enlist the help of others around you - form a support network for yourself and get that extra help and encouragement that will help you be a great mom.

Glass ceiling still exists

   Even though women constitute 40% of all executives and administrative posts

(up from 24% in 1976), they are still restricted mostly to the middle and lower

positions, and the senior levels of management are almost entirely male domains.

A 1990 study of the top Fortune 500 companies by Mary Ann Von Glinow of the

University of Southern California, showed that "women were only 2.6% of

corporate officers (the vice presidential level up)."  Of the Fortune Service

500, only 4.3% of the corporate officers were women - even though women are 6l%

of all service workers.

     Even more disturbing is that these numbers have "shown little improvement

in the 25 years that these statistics have been tracked". (University of

Michigan, Korn/Ferry International). What this means is that at the present rate

of increase, it will be 475 years - or not until 2466 before women reach

equality with men in the executive suite.

     This scenario is not any better on corporate boards. Only 4.5% of the

Fortune 500 industrial directorships are held by women.  On Fortune Service 500

companies, 5.6% of corporate directors are women.  The rate of increase is so

slow that parity with men on corporate boards will not be achieved until the

year 2116 - or for 125 years.  (The Feminist Majority Foundation News Media

Publishing Inc., 1995)

     In 1980, only one woman held the rank of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. This

woman came into the top management by inheriting the company from her father and

husband.  In 1985, this executive was joined by a second woman who reached the

top - by founding the company she headed.

     Even though the newspapers are reporting that women have come a long way

and are successful in the corporate world, women are banging into a "glass

ceiling" that is "so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it

prevents women from moving up the corporate hierarchy".  (Ann Morrison, The

Feminist Majority Foundation and News Media, Inc, 1955) Women can see the high-

level corporate positions but are kept from reaching the top.  According to

Morrison (http//www.feminist.org/research/ewb glass.ntml.) and her colleagues,

the glass ceiling is not simply a barrier for an individual, based on the

person/s inability to handle a higher-level job.  Rather, the glass ceiling

applies to women as a group who are kept from advancing higher because they are

women.

     Just as the overall labor market remains sharply segregated by sex, women

executives are concentrated into certain types of jobs - mostly staff and

support jobs - and these offer little opportunity for getting to the top.  The

highest ranking women in most industries are in non-operating areas such as

personnel, public relations. or, sometimes finance specialties that rarely lead

to the most powerful top-management positions.  It seems that women are shut out

of jobs in the route that is taken by CEOs and presidents and even when they do

get a line job it will more than likely not be in the significant part of the

business or the type of job that can stamp them as leaders.

     It seems to be that the biggest barrier to women in top management levels

is the bunch of boys sitting around a table making all the decisions.  In other

words when a decision has to be made concerning who should be promoted to

management, male corporate leaders are inclined to select people as much like

themselves as possible - so there is no astonishment that women are often not

even considered at promotion time.   The guys at the top look at their former

colleagues and old school ties.   Women executives are often left out of social

activities because they do not fit into the "boys club".   Even on a more

traditional level, women report there are "certain kinds of meetings" they do

not get invited to because they are not seen as policy makers.

     In a Wall Street Journal//Gallup study 80% of the executive women stated

they believe there were disadvantages to being a woman in the business world.

They stated that men did not take them seriously, they have been mistaken for a

secretary at business meetings, they have been prevented from moving up the

ladder because of male attitudes towards women and they believed they are paid

less than men of equal ability.   Many corporate environments tolerate sexual

harassment which intimidates and demoralizes women executives.  However, many

women hesitate to speak out, fearing it will jeopardize their careers.

     In conclusion, many women have been discouraged from going to the top by a

set of myths suggesting women are not suited for top management and that any

problems are being solved gradually.  (E.g.  conflicts with family and home

responsibilities, women at the top are frequently single, divorced or have no

children, proving how difficult it is to combine family and career, women

executives cost the corporation more because they must divide their attention

between career and family, women are not as serious about their careers, women

are not suited for top management because they are not aggressive enough and

lack the self confidence required for the top jobs - to mention a few.) These

myths seem  work to keep women in their place and to justify the lack of

progress for women.  Worse yet,  these myths often place blame on women rather

than on sex discrimination.

     Men in corporate management tend not to perceive discrimination as a real

problem, thereby making it virtually impossible to implement effective remedies.

White men have ranked problems encountered by women executives as insignificant

compared to how women ranked them.  Therefore, without constant pressure from

the outside and strong legal remedies, the very real problems of race and sex

discrimination in the executive suite may never be adequately addressed.  Even

though feminists have fought to establish and vigorously enforce guidelines and

laws prohibiting sex discrimination in employment, women feel they are a long

way from equality in the ranks of American business.  They feel that further

gains depend on getting more feminists into decision-making positions and

creating new strategies for change.