April 20, 2007

Not Even Close

The Philly Inquirer snidely excoriates the Supreme Court for its ruling that the government can legally forbid the procedure known as "partial birth abortion." (They can't even pass up an opportunity to state "Anti-abortion activists came up with the misleading coinage 'partial-birth abortion' " -- how dare they use a term that adequately describes the procedure!) The editorial says the high court is "activist":

Most of the time, the cry of "activist judges!" simply means "I don't like that decision."

But sometimes courts stray far enough from precedent to earn the adjective. This is one of those times.

As opposed to, say, 1973 when the court made law and usurped states' rights in Roe v. Wade? The two aren't even close when discussing "activism" of the judiciary. Since Roe usurped states' [rightful] rights in that realm of decision-making, a federal ban on PBAs was passed by Congress in 2003. The recent ruling upheld this law which was previously tested in 2000, and which was declared unconstitutional then.

The Inquirer's main beef is that the decision doesn't make any allowance for the mother's health. (It does for a mother's life.) Does the Inquirer really believe that the court -- not to mention Congress when they passed the law -- did not hear testimony from both sides of the issue? And, that they (both bodies) were unable to logically come to the conclusion that PBAs are indeed not necessary to preserve what is deemed the "health" of a mother? That being said, the "deciding" vote in the case, Anthony Kennedy, essentially invited a challenge to the ruling whereby the health of the mother might be a legitimate reason for a PBA.

Opponents of this ruling have argued that PBA, in some cases, is the "best" or "safest" option available and hence it should be legal. But if this is really the case with PBA, why not make it even safer -- why not advocate for a full extraction of a baby (yes, baby) before puncturing its skull and sucking its brains out? That surely would be in the "best interests" of the mother's "health," would it not? Ah, but you see, the fact that part of the baby is still inside the birth canal -- however small, like one toe -- is what makes (made, now) the procedure legal! A full extraction of a baby and then sucking its brains out would then be ... "homicide"? "Murder"?

Do you see now what a ridiculous legal distinction those [mainly] on the Left make? That a baby isn't a "baby" until it is fully outside the birth canal? Is this how Americans wish to define "life" or a "person"? In the case of PBA, Americans -- consistently in the polls -- do not, and want this procedure halted.

Posted by Hube at April 20, 2007 03:41 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Hillary: Court Ruling Stabs Women in Back of Head
Scrappleface ^ | 4/19/2007 | Scott Ott

(2007-04-19) — Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the right of Congress and state legislatures to regulate abortion and, in particular, to ban partial-birth abortion, is “a blade to the back of the head of every woman in America,” according to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

“I know I speak for my sisters across the nation,” said Sen. Clinton, “when I say that I feel like someone grabbed me by the ankles, and jammed a pair of scissors into the base of my skull and then just sucked my brains out. This is devastating to our freedoms and our sense of who we are as the largest minority group in America.”

Mrs. Clinton derided the justices who comprised the majority in the 5-4 ruling as “a gang of callous right-wingers who slaughtered the civil rights of women just as we are about to experience a new birth of freedom with the election of the first female president.”

“All that potential, all that hope is now tossed down the garbage chute,” she said, “and all because five selfish judges decided that their so-called ‘right to choose’ supersedes the life of the women’s movement. It’s despicable.”

Posted by: steamboat willy at April 20, 2007 05:24 PM