I'm going to come out and say it: the partial-birth abortion law is wrong. I know I'm supposed to go into an in-depth discussion about the ethics of abortion, but I am going to refrain from that, at this moment, and just be angry.
Not only does the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling infringe upon the famous ruling in Roe v. Wade, the ruling, in effect, suggests that the conservative cinch could very well become tighter. I am particularly angry at the opinion piece written by Edward Whelan for the USA Today, found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070419/cm_usatoday/awelcomedecision;_ylt=AnnlbcKQE863ydC9OXdajXWs0NUE
Whelan, the President of the ironically named "Ethics and Public Policy Center," not only makes the ridiculous claim that "all Americans should welcome" this ruling, he says that the majority "exercised judicial restraint and properly deferred to the democratic process." Just how did Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts Jr. exercise restraint? Maybe they thought twice about that second cup of coffee? Maybe they restrained from caring about individual liberty? Maybe they restrained from getting their deli sandwiches with extra mayonaise? It seems to me that the democratic process protects the individual's right to individual liberty, so I'd be interested to know how "deferring to" such a process resulted in a self-promoting, self-guided (though certainly not self-written) Supreme Court decision. Or maybe Whelan's editor incorrectly assumed a grammatical or content error and added the "to" into his original sentence. Maybe Kennedy, et al., placed aside the democratic process to restrict individual liberty. I'd like answers, Mr. Whelan.
I'm thinking that placing restrictions on individual liberty is not quite what our "founding fathers" (I say this only because it's commonly accepted) had in mind (no, they were too concerned about giving Americans the right to bear arms. That turned out quite well, didn't it?) nor is it a very good idea. And here's why: if we restrict liberties, we are necessarily restricting freedom. As we know, our President-in-Cheif has declared that freedom is the pursuit of all Americans--we wouldn't want W. to be wrong, now would we?
I'm so upset that I can't even make jokes. I've never really been graced with that talent; I more kind of crinkle to the floor and curl into the fetal position. It's just now, with this ruling, if I ever find myself in this position again, I'm afraid I won't be able to get out for 24 weeks, even if I wanted to get out. And when I do get out, I'll still be upset because I'll be re-born into a world where my very own Supreme Court dismisses individual liberty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Since I don't have anything constructive to add except anger, have a question: does the partial birth abortion ban also prevent abortions in medical cases where the
life of the mother is at risk?
By the way, don't expect any serious, thoughtful, well informed posts from me. That's your job.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that there is a provision in the law which allows a "partial birth" abortion in the event of a medical emergency. There are other procedures which will now "legally" take the place of a partial-birth procedure, but such procedures are expected to be more dangerous for the woman. (I'm no doctor, but common sense tells me that they'd use this procedure because it is the safest way to protect the health of the mother). I believe that the court left open the ability to challenge the ban in specific cases...but I'm not sure the process you'd have to go through to prove why you should be an exception to a law which is, well, unconstitutional.
Post a Comment