Posted by: bridget | 20 April 2007

S. Ct. Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld a ban on partial birth abortions. Contrary to (crazy feminist) belief, the ban does not apply to miscarriages, nor to times when the woman’s life is in danger. Chief Justice Roberts, during oral arguments, put it best: it is safest, for the woman, to entirely deliver the baby and then kill it; does that mean there is a Constitutional right to infanticide, simply because it is the safest procedure for women?

Additional musings: Abortion advocates complain that this procedure is not used very often; that it is sometimes necessary for the life of the mother; that some women who get cancer during pregnancy will be forced to remain pregnant; and that this will force women to use less safe options.

These complaints are either irrelevant to the actual decision or groundless. Women are never “forced” to be pregnant, unless they were raped. As per CJ Roberts above, there is no Constitutional right to the safest medical procedure, especially if it happens to be the most barbaric. When the mother’s life is in danger, she has every right to seek an intact D&E: that is an explicit part of the statute at issue. Likewise, the statute does not regulate how a physician would remove a miscarried baby from the woman’s body: it only applies to partial delivery of a live fetus.

All of this begs the question: what is a woman doing getting an abortion at 20 weeks if it’s not for her own life or a health situation? We allow people to kill in self-defence, but we don’t extend that to running around the streets and killing at will. Likewise, there’s simply no need for a late-term abortion if there is no issue with the mother or the baby’s health.

On the concurring opinions: Scalia and Thomas indicated that they would overturn Roe in its entirety. Some people look at the unwillingness of Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito to join this concurrence as an indication that a challenge to Roe would lose, 7-2. For those who are familiar with Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court is obligated to decide a case on the narrowest grounds possible and only overturn precedent when the case before it so mandates. We have an intact D&E case before the Court, not an outright challenge to abortion. The holding should be limited to intact D&E jurisprudence.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I admit to having danced a little when I heard the ruling come down.

  2. It is just such common sense — don’t you think?

  3. I must say, there are few things that make a return from paradise good: this was one of them!

    Tammi – you nailed it, it IS just common sense. There are some things which are simply too barbaric to be tolerated.

  4. I find it interesting that the left always tries to define their exceptions as “when the life of the woman is at risk.” Well maybe the life of the mother is at risk, but if you allow for this Infanticide, somebodys life is not at risk, they are a goner. Why do we error in favor of the mother, isn’t the mother the one to protect her children?

    stevereenie…………Next Stop Lauderdale

  5. Thanks for stopping in, SteveReenie! :)

    I agree with most of what you are saying. The Left does not define their exceptions as “life,” but also tries to include “health,” (see Ginsburg dissent), and then, from there, wants “health” to include mental health and well-being and the avoidance of stretch marks.

    When my stepmom was nearly dead from complications of pregnancy, my dad was asked, by a doctor, whose life he would want saved if they had to make the choice. He said that he wanted his wife, because she’s the one we all know and love.

    That, IMO, is a PERSONAL choice. If someone’s going to end up dead, I see NO reason why the government should mandate which one it will be. While I applaud women who sacrifice for their children, I am really frightened and sickened by the idea that women MUST die. The fetus is a human, which is why the woman cannot unilaterally decide to kill it; likewise, the woman is also a human, and the government or a doctor cannot unilaterally decide to kill her.

    Yeah, it would be great if all mothers “protected” their children. Protection doesn’t always include dying for them, leaving their husbands as widowers to raise their motherless children. Sorry, I just don’t agree that it’s always the best situation and REALLY disagree that it’s a government issue.

    To me, the life exception is just that: a very narrow exception that has everything to do with medical care and nothing to do with abortion on demand. It does not become the exception that makes the rule. I’m allowed to shoot someone who threatens my life. Likewise, a woman should be allowed to abort if her life is threatened. I’m not allowed to, based on the self-defense theory, kill anyone whose existence is displeasing to me. Likewise, a woman has no right to abortion on demand.

    As a woman, who could get pregnant, I would be frightened of a world where I would be FORCED to die for my child, against my will. I honestly could not say that I would make the decision to “protect” my child if it were my life or her life. In NO OTHER AREA OF THE LAW do we mandate that someone die for another, and I don’t want to be part of the only group that is forced to sacrifice their lives. Forced sacrifice, IMO, is a really sickening idea… as Ayn Rand said, there is no such thing as sacrifice: (in this instance), the mother values the life of her child above the life of herself. That is not a government decision to make – it cannot mandate that the mother die, nor can it mandate that the child die. It can, and should, mandate that the medical community leave the decision up to the family.

    Sorry for the rant, but I’m genuinely frightened by the idea of having people mandate my death. It’s the same reason why I hate abortion, in fact – mandating the death of the mother is equally as disgusting as mandating the death of the baby.

  6. As you say, this should be the exception… life of the mother, that is. But what ticks me off is the tendency by many to think that the life of the mother is the rule rather than the exception… that’s just not the case. Rarely do mothers have to die for their child nowadays. Often, there is a better than even chance with complications that the mother will live.

    in other news, great blog!

  7. Thanks, LoneDrifter. :)

    Life of the mother accounts for something like 3% of abortions – and I think that may include life-threatening fetal issues as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: