There was an interesting story in the news tonight. On this the first day of Alito a couple of appeals courts have ruled that partial birth abortions, despite the Bush administration law passed to the contrary, remain legal.
The basis for this ruling - surprise - is the same old saw: the laws in question don't contain an exception to preserve the life of the mother.
Seems reasonable at first glance. But a second look reveals this to be the most reflexive ruling by the court imaginable. Would someone please tell me why there is a necessity that this particular procedure be permitted to preserve the life of the mother? Listen, this is an extremely late term procedure. The fetus at this point is fully viable. All it needs to live a full and happy life is to be delivered into this world and slapped on the ass. Welcome to earth, Bucko.
Maybe I just don't know enough, but it's hard to believe that if a baby can be killed and extracted to preserve the life of the mother, it can't be spared and extracted. In this last scenario you preserve not just the life of the mother but the baby as well.
Ofcourse I know that I'm fooling with words. What is this business of calling 8.99 month old fetal material a baby? Have I no tact, no sensitivity? A poor woman has enough to worry about trying to cope with her choice without being saddled with the suggestion that the thing she's about to chop up insider her uterus is a baby.
I'm a liberal. And yes, I'm all for fillibustering against Alito and Roberts (for reasons of excessive deference to corrupt Presidents). But in this one case I'm glad W has installed his boys on the court. Both claimed during confirmation hearings that they would approach challenges to abortion with an open mind, and I'm ok with that. I'm ok because there is now hope that a perponderance of judges on the Supreme Court will now be open to the possibility of overturning at least the worst excesses of the "culture of death."
No comments:
Post a Comment