Reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision
Published Thu, Apr 19 2007 9:07 AM
Technorati Tags: Abortion, News and Politics, Courts, Media
I celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision yesterday to uphold the federal ban on "partial birth abortion". I am glad that this particularly gruesome procedure has been banned. I am also happy to see the separate concurring opinion of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas wrote:
I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.
Predictably, and quite rightly, the news media is reporting on the decision. Equally predictably, the reporting has a slant that implies that women's rights are being eroded, and most of it ignores the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. An example can be found in the Seattle Times:
Sister Sharon Park, a lobbyist for the Washington State Catholic Conference, said Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling "will certainly provide an impetus to seek legislation in our state."
While Sister Park said polls show most state residents want some limitations on abortion, Washington lawmakers and voters repeatedly have been unwilling to support most attempts to restrict women's reproductive freedom. A 1998 initiative that would have created a law similar to the current federal ban was rejected by 59 percent of voters.
Why is it that when attempts are made to restrict abortions it's always portrayed in the media as a restriction on women's reproductive freedom? Can you honestly tell me how killing a developing baby (or a fetus if you insist on not recognizing it as human) enhances reproductive freedom? Women are still free to reproduce when specific abortion procedures are restricted.
Saying that abortion restricts a woman's freedom to reproduce is ludicrous. What's actually meant is that not allowing abortion restricts a woman's freedom not to reproduce, and not to face the consequences of licentious behavior.
"I think their confidence is misplaced," said Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center in Seattle. "They have tried and tried and failed to change our state's reproductive-choice laws."
Reproductive-choice laws? How can they be called that, except to make them more palatable? Abortion is less about "reproductive-choice" than it is about refusing to accept the consequences of licentious behavior.
Don't most women in the United States today have a choice about whether to reproduce? They can, and often do, abstain from sex with men. That's been shown to be nearly 100% effective at preventing reproduction. It would be 100% effective, except for artificial insemination. If a woman isn't inseminated, she can't conceive, except under miraculous conditions.
There are other, mechanical ways to prevent conception. If a physical barrier to the passage of sperm through the womb to where the egg awaits fertilization is present it's pretty darned difficult for a woman to conceive.
Women have access to hormonal birth control. If a woman doesn't produce an egg to be fertilized she can't conceive. If her womb isn't properly prepared for the implantation of a fertilized egg, she can't carry the baby to term.
On the other hand, if a woman chooses to engage in unprotected sex with a man, then she should accept the risk of pregnancy, and accept the responsibility that it implies. Deciding after the fact that taking a life is an appropriate way to deal with poor choices is simply evil.
Of course, women can be, and lamentably are raped with alarming frequency. And, rapes can result in unwanted pregnancies. I can understand when a woman might want to "terminate" such a pregnancy, although I still believe it is adding evil to evil.
In 1970, Washington became the first state to legalize abortion by popular vote, three years before Roe v. Wade. Voters in 1984 rejected a ban on state-funded abortions for poor women, and in 1991 approved the Reproductive Privacy Act, which preserves a woman's right to an abortion.
While I personally find abortion abhorent, Washington's decision to legalize abortion by popular vote was rightly Washington's decision to make. At the same time, decisions by other states to ban abortion were also rightly those states' decisions to make.
That's where the power to decide this issue rightly belongs, at the state level and not at the federal level. Roe v. Wade was an example of overreaching by the supreme Court. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia recognize that.
Dr. Sarah Prager, who directs a family-planning training school for residents at the University of Washington School of Medicine, said the university hasn't been routinely using the practices specified in the act, which notes that a fetus must be alive when "partially delivered" from the woman's body.
In other words, the procedure is murder, sanctified by the fact that it's performed by a doctor. Historically "partial delivery" has been recognized as sufficient to establish the order of birth for purposes of inheritance. The biblical story of Jacob and Esau comes to mind.
Wednesday's ruling upheld a federal ban on the procedure where a baby is "partially delivered" and its skull crushed or peirced to kill it, before completing the delivery. The federal law, passed by congress and signed by the president, the proper method for enacting federal law, didn't ban cutting up the baby in the womb and extracting it, which is another option done in late term abortions.
Personally, I find both methods barbaric. If it's gruesome to crush the skull of a partially delivered baby, isn't it even more gruesome to chop a baby up and then "extract" the pieces? If the baby can feel pain as it's killed in the process of delivery, can't it feel pain as it's dismembered?
Again, I applaud the supreme Court's decision to uphold Congress' right to enact legislation, and the President's right to sign those acts into law. I further applaud Justice Thomas' and Justice Scalia's recognition that that power does not belong to the courts.
Trackposted to stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=628
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/4/19/628.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Psycheout responded with:
 | This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court. |