Anti-abortion Shibboleth
When Dubya or "Shrub" was asked what he thought of Roe vs Wade, his response was: "I don't really care how people get out of New Orleans..."
Lost last week in the medias blanket coverage of the Virginia Tech "Hokie Shoot"... The Supreme Court of the Royal Jackass affirmed those sentiments exactly.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Gonzales vs Carhart to uphold the validity of the U.S. Congress Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003.
The decision reverses the District Court and 8th & 9th Circuit Appellate Courts decisions that ruled the "Act" unconstitutional.
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito joined to overturn the Appellate Court's. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.
Why is this decision important? It was the first time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of any form of abortion restriction.
The courts decision to uphold the "Act" essentially outlaws the "Intact" D & E method. We shall attempt to explain.
These are the first things that come to mind...
1. Viability: NO ONE has the answer as to WHEN a fetus (living organism inside a womans uterus) is viable? 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester? and at what point?
2. Abortion should be condoned in the following situations. Incest, tubal pregnancy, miscarriage, severe fetal nervous system damage or in the event of any life threatening condition to the mother.
3. What about rape? Does the unborn offspring of a criminal act have rights? The fetus didn't commit the crime...
4. What about prediagnosed fetal deformity and other life long afflicting diseases or syndromes? Eugenics anyone??
The Nattering One leaves these heady discussions to those far more "authoritative" and pius than he.
FYI, I have always been PRO CHOICE, but the courts decision is perturbing, disturbing and thought provoking.
So we muse... there are many ways to terminate a pregnancy, in this "ACT" passed by congress and the courts validation; two specific methods for 2nd trimester or "late" abortion are addressed.
"Standard D & E" (diliation & evacuation) involves a doctor, ripping apart an unborn fetus, piece by piece, and evacuating the pieces, this usually takes 10 to 15 passes.
"Intact D & E" involves a doctor, evacuating a fetus "largely" intact. The fetuses skull must be: pierced, the contents vacuumed out, and the skull crushed to pass through the cervix.
In many cases, pill or injection is not an option as "time is of the essence" in a life saving situation.
At any rate, getting one's skull pierced, brains sucked out and skull crushed is a pretty gruesome way to go. Then again, so is being ripped apart in 10 - 15 pieces, disturbing indeed...
Intact D & E is the safer of the two methods considering only 2 or 3 passes might be required to extract the unborn fetus rather than 10 to 15. Less invasive, less scraping, risk of bleeding, infection, etc.
Although the court left the riskier "standard" D & E alone, it managed to put the kabosh on safer "intact" D & E. Curious and perturbing indeed...
The Nattering One believes that with the obvious exceptions outlined previously, no living thing deserves to die either way.
More perturbing than the disturbing content is, the logic upon with the courts decision is based. This is reflected in a brillant and cogent dissenting opinion by Ginsberg et al.
"[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 844 (1992).
Today’s decision is alarming... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases...
It blurs the line, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
We have (previously) ruled that a State must avoid subjecting women to health risks not only where the pregnancy itself creates danger, but also where state regulation forces women to resort to less safe methods of abortion.
The congressional findings on which the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act rests do not withstand inspection, as the lower courts have determined and this Court is obliged to concede.
The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women’s health.
Today’s ruling, the Court declares, advances the Government’s "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."
But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion...
As another reason for upholding the ban, the Court emphasizes that the Act does not proscribe the nonintact D&E procedure. But why not, one might ask. Nonintact D&E could equally be characterized as "brutal,"
"[T]he notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures . . . is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational."
Delivery of an intact, albeit nonviable, fetus warrants special condemnation, the Court maintains, because a fetus that is not dismembered resembles an infant.
But so, too, does a fetus delivered intact after it is terminated by injection a day or two before the surgical evacuation, or a fetus delivered through medical induction or cesarean...
Yet, the availability of those procedures—along with D&E by dismemberment—the Court says, saves the ban on intact D&E from a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Never mind that the procedures deemed acceptable might put a woman’s health at greater risk.
Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion.
Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government’s interest in preserving life.
By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent(s).
("Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.")
Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence:
Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem."
Because of womens fragile emotional state... the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure.
The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately...
Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.
This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.
Instead of drawing the line at viability, the Court refers to Congress’ purpose to differentiate "abortion and infanticide" based not on whether a fetus can survive outside the womb, but on where a fetus is anatomically located when a particular medical procedure is performed.
One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the Court’s "moral concerns."
And, most troubling, confirming the continuing vitality of "the essential holding of Roe," is merely "assume[d]" for the moment, rather than "retained" or "reaffirmed."
The majority asserts that the Act survives review because respondents have not shown that the ban on intact D&E would be unconstitutional "in a large fraction of relevant cases."
The absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk.
The very purpose of a health exception is to protect women in exceptional cases.
(The court) is hardly faithful to "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."
Congress imposed a ban despite our clear prior holdings that the State cannot proscribe an abortion procedure when its use is necessary to protect a woman’s health.
Although Congress’ findings could not withstand the crucible of trial, the Court defers to the legislative override of our Constitution-based rulings.
A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.
In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation.
When "a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue".
In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.
Lost last week in the medias blanket coverage of the Virginia Tech "Hokie Shoot"... The Supreme Court of the Royal Jackass affirmed those sentiments exactly.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Gonzales vs Carhart to uphold the validity of the U.S. Congress Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003.
The decision reverses the District Court and 8th & 9th Circuit Appellate Courts decisions that ruled the "Act" unconstitutional.
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito joined to overturn the Appellate Court's. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.
Why is this decision important? It was the first time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of any form of abortion restriction.
The courts decision to uphold the "Act" essentially outlaws the "Intact" D & E method. We shall attempt to explain.
These are the first things that come to mind...
1. Viability: NO ONE has the answer as to WHEN a fetus (living organism inside a womans uterus) is viable? 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester? and at what point?
2. Abortion should be condoned in the following situations. Incest, tubal pregnancy, miscarriage, severe fetal nervous system damage or in the event of any life threatening condition to the mother.
3. What about rape? Does the unborn offspring of a criminal act have rights? The fetus didn't commit the crime...
4. What about prediagnosed fetal deformity and other life long afflicting diseases or syndromes? Eugenics anyone??
The Nattering One leaves these heady discussions to those far more "authoritative" and pius than he.
FYI, I have always been PRO CHOICE, but the courts decision is perturbing, disturbing and thought provoking.
So we muse... there are many ways to terminate a pregnancy, in this "ACT" passed by congress and the courts validation; two specific methods for 2nd trimester or "late" abortion are addressed.
"Standard D & E" (diliation & evacuation) involves a doctor, ripping apart an unborn fetus, piece by piece, and evacuating the pieces, this usually takes 10 to 15 passes.
"Intact D & E" involves a doctor, evacuating a fetus "largely" intact. The fetuses skull must be: pierced, the contents vacuumed out, and the skull crushed to pass through the cervix.
In many cases, pill or injection is not an option as "time is of the essence" in a life saving situation.
At any rate, getting one's skull pierced, brains sucked out and skull crushed is a pretty gruesome way to go. Then again, so is being ripped apart in 10 - 15 pieces, disturbing indeed...
Intact D & E is the safer of the two methods considering only 2 or 3 passes might be required to extract the unborn fetus rather than 10 to 15. Less invasive, less scraping, risk of bleeding, infection, etc.
Although the court left the riskier "standard" D & E alone, it managed to put the kabosh on safer "intact" D & E. Curious and perturbing indeed...
The Nattering One believes that with the obvious exceptions outlined previously, no living thing deserves to die either way.
More perturbing than the disturbing content is, the logic upon with the courts decision is based. This is reflected in a brillant and cogent dissenting opinion by Ginsberg et al.
"[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 844 (1992).
Today’s decision is alarming... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases...
It blurs the line, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
We have (previously) ruled that a State must avoid subjecting women to health risks not only where the pregnancy itself creates danger, but also where state regulation forces women to resort to less safe methods of abortion.
The congressional findings on which the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act rests do not withstand inspection, as the lower courts have determined and this Court is obliged to concede.
The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women’s health.
Today’s ruling, the Court declares, advances the Government’s "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."
But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion...
As another reason for upholding the ban, the Court emphasizes that the Act does not proscribe the nonintact D&E procedure. But why not, one might ask. Nonintact D&E could equally be characterized as "brutal,"
"[T]he notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures . . . is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational."
Delivery of an intact, albeit nonviable, fetus warrants special condemnation, the Court maintains, because a fetus that is not dismembered resembles an infant.
But so, too, does a fetus delivered intact after it is terminated by injection a day or two before the surgical evacuation, or a fetus delivered through medical induction or cesarean...
Yet, the availability of those procedures—along with D&E by dismemberment—the Court says, saves the ban on intact D&E from a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Never mind that the procedures deemed acceptable might put a woman’s health at greater risk.
Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion.
Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government’s interest in preserving life.
By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent(s).
("Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.")
Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence:
Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem."
Because of womens fragile emotional state... the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure.
The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately...
Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.
This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.
Instead of drawing the line at viability, the Court refers to Congress’ purpose to differentiate "abortion and infanticide" based not on whether a fetus can survive outside the womb, but on where a fetus is anatomically located when a particular medical procedure is performed.
One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the Court’s "moral concerns."
And, most troubling, confirming the continuing vitality of "the essential holding of Roe," is merely "assume[d]" for the moment, rather than "retained" or "reaffirmed."
The majority asserts that the Act survives review because respondents have not shown that the ban on intact D&E would be unconstitutional "in a large fraction of relevant cases."
The absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk.
The very purpose of a health exception is to protect women in exceptional cases.
(The court) is hardly faithful to "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."
Congress imposed a ban despite our clear prior holdings that the State cannot proscribe an abortion procedure when its use is necessary to protect a woman’s health.
Although Congress’ findings could not withstand the crucible of trial, the Court defers to the legislative override of our Constitution-based rulings.
A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.
In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation.
When "a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue".
In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.
Comments