Why? Why?
Why do I even read this stuff ?
Some of my favorite bits:
But if Congress can ban the partial-birth procedure, why can’t it express its “ethical and moral concerns” with the standard procedure for second-trimester abortions, dilation and evacuation? As Kennedy notes, this procedure, in which the fetus is dismembered before being removed, is “in some respects as brutal, if not more,” as the partial-birth procedure.
Why can’t Congress impose its ethical views by requiring any woman seeking an abortion to wait a few weeks, watch a sonogram of her developing fetus, listen to an antiabortion lecture?
And so much, by the way, for the conservatives’ hymns to federalism. Now a state that wants to allow the procedure is barred from doing so — even if its lawmakers believe that would best protect the health of women there. Well gee, I’m so sorry we’re banning the states’ rights to approve infanticide!
Third, and most chilling, was the court’s willingness to subordinate the health of individual women, and the individual judgment of physicians, to the moral whims of the majority. Whims of the majority? Congress studies this stuff, has extensive committee hearings, and then votes. Judges just…um…decide. So which one is the whims of the majority?
(snip)
This is a dangerous ruling, but I have some hope that its effect will turn out to be limited. Kennedy was horrified by the partial-birth procedure, no doubt sincerely. That emotional response may not carry over into his assessment of other abortion laws.
