Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “One Last Chance”

« Doctors Overturn Death Penalty | Main | UAE and American Ports: a Modest Proposal »

February 21, 2006

One Last Chance

Hatched by Dafydd

Let me start off right away by noting that I am not at all unbiased on the issue of partial-birth abortion. Of course, I'm biased on every issue we deal with here on Big Lizards... we're commentators, not news anchors. But I'm even more than usually biased on this one.

So I am in very high spirits that the Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider striking down the federal ban on partial-birth abortion (intact dialation and extraction), which they overturned in 2000 -- with Sandra Day O'Connor casting one of the five votes to overturn the ban. Ironically, on the very first day that her replacement, Samuel Alito, took the bench, the Court voted to hear another appeal of a different judge striking down the same law for the same reason: Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

If everyone votes the way he did before, and if Alito votes to allow the law -- none of which is a given, of course -- then partial-birth abortion, which I consider to be infanticide, will be banned across the country. So I am keeping my fingers crossed that Alito will be more rational about this than was O'Connor.

There is not much more to say; we all know the stakes, and we all know that we won't know any more until the arguments... and we really won't know what is going to happen until the Court makes it happen, one way or the other.

So we leave it with the hopeful note that four justices, at least, believe they decided wrongly in 2000.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 21, 2006, at the time of 4:53 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/509

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

I'm cautiously optimistic that a majority will recognize that Stenberg was decided incorrectly. I'm more cautious, and less optimistic that the federal ban will be struck down anyway because Justices Thomas and Alito haven't completely given up on the Tenth Amendment.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq at February 21, 2006 5:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: radarbinder

I asked people on my site to visit here:

http://www.abort73.com/index.html

I believe that people who are in favor of abortion need to see what an abortion actually is, the murder of a child. Not a blob, not a gelatinous mass, but a child!

The above hissed in response by: radarbinder at February 21, 2006 11:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

"So we leave it with the hopeful note that four justices, at least, believe they decided wrongly in 2000."

Hey, that's good news. I think... you didn't make that a link so I'm not sure which Justices you are referring to, or which vote they cast.

Since I hadn't run across this factoid before, I'm very interested in learning more... if in fact a majority of Justices would change their votes to end this version of Infanticide then all the bloviating about Roberts and Alito being responsible for the change is invalid, isn't it.

C'mon, Dafyyd... give us a link! ;)

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at February 22, 2006 12:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Cowgirl

Isn't the issue in point whether the law should be held unconstitutional for failure to include an exception relating to saving the life of the mother?

I haven't followed this issue much, but it seems to me that if there is a "viable" fetus (which means it can live if delivered), the mother's life would never be in more or less jeopardy, whether the fetus was delivered live or partially delivered and murdered.

Yep, Dafydd. It is definitely infanticide, but that is not the issue in this appeal, as I understand it.

The above hissed in response by: Cowgirl at February 22, 2006 6:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Cowgirl:

Isn't the issue in point whether the law should be held unconstitutional for failure to include an exception relating to saving the life of the mother?

No. An exception for the health of the mother. There is already an exception for the life of the mother in the bill.

And when the Democrats say "health," they pointedly include her mental and emotional health.

That is, if the law were passed with the exception they and the appellate courts demand, then any woman who wanted to get a partial-birth abortion would only have to get a doctor to sign a statement saying that the mother's emotional health would suffer if she were forced to get some other form of abortion... that is, that she might be depressed or anxious. That would be enough.

That is why the Act was written to except only cases where a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life, not merely the health, of the mother: to forestall this dodge, which would of course become ubiquitous and negate the whole purpose of the law.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at February 22, 2006 6:32 AM