A Victory for Life!

The Supreme Court of the United States of America got one right for a change! In a 5-4 split, they voted to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as Constitutional. While it's very narrow in their focus, laws like this one and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are a positive step towards protecting the right to life of the unborn.

Naturally, as the 2008 Presidential Election is building, several candidates have made public statements regarding the ruling:

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." - John Edwards

Sweeping prohibition? Hardly. The bill does not prevent abortion at any stage of pregnancy. It merely outlaws a particular method of abortion, namely the brutal and unconscionable act of partially delivering a living child, inserting a catheter into the back of his/her head and removing the contents of his/her skull. But ultra-liberals like Mr. Edwards want to protect the "right" do to this under the Constitution. Mr. Edwards also flat out lies about its provisions for "the health of individual women." The PBABA still allows for the method in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life.

"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." - Hillary Clinton

Funny how "departure from past rulings" is decried when it's convenient to one's views. By such rationale, these people should oppose many of the civil rights rulings earlier in this century. Then there is the "health of the mother" exception. The exceptions being referred to here are so broad as to not serve as exceptions at all, but rather measures designed to ensure that a abortions would never fall outside them. The "stress" involved in gaining weight from pregnancy falls under such a definition (lest the "mental health" of the woman be adversely affected and she be forced to deal with the consequences of her actions). Last, we have the invocation of the Stenberg v Carhart case of 2000 where the Supreme Court struck down (by a 5-4 split vote) a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions in the state. Conveniently, Hillary ignores the fact that the majority opinion in that case made it clear that it sought to give blanket protection to any woman who sought an abortion in the second trimester even in the absence of pre-existing maternal or fetal health problem. Moreover, the definition of "partial-birth abortion" is much more specific in the PBABA, and the bill itself contains data from five years' worth of Congressional investigation and hearings which find that partial-birth abortion is not only NOT necessary to preserve "health" but also poses a much higher risk to the woman than other methods.

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women. " - Barack Obama

Boy it this a telling statement. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States of America, Mr. Obama, establishing federal law is not in the job description of the Judicial Branch. All Obama is doing is lamenting the fact that conservatives are (at least in his view) beating liberals at their own game by using the judiciary to enact law. Of course, that's not the case at all. This act was lawfully passed, and upon being asked to review it by the angry anti-lifers the Court upheld it as constitutional.

And how in the world is this an issue of "equal rights for women?" I'm pretty sure I, as a man, don't have the "right" to a partial-birth abortion that women are allegedly being unconstitutionally deprived of. Of course, we won't be concerned with the "equal rights" of children who are literally inches from birth. No...we're much more concerned with the ability of a woman to kill a living child in a non-life-threatening situation. Even English "common law," which was cited by the Court in Roe v Wade as the historical basis used in the definition of personhood (defined therein as being at the point of "quickening" when the baby begins to move inside the mother's womb), would not account for this procedure and I GUARANTEE even the liberal justices who rendered the 1973 decision would have upheld this piece of legislation.

John Edwards is right about one thing...this raises important issues for the upcoming election. I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who would put politics ahead of ethics to the point of supporting one of the most heinous and deplorable medical procedures ever performed on defenseless human beings.