Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad4stevie
. . . (of course Thomas rides piggy-back on Scalia  ). |
It really makes me think they are lovers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad4stevie
. . . The one thing it did do was blur the line between the pre-viability and post-viability language of Casey.
|
I suppose to a degree, but the Court specifically applied
Casey. So, it could be argued that any blur as dicta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad4stevie
To read the Gonzales opinion, with all the details on how these partial birth abortions are performed, makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine how it can be justified that it is legal to deliver an intact child (everything but the head), and then insert a knife into the base of the skull to make an opening so the brains can be sucked out, all the while the child (yes, CHILD) is kicking and flailing arms and legs.
Repulsive to me.
|
I know. I never really got where that procedure would be performed outside of some rare instance when the life of the mother was at stake. If that is the only way to terminate the pregnancy in that rare instance which the Act covers, then I would not be against it. But, seemingly there are more humane ways after the first trimester.
I suppose that the lower courts' rulings of Unconstitutionality due to the exception being for the life of the mother as opposed to the "health" of the mother had a point. But, I think that choice of terms in application is a dinstinction without a difference despite popular thought. I think that a doctor can find something that is life threatening if the mother really wants to abort and has only a health reason. I also think that this change in language is a good example of the ridiculousness of the R strategy. If a woman's health is threatened, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy; it is her body. It should not just be for a life threatening situation. But, the R's play to the far right every time no matter how inconsequential the change in terminology is in application
Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly, Kennedy deferred to Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman and, therefore, found that a health exception was unnecessary. That language is troubling to me because a rare situation could occur when the health or life of the mother happens and the partial birth abortion is the only way to terminate the pregnancy. An academic argument I grant you, but to me, Congress has no business telling doctors how to operate in that situation.