Justice Ginsburg expressed outrage that in Justice Kennedy's opinion, "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby'". What a perversion of language; we can't stand for that!
In my last post, I highlighted Justice Kennedy's opinion striking down the legality of partial-birth infanticide. Now I'd like to do the same with the dissenting opinion, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. Again, my comments will be in blue.
* * * * *
Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, 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.
* * *
Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation." Id., at 856. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to "their ability to control their reproductive lives." Ibid. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.
Always act as if the rights of the preborn child are not only secondary, but absolutely irrelevant . . . that's been the peo-avortion strategy for 40 years.
* * *
The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion.
*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***
I pointed this out, in arguing that the entire structure of legal abortion is moral insanity, whereas Justice Ginsburg uses it to counter the present ruling and to continue the overall insanity untroubled by any sane regulation or restriction at all. So she's right, but for the wrong reasons and the wrong motivations.
. . . As another reason for upholding the ban, the Court emphasizes that the Act does not proscribe the nonintact D&E procedure. See ante, at 34. But why not, one might ask.
Probably because the current existence of insane and irrational abortion law wouldn't allow any other ruling to be made in the first place. In other words, to start chipping away at rulings which are themselves irrational and mad, one must, to some extent, adopt the same irrational rhetoric. So, e.g., one must deal with the medical-scientific ludicrosity of the "trimester" because that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade (apparently there was some chipping away at that in more recent cases).
Likewise, because the pro-abortion forces have shot down any restrictions at all, based on insufficient clarity, the Court has to speak in absurd terms such as delivery beyond the navel, so that the definition of partial-birth infanticide is specific enough to bear legal obfuscations by those who prefer the legality of children being murdered by parental fiat.
Nonintact D&E could equally be characterized as "brutal," ante, at 26, involving as it does "tear[ing] [a fetus] apart" and "ripp[ing] off" its limbs, ante, at 4, 6. "[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." Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 946-947 (Stevens, J., concurring).
That's absolutely correct. But one does what one can do in a holocaust. The Court is forced to use irrational reasoning to undo a morally outrageous law (if only in part), itself utterly irrational.
Delivery of an intact, albeit nonviable, fetus warrants special condemnation, the Court maintains, because a fetus that is not dismembered resembles an infant. Ante, at 28. But so, too, does a fetus delivered intact after it is terminated by injection a day or two before the surgical evacuation, ante, at 5, 34-35, or a fetus delivered through medical induction or cesarean, ante, at 9.
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. Ante, at 34-35.
Such is the atrocious state of our law.
Never mind that the procedures deemed acceptable might put a woman's health at greater risk. See supra, at 13, and n. 6; cf. ante, at 5, 31-32.
The same people who now want to talk ad infinitum about the risk to the woman (since they can't morally justify childkilling and thus don't even try) have, for years, done all they can to keep women ignorant about the manifold risks during and after abortion. If they're so super-concerned about the woman's health, why is that?
Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work,
Egads!! Imagine that! One wonders how could we have regressed and descended so far in our jurisprudence that "moral concerns" actually have some relevance to law?
concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion.
That's highly unlikely anytime soon. But perhaps when the baby boom generation that brought us the twin blessings of the sexual revolution and abortion (my illustrious generation) dies off (like the generation in the wilderness with Moses) then it will be thinkable to ban this senseless slaughter and once again regain some semblance of civilization and the most fundamental concern for the rights of the most defenseless among us.
I've always said, however, that it would take a full-scale spiritual revival for this to happen. Abortion comes from the pit of hell and it can only be overcome by people's hearts being transformed by the Holy Spirit, since obviously, reasoning has had little effect on the course of the holocaust. It's a supernatural battle. People who can both perform and defend such ghastly, barbaric procedures of murder have ceased participating in the realm of rational ethical and moral discourse long ago.
See ante, at 28 ("Congress could ... conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."). 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.
If one reads between the lines, the difference is that the partial-birth infanticide is more undeniably (i.e., for those unaccustomed to pondering these delicate matters, and not nearly as smart as the intellectuals who defend them) murder of a human being, since one sees most of the small person as he or she is, before this person is turned by profiteering butchers into hamburger, decapitated, subjected to scissor incisions and having his or her brains sucked out, etc.
* * *
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." Ante, at 29.
Of course, such things must always be ignored and opposed by the pro-abortion crowd. It's bad for business and propaganda.
Because of women's fragile emotional state and because of the "bond of love the mother has for her child," the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. Ante, at 28-29.
Of course, they do exactly that, as the "doctors" themselves testified in some cited case that Justice Kennedy mentioned.
In cases on a "woman's liberty to determine whether to [continue] her pregnancy," this Court has identified viability as a critical consideration. See Casey, 505 U. S., at 869-870 (plurality opinion). "[T]here is no line [more workable] than viability," the Court explained in Casey, for viability is "the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. ... In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child." Id., at 870. Today, the Court blurs that line, maintaining that "[t]he Act [legitimately] appl[ies] both previability and postviability because ... a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb." Ante, at 17. 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. See ante, at 28 (quoting Congressional Findings (14)(G), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769).
Again, because of legal necessity. It's the first restriction that has been allowed in 34 years.
The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.
Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctor." Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33.
And that is too complimentary of a term itself. No one who deliberately murders a helpless infant should be called a "doctor" at all. It is an insult to all the selfless persons who have honored the profession.
A fetus is described as an "unborn child," and as a "baby,"
Really???!!!!! Imagine that! What every mother in history calls her offspring ("I'm gonna have a baby!", etc.) is actually followed by the Supreme Court of the United States??? What's the world coming to, to butcher the English language in such an inexcusable fashion?
But seriously, if the simple term "child" followed by the literal description "unborn" is so unutterably offensive and objectionable, why is it that other cases that Justice Ginsburg loves, such as Casey, themselves use it? In fact, she cited Casey in her own opinion, just two paragraphs before this protest: "the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child." She had cited the same case earlier; it's language (itself scientifically absurd): "the life of the fetus that may become a child."
And again, when it had to do with the blessed "pro-choice", Ginsburg is quite content to utilize the same language of "child": "In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of "the decision whether to bear . . . a child,". So why the double standard and game-playing with words? Of course, we all know why that is, and how it has always been in the mindset of the pro-abortion lobby.
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. 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.
Please God, may it be so.