Two Abortion Rulings
Separate panels of US Courts of Appeal in New York and California struck down the federal law banning partial birth abortions because it didn't provide an exception for the mother's health. I personally had to agree with the sharp dissent of Judge Chester Straub in New York:
"Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide. . . "I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally, ethically and legally unacceptable."
One of the prevailing judges on that court felt duty bound to strike the law down even though he found the "procedure" to be "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
You can find National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales here.
HT: Drudge.
"Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide. . . "I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally, ethically and legally unacceptable."
One of the prevailing judges on that court felt duty bound to strike the law down even though he found the "procedure" to be "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
You can find National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales here.
HT: Drudge.
posted by stewdog | 3:09 PM | Permalink
|
4 comments
4 Comments:
I wonder how the "mother's" health is preserved by killing a baby just prior to birth and then delivering it. I thought the usual and accepted method was a cesarean section. And why do they call these women "mothers" when they are doing all they can to not become mothers?
CIV, we all know the "health" of the mother includes her mental well-being as well. If having a child would result in the slightest bit of emotional distress (i.e. "how will I ever be able to afford all those diapers?") then it is her Constitutional right to crush his or her skull.
As one who has studied Constitutional Law and has read case upon case strike down statues for their ambiguity, how on earth does the ambiguous provision "to protect the health of the mother" pass Constitutional muster?
As I've said before, reasonable people can disagree about the right to an abortion during the initial stages of pregnancy, but only the radical extremists in our society find it acceptable under these circumstances.
Yes, I meant statutes not statues.
Good thing you clarified, or we'd run out of monuments here in Wash, DC.
Funny that someone might feel distress in having a baby born alive, but not dead. Weird, actually. Hard to believe anyone defends partial birth abortion even in the 9th month.
A local radio station here has been running ads for Second Look. First time I've EVER heard a pro-life radio ad. They're pretty tame, but that's probably how they got on the air.
Post a Comment
<< Home