Posted by
Steve Maloney on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:06:56 PM
JUSTICE GINSBERG & THE THREE STOOGES
The Supreme Court has upheld the ban by Congress (actually, by the old Republican Congress) on partial-birth abortions. As seen below, Justice Ginsberg vigorously dissented from the majority. I vigorously dissent from Ginsberg, as you’ll see.
Ginsberg’s Comments
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 pre-viability and post-viability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices.
My Comments
"What is man that thou art mindful of him" said Micah in the OT. That's a darned good question, and one you won't see Justice Ginsberg tackling. The notion that the "Constitution" confers a right of abortion is laughable. Somehow the Supreme Court missed that for nearly 200 years -- pre Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court regularly insults our intelligence. For example, we hear from high courts that "nude dancing is a form of speech." No, it may be many things, but it is not speech as contained in the Constitution. If we as a society want to make nude dancing a form of speech -- or abortion a "protected" form of behavior -- then we need to amend the Constitution. We don't need to "interpret' it as if we were a bunch of college freshmen giving "our" reading of a John Donne poem.
Note Justice Goldberg citing the American College of Gynecology. Gee, what did they have to do with the Constitution? Oh, right, nothing. "All other rights are left to the states . . ." means the states should decide. It meant that in the 1780s and it still means that. It doesn't mean that a bunch of militant leftists on the Court are the ultimate determinants of all things.
Mrs. Justice Ginsberg's position is that the life of a "foetus" who's doing everything but kicking, screaming, and playing with a rattle is not something worth preserving. At the same time, I'm sure she's very concerned about the loss of life at Virginia Tech. I'd be interested in the philosophical distinctions she's making.
"Life is cheap" as the cynics say, and life is getting a whole lot cheaper, as this realist says.
My impression of Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens is that they're no more interested in the Constitution than they are in theoretical astrophysics. Overall, being "pro-life" means putting a great value on life at all stages. People who a "little pro-life, but" are frankly dangerous. Ginsberg and the three stooges seem to thinking along those "yes, but" lines.