Er, not that I care to engage the abortion warriors anymore, but on this particular issue, I happen to have an old link of interest, nytimes.com , notable mainly for this dissenting opinion in a related case that just happens to line up with the way the recent abortion decision went in the Supreme Court.
Writing an impassioned opinion for the minority, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner observed: "To understand this issue requires understanding the peculiar and questionable character of these statutes. They do not protect the lives of fetuses either directly or by seeking to persuade a woman to reconsider her decision to seek an abortion. For the statutes do not forbid the destruction of any class of fetuses, but merely criminalize a method of abortion -- they thus have less to recommend them than the antiabortion statutes invalidated in Roe vs. Wade,"
He continued: "There is no meaningful difference between the forbidden and the privileged practice. No reason of policy or morality that would allow the one would forbid the other. We should consider therefore why any state would pass such a law. An important part of the answer is found in Judge Manion's opinion in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin vs. Doyle," "the states want to dramatize the ugliness of abortion."
Of course, Posner is a well known flaming liberal (cough). Sadly, I imagine a hack like Manion would have a much better chance of getting nominated to the Supreme Court than Posner, if the election goes that way, but that's life.
Cheers, Dan. |
