Sunday, March 05, 2006

The Anti-Abortion Abortion

The current rates for abortion in the United States is an absolute crisis. We're killing babies (or fetuses, or embryos) at an alarming rate. And it's primarily knowledgeable 20 somethings who are riding the abortion express at an exploding rates, not the teens who presumably lack contraceptive knowledge and fear informing reactionary parents. It's likely that abstinence programs combined with birth control education are actually working.

But not for young adults. Abortion is the contraceptive of choice for hundreds of thousands nation wide. And right to life people are rightfully alarmed and saddened by the new life abortion itself has taken within the U.S.A.

Under the deft leadership of Karl Rove, George Bush has proven to be the most politically incompetent president in the entire history of the United States. One of the very few bright spots in the Bush presidency has been the appointment of two very intelligent, conservative Supreme Court Judges. Judges who, at least, actually stay awake during Supreme Court hearings.

So, is the right to life leadership moving forward to drastically reduce the numbers of abortions in the United States? Well, no.

In fact, the supposed leadership in the right to life movement is following a path that is absolutely guaranteed to enshrine Roe v. Wade forever without even the most remote possibility of repeal. The current strategy is designed to make certain that abortion will become more common, more frequent, easier to obtain and legally secure than it is even today.

We have today, with Bush's more conservative Supreme Court, the opportunity to place real and meaningful restrictions and limitations on abortion. Parental notification, bans on late term abortion, eliminating partial birth abortion, enforcing waiting periods before abortion and more are all within easy reach. We could reduce abortion in half with the full support of this court and with good public support, too.

But no. Instead the right to life leadership is attempting to power through an anti-abortion bill in South Dakota that couldn't possibly pass Supreme Court muster if Scalia and Thomas were the only two Supreme Court Justices.

The South Dakota bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest; it allows abortion only when it is deemed necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. The health of a mother is never considered. Worse yet, the South Dakota bill would put doctors who perform abortions in jail for up to five years with a fine of five thousand dollars.

In recent years the court has consistently overturned bills that don't carve out adequate protections for the mother's health. And the vast majority of American's will not support or even tolerate this type of criminalization of abortion.

"The only thing that asking for too much, too soon, produces is a further reaffirmation of Casey and Roe," says legal historian David Garrow, referring to a 1992 high-court case that reinforced the core holding of Roe. "As we heard countless times from Alito and Roberts at their [confirmation] hearings, every time a precedent is reendorsed, it is further strengthened." LINK: The Christian Science Monitor article by Linda Feldmann 3/2/2006

So what will happen if the South Dakota bill becomes law? The Supreme Court will strike it down with power and force that will, in effect, provide strong, nearly insurmountable support for Roe v. Wade. Yet again Roe v. Wade will be enshrined in precedent.

Our one shining opportunity for abortion to be regulated in a way that actually made abortion rare, reasonable, fair and safe will be lost. Killed in the womb by the anti-abortion fanatics.


A Girl From Texas said...

I personally support the choice of the womand, so I just want you to know my position on the issue. But I have a question.

Why do you think that abortion should be available to a woman if she has been raped or is a victim of incest. I don't understand the reasoning as to why those fetuses have less right to life than those who come about as a result of consentual sex.

Mike said...

you write like carry bradshaw. I wrote about this post BTW.

Bob Keller said...

Dear "a girl from texas,"

Like you, I support a woman's right to chose. Ultimately it should be the woman's choice whether to carry the fetus to term, regardless of the events that led to conception.

My point, in my blog entry, was that the South Dakota law was so over-reaching it would never have public support or pass muster with the courts. Without even the minimum carve-outs for rape, incest and the health of the mother, it is a law doomed to failure.

the Wizard.........