Skip to main content

Gonzales v. Carhart

I'm anti-abortion. Have I made that clear before? I am, therefore, in the minority of men, because more men support abortion than do women. Check the surveys. Abortion is sold as a benefit to the woman unready to raise a child, but its major supports are guys wanting to avoid child support payments.

Since I'm anti-abortion, my support for the Court's ruling in Carhart shouldn't be surprising. What surprises me is the uninhibited and irrational hysteria flowing from the MSM and the abortion industry. Is hysteria the new style of politics and discussion? Must be, judging from how much of the media has either responded to or "reported" the responses to the Court's ruling. First, some relevant facts:

  • At least 1,000,000 abortions are performed in the United States each year.
  • At least 90% of those abortions are performed during the first trimester.
  • With Carhart we're dealing with a procedure that involves the remaining 10%.
  • It is, mostly likely, a very small fraction of that 10%.
  • No medical justification has been given for the procedure at issue.

The news always says the ruling deals with "a procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion'". They never say what proponents call it, and they certainly never describe how it's performed. "Partial-birth" precisely describes the procedure. Dilation is induced, the child is partially delivered, killed, and the body is extracted. In medical terms, it's a "dilation and extraction" or D&X; this is the term the Court has used, both in Carhart and earlier cases.

It has a close cousin known as "dilation and evacuation", or D&E. With a D&E, a much more common procedure than D&X, the fetus is chopped up in the womb and then the pieces are evacuated, i.e., sucked out.

The Carhart ruling -- indeed, the very law in question -- doesn't deal with the D&E procedure, or any first trimester abortion method. Right off the bat, therefore, you see that the law is narrowly tailored to leave alone close to 99% of all abortions performed. It focuses on D&X, i.e., partial-birth abortions.

The 2003 Federal ban on partial-birth abortions -- the statute at issue in Carhart -- was based in large part on a Court ruling authored by then-Justice O'Connor. In striking down an earlier ban, her opinion created a road map for the legislature to follow if they wanted to make a Constitutionally valid regulation. They did, and the 2003 statute was born. True to Justice O'Connor's advice, it has now been found to be constitutionally valid.

Senator Reid finds the ruling appalling, which is hilarious given that he voted in favor of the law. Is he saying he deliberately voted for an unconstitutional law?

The complaints are rolling in from the usual crowd, blindly and uncritically supported by the MSM. If the law had been struck down they would be singing the praises and heralding the wisdom of the Court. No one looks at the issue, no one analyzes the ruling. That, you see, would require effort and the application of critical thinking.

Face it, the abortion industry wants nothing less than any abortion at any time for any reason. They are ideologically focused on that result. Since they cannot win that debate before the American public -- which, while generally supporting a right to an abortion, has never supported a right to any abortion at any time for any reason -- they turn to the courts.

Under the abortion industry's framework, any restriction is cause for terror, which reflects their utter lack of understanding of Roe and Casey. Both affirmed the state's ability to regulate abortion to one degree or another; neither said abortion couldn't be regulated. Carhart, in short, upheld that state right, as granted under both Roe and Casey, focusing exclusively on banning the D&X (partial-birth) procedure. It follows Court precedent, especially as expressed in Casey.

A little more honest analysis would be nice. So would a little less hysteria from the pro-abortion side.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We pause now for a minor rant…

“My car has a flat tire.” “You should buy a new car.” Every time I hear President Obama and other Democrats talking about “health care reform,” that’s what the conversation sounds like. A health care crisis is declared and the only solution is to replace the entire system. At most, around 15% of the American population is without health care insurance. Ignoring the fact that for most of them, this is a matter of choice, it also means that 85% are insured. And of that 85%, something like 70+% like their current coverage and don’t want the government to touch it. So for the vast majority, the current system works and works great. Yet, because of the minority for whom it allegedly does not...toss it all, start again. Admittedly, regardless of insurance coverage, it all costs too much, but again, the only accepted approach to controlling costs are to throw out everything and turn it all over to the government. Tactics that are proposed to address specific cost issues are not consid...
Post a Comment
Read more