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

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

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

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.