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