Golly, Ralph Nader was right! There's nothing to fear with regard to our Supreme Court. Remember, Albert Gore and George W. Bush are the exactly the same.
Ah, Ralphie.... Thanks!
Let's see: Today. Supreme Court - for the first time ever - upholds a ban on a specific type of abortion procedure, the so-called, ahem, partial-birth abortion. "Partial birth" being the brilliant frame-phrase devised to illicit specific visceral responses. You can visualize it, a screaming baby is partially delivered and the liberal physicians kill it (smothers it with a copy of the Constitution that was torn from the brave hands of David Addington, or something).
So, let's get started: What is the so-call partial birth procedure anyhow?
Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures including intact dilation and extraction. IDX or Intact D&X is a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the womb via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus (due to a miscarriage) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.Eewww, yucky, right? Well, yes. So was my appendectomy. But, I was allowed to have it. It was legal for the surgeons to cut me open and remove my appendix. I chose and waived liability to have that surgery. The IDX is generally used when necessary and generally to SAVE THE LIFE OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN. It's not a gee-dunno-if-I-want-a-baby kind of procedure. The choice here is typically to save a life. The procedure has a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% of all abortions. But, it has developed into the current focal point of the abortion debate (current until today, that is).
[read for yourself at Wiki]
Well, here's the problem I have:
The "pro-life" advocates love IDX because they believe the procedure most clearly illustrates their contention that abortion is immoral. Critics consider the (IDX) procedure tantamount to infanticide, or murder, a position which many in the pro-life lobby extend to cover all abortions. [These are the same kooks that generally support the death penalty, paradoxically. Thou shall not kill...sometimes. Oh, and boob jobs and liposuction are perfectly fine.]OK, here's the slippery slope that bothers some overly thoughtful people at 3:00 a.m. The abortion precedent(s) sets into motion a legal and philosophical shortcuts toward picking apart what remains of our civil and Constitutional rights (the David Addington reference again).
Many advocates, both for and against abortion rights, see the IDX issue as a central battleground in the wider abortion debate, representing an attempt to set a legal precedent so as to gradually erode access to all abortion methods.
If we outlaw a woman's choice over the types of life-saving procedures she can elect to purchase, for instance, when do we prohibit black men from owning firearms? When do we outlaw Asians from driving? When do we, let's see.... When do we prohibit welfare recipients form opening bank accounts? When do we make Christianity the official (and mandatory) religion of the USofA? Why not send the blacks back to Africa and the Jews to Israel? When does my phone dial directly through NSA's switchboard? When does a traffic stop become a cavity search? Why the hell am I taking my shoes off at the airport? I could go on.
I just wanted to thank old Ralph Nader for pointing out in 2000 that he was the best candidate to stem the permanent rule of the GOP. You know, since Gore was the same as Bush; since the Supreme Court was unimportant; and, since abortion was safe. These were his notions then.
Why is it that most of the anti-abortion bumper stickers I see are on the shabby vehicles of men? White men? And, I'm not going to defend my position other than to say that sometimes the abortion of a fetus is a necessary procedure that can save the life of the mother.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't outlaw appendectomies either.
Get me a mirror, I think I see a Libertarian.
Posts
