Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Nooo!
The Daily Cal is going to try to talk about a national issue, primarily by spitting out boring, already-been-said lines.
To listen to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial birth abortions... I'm pretty sure it was a legislative decision to ban partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court is tasked with a very different job.
Of course, there are limits inherent in his judgment—he is neither a doctor, nor capable of giving birth.
This conflict is indicative of the major problem with the ruling: It puts men (all of the five justices in the majority decision were male) with no medical training in charge of what is potentially the most personal decision a woman can make. Wouldn't a ruling the other way still have exactly the same problem? Or would it be okay if Ginsburg had voted with the majority? Is this really the standard we want to set when it comes to determining constitutionality of laws?
There is little practical argument in the ban. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, it will not save a single fetus. Should a woman choose to have an abortion at between 20 and 23 weeks into her pregnancy, she will be no less able to do so—she will just have fewer options from which to choose.
The lack of real results that could stem from the ruling make it seem less like a carefully crafted legal decision and more like a moral crusade with insufficient rational backing. We are talking about a law passed by Congress. Was the Supreme Court supposed to change the law so that it made sense?
If the Supreme Court wanted to make women less able to have a medically facilitated abortion (which does not necessarily imply fewer harmed fetuses), then it failed, because this ruling does nothing of the sort. But if they sought to limit the choices of individuals pursuing their own good health, they have succeeded. What if they were trying to determine the constitutionality of someone else's law? Shouldn't we give a tiny bit of consideration to that possibility?
I think the Daily Cal gets an F for U.S. Government in this editorial. "Why didn't the Judicial branch of government make a better policy!!???"
. . .
|
. . .
|
