The Buffalo News editorial board worked itself up into a regular lather over the Supreme Court's decision on the partial-birth abortion law, and, in the process, completely mischaracterized the Court's role in our government.
If the United States really wishes to protect vulnerable new lives from some very rare acts of wanton destruction, there are reasonable ways to do that. Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court, and the abortion-limiting law that it upheld, are not among them.
Claiming to respect human life in all its forms, the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding it in fact show a stunning disrespect for the lives of American women and their ability, acting under a doctor’s care, to decide for themselves which medical procedures are necessary and proper.
The basis for both, implicit in the statute and explicit in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, is that women are such dithery and tender flowers that it requires an act of Congress to stop them from taking an action that they may come to regret, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of their lives.
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's constitutional right to an abortion is not violated by this particular limitation on the medical procedure employed. The Court passed no judgement on the mental abilities of women and made no pronouncement on the morality of the procedure in question. Limits on partial birth abortion, it decided, do not run afoul of the Constitution.
Many disagree. If so, they should submit an amendment. It's their right and perhaps their moral duty. Whining about the supposed personal opinions of the court's members serves no particular purpose.
Comments