Posted on 04/19/2007 9:56:32 AM PDT by presidio9
Ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973, graphic descriptions of abortion have been staples of abortion opponents. Abortion rights advocates have preferred more scientific terms. Neither is by accident.
The Supreme Court adopted the more graphic approach Wednesday as a conservative majority of justices upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure.
"The way in which the fetus will be killed ... is of legitimate concern" to the government, the majority said.
In opinions after Roe v. Wade, the decision saying a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, clinical terminology has been the order of the day at the court.
All that changed in 2000, when Justice Anthony Kennedy described abortion procedures in painstaking detail. He did so as a dissenter in Stenberg v. Carhart, the ruling striking down Nebraska's ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions.
"Repeated references to sources understandable only to a trained physician may obscure matters for persons not trained in medical terminology," Kennedy wrote in 2000. "Thus it seems necessary at the outset to set forth what may happen during an abortion."
Kennedy then explained abortion procedures in explicit terms that hadn't been seen previously at the court. The break with tradition prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to note in a concurring opinion, "Much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures."
Kennedy returned to form Wednesday when he wrote the decision of the court.
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns ... what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child," Kennedy wrote.
In a forceful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Kennedy's word-choice goes too far.
"Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label `abortion doctor,'" wrote Ginsburg. "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby;' second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term.'"
He may be a better bass player.
.
“Well, you got the miserable part right, I don’t know if she qualifies as a human being. Instead of protecting life she would rather quibble about the language used in the winning argument.”
Hmmm. Interesting, thats pretty much how your average sociopath thinks....
Euphemisms kill. Or at least they make killing easier. I hate euphemisms.
In no way disagreeing with your underlying point, one can kill tissue: physicians do so all the time, when removing diseased organs or parts of organs, or using lasers or freezing to destroy tumors.
It is precisely for this reason that the culture of death likes to call the fetus ‘tissue’—they can admit it’s alive, but deny that it’s a human being. This false analogy is the basis for all the sanitized language they apply to the murder of unborn children.
THANKS, pres! Great read!!
>>Let W appoint two really controversial conservs<<
I hope so. Bush is running out of time. Due in great part to him, the dems have a very good chance of getting control of the legislative and executive branches, after which they could appoint more Ginsbergs, or even worse.
The words are clear. There's no doubt about what they mean.
This quote from Kennedy speaks volumes as to his view of abortion in general. My guess is that he knows d--n well he's talking about an unborn baby but couldn't bring himself to say so.
Possibly, Ginsberg's dissent is based on her political leanings.
Partial-birth abortion was ruled out by the Supreme Court, 5 to 4. Aside from what he said, she said, we who agree have reason to be grateful. Amen.
DRAT!! You beat me to my Superman comment. :)
“Separated at birth?”
Yaaaah,....baby!
I'm bewildered that the four Supreme Court dissenters could take the positions they did after listening to Judge Kennedy's graphic description of what actually occurs when performing a late-term abortion. What has happened to their consciences, their common sense, their ability to see the obvious?
The same can be asked about anyone who approves of such an atrocity!
It makes me truly wonder what kind of a heart a judge has who rules on life and death issues but sees absolutely nothing wrong with killing a fetus. Animals are becoming the protected species of our society. As preposterous as it may seem I can see a day when the rights of animals may be incorporated into the Constitution.
The ban does nothing but possibly kill women and the fetus will be aborted anyway because of a medical necessity. It is definately an anti-life ruling because the court basicly said they don’t care if it is deemed medically necessary by a medical professional, the doctor must use the more dangerous procedure. I would hope that doctors will protect their patient and defy the ban and use the procedure that’s safest. Pretty stupid ruling that defies common sense in my opinion.
And the only way they have of showing that power is by inflicting death on the most innocent and helpless.
And I don’t doubt there will come a time when animals are seen as having rights under the constitution, but just because some deranged black robed tyrant says something is there, doesn’t make it so.
"Emanations and penumbras"? SCOTUS weaselspeak for “Because we say so!”
Yep, and that is why we can expect to see many rulings made outside the realm of the Constitution.
She's a man, baby, yeah!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.