Police State Watch

I understand that there are several people who are absolutely certain that life begins at conception, despite the clear inability to prove such a thing. I also am aware that many people believe that life begins at birth, or somewhere in between, as our nation's and the Christian heritage established.

I also know that miscarriages are an act of nature, and they occur quite often.

What I don't understand is how anyone could expect to enforce a law that criminalized miscarriages if the woman acted "recklessly." "Reckless" of course, is a magic word that means whatever the speaker intends it to mean.

I don't see how this proposed law in Utah does anything other than place women further under a blanket of subjugation by the state.

Good Morning (After)

I certainly believe that people are entitled to their own opinion on the question of Abortion. While I remain officially "pro choice," I mean just that.

I remember a bit of a kerfuffle at the end of the Bush presidency regarding pharmacists who didn't want to provide the morning after pill (or was it all contraception) because it violated their religious beliefs. Perhaps someone with some research skills could link to that for me, as I'm not inclined to go searching for it tonight. My response to that was basically "if you don't want to sell birth control, then don't work in a profession that involves selling birth control." It seems to me akin to a Luddite apprenticing as an Electrical Engineer.

I also remember some discussion on the FDA appointments made by President Bush being premised on this topic (again, links are welcome).

The reason I bring this up is because I was reading this article by Professor Friedman at Religion Clause Blogspot that discusses a Court case (Tummino v. Torti, ED NY Mar, 2009) wherein the Judge ordered the FDA to reconsider its restriction on Plan B ("The Abortion Pill"). The reasoning, as Professor Friedman notes, is that the Judge felt that the FDA's position was premised on political motives, rather than "good faith agency decision making" (from Professor Friedman's article).

What I find interesting about this is the Family Research Council's response - "This ruling jeopardizes girls' health and the ability of parents to care for their daughters' physical and emotional well-being." I'm not entirely sure I follow that logic, as, if the child finds herself in a situation where she needs the medication, then isn't it entirely possible that she found herself in that situation particularly because of her parent's inability or unwillingness to care for her physical and emotional well-being? I leave the answer to you.

I don't like it, but I don't disagree with it

The Supreme Court upheld the ban on what is known as partial-birth abortions today in a 5-4 decision. While I agree that the government has the right to restrict in this manner, I would hope that the people use the power of their vote to change this law (i.e. petition your congresspeople).

The law seems to be pretty narrow in scope (the violation comes after the following steps: 1. person performing must vaginally deliver a living fetus, 2. must deliver it so the full head is delivered of, if breach, then up to the navel, 3. perform an overt act that kills the living fetus, which must be done separate from delivery, and 4. it must be done "deliberately and intentionally."

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and he appears to have interpreted the Act very narrowly, especially with regard to the scienter ("deliberately and intentionally") requirement. The State would have to prove the intentional delivery to the requisite point AND the overt act were both done intentionally, a heavy burden.

Finally, Justice Kennedy cites Casey, in that the Act, in order to be unconstitutional, would have to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a person trying to get an abortion. Substantial is a key word here, one of those magic words that has an imprecise meaning. Justice Kennedy and the majority, however, held that there was not proof by Planned Parenthood to show that there was a substantial obstacle. I dislike Justice Kennedy's choice of words in Casey, but I understand what he was trying to say, "respondents have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." Applied broadly, this goes to ALL abortions, not the limited scope of people trying to secure a D&E (this type) abortion.

I may or may not like the law, but I have a hard time disagreeing with the majority opinion that the law is Constitutional. The right to have an abortion does not imply the right to have the abortion method of your choice. I think the best recourse for those who oppose this law is to appeal to your congressperson.