Last week, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Gonzales v. Carhart, a case dealing with the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.
Apparently, it took the editors of the Chronicle a whole week to come up with this editorial (the Chron’s only one of the day), light on facts and dripping with whiny sentiment:
All forms of late-term abortion are rare: About 90 percent of U.S. abortions take place by the 15th week of pregnancy.
There are about 1.3 million abortions per year. If 10 percent are late-term, we’re talking about 130,000 every year. This “rare” procedure happens more than 8 times as often as kidney transplants.
The banned technique, very rarely used, aborts a fetus when it is partially emerged from the mother’s body.
Mother? Years of reading terrible editorials have taught me that a fetus is an unviable chunk of tissue, like an appendix or a toenail. So if the woman is a “mother,” doesn’t that make the fetus a baby?
But the men who wrote the majority opinion — Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — based their ruling on what they called “ethical and moral concerns,” rather than medical need.
First of all, The nerve of these guys! Who the hell do they think they are, appealing to the timeless values that make up the foundation of American law? Don’t they know that legal questions should be settled by Big Gynecology’s lobbyists?
Last week marked the first time the Supreme Court has upheld a ban on an abortion technique. Now specialists must make their surgical decisions based not on the medical situation at hand, but on the authority of the court.
I routinely make my work-or-rob-banks decision based not on the financial situation at hand, but on the authority of the courts.
But the ruling also signals something larger. It is a frightening tumble into politics, myth and subjectivity by a branch of government entrusted to revere evidence and reason above all.
Actually, the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with evidence at all in abortion cases. Lower courts determine the facts, and the Supreme Court deals with matters of law when it exercises appellate jurisdiction. You’d think a gaggle of editors would know that.
So, another editorial hits the archives. Like so many before it, it nails the Chron trifecta: Late, emotional and wrong.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
17 Responses to “Chron whines about partial-birth abortion ban”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
That is quite possibly the best description of them I’ve read yet.
Until all abortion is banned, we have no law. Murder is lawlessness, whether in the womb or years later. Abortion is the murder of a child, not a glob of cells.
The people who want to kill these babies in such a horrible fashion always argue to protect the health of the woman. I have never heard any evidence that this does anythin for the mother except make her a party to murder. Can someone explain how this protects the health of the mother?
Some woman have nightmares for years after an abortion, some will hear a baby cry, that is not there. Some ache deep inside from an emptiness thay can not explain.
a number of these woman testified as to what having an abortion did to them.
Others diguised thier pain by working FOR the abortionist.
The woman who says she is empty, the woman who hears babies cry that are not there, all can get mental health care.
What health care is that baby getting? None folks - its dead forever.
They don’t understand. Abortion is killing them. The Lib’s or becoming the minority. Cons are raising and loving their family’s.
The laugh line of the store is, “It is a frightening tumble into politics . . . ”
Exactly what would they call Roe v. Wade (which took the matter out of the hands of the political bodies of each state)?
“But the ruling also signals something larger. It is a frightening tumble into politics, myth and subjectivity by a branch of government entrusted to revere evidence and reason above all.”
What is the myth they are referring to? Life begins at conception?
#6 RickG
That was the phrase that caught my eye too.
could not agree more about Roe v. Wade .
and I’m still waiting for someone to explain
the need for this procedure .
I’ve never heard any medical evidence that partial birth abortion is EVER necessary to protect the life of the mother. Just the left’s fearmongering strawman that the Supremes don’t love their wives…
Partial birth abortion is not a threat to the life of the mother. LifeSTYLE, maybe, but not life. Not that I’ve heard, anyway.
If I shoot someone, can I call it a retoractive abortion? Would that be ok?
Speaking theoretically…. of course….
From what I understand, every time the abortion proponents go before a committee and are asked to give an example when this proceedure is necessary, they cannot produce one. And I do not think there has been one physician testify that this would be the only proceedure that could save a mother’s life. More smoke and mirrors from the back-east owned comical.
theoretically, late term abortion could be even latter than the liberial interpetation.
Considering this, yes retroactive abortion should also be legal
The testamony also clearly stated that a “fetus” at 26 weeks could easily survive outside the mothers womb. So since the mother did not want him or her, go ahead and “abort” her pregnancy and put that sweet inocent little life in an incubator and find him or her adoptive parents who will love him or her.
#14 that would inconvenience the selfish mother to be. There is a waiting list of folks wanting a newborn. It’s just no-win for those who cannot have their own.
# 15, my cousin waited for 10 years, then her diabetes and her age disqualified her. They never got a baby and never accepted the idea of an older child. SOOOO they remain childless and now in thier late 50’s it is too late for even an older child with her bad health.
Most of the Houston Chronicle editorial are the rants of driveling idiots.
But when they are pimps for the butchers of full term fetuses, then they go from driveling idiot to evil demon.
Fortunately in the grand Cosmos scheme, God has an appropriate destination for them –much warmer than their phony Global Warming!