Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. One of the arguments is that the statute is vague and that abortionists would not be able to understand what procedure the statute prohibits and would be fearful of doing other types of abortions. The court bought that argument when it stuck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart. That was and is hogwash... or something worse.
In his dissent in Stenberg, Justice Kennedy cites the AMA: "the 'partial birth abortion' legislation is by its very name aimed exclusively [at the D & X.] There is no other abortion procedure which could be confused with that description." The court tossed that aside.
The Congress's law has an even clearer definition, but abortionists are still arguing they don't understand what they mean. Justice Thomas also dissented in Stenberg. He noted that these abortionists have literature in their offices describing the procedures in great detail. But when they get into court, they don't know what it means. Good for Justice Thomas for pointing this out.
Okay, here's a joke.... maybe you have to be familiar with the abortion issue. If you go to an abortion clinic and ask them "what does 2 + 2 equal? what will they say?
"I don't know. It's vague. What do you mean by 2? Is that a plus sign or a minus. I can't tell." You get the point. When you don't have an argument in court, you say you can't understand the statute. You'd think after all those years of medical training and residency that these guys would be able to understand the descriptions of the procedures they are doing. This is a fraudulent argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment