By DEXTER DUGGAN
Permissive abortion is an age issue, a truth issue, a candor issue, a power issue, to name only a few of the factors to place on the scales of justice. Pull aside the draperies at the U.S. Supreme Court and weigh them.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg apparently didn’t believe she was revealing secrets when she said in a 2009 interview that she thought “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” was an important factor behind the court’s legalization of national permissive abortion in 1973.
Voila, abortion clinics are drawn to poor populations like flies to honey.
That was an interview with The New York Times by the most elderly of the current justices, born in 1933, who had cancer surgery to prolong her own life. Power politics and population control, not empowering women, were major drivers behind the draperies — think of Wizard of Oz phoniness — in reaching conclusions that had nothing to do with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. So it goes.
Over the decades, the High Court has held that human slavery, racial segregation, and forced sterilization — all issues touching pigmentation — were among the mandates conveyed by the Constitution. In reality they were contrivances for the supposed spirit of the passing times that the court wanted to honor, or at least humor.
In its latest assault on law, ethics, and morality, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, decided June 27, the court continued its decades of deceptions that aren’t meant to persuade but only to entrench error, defy justice, and place a thumb to the nose.
A poke in the brain to babies, a poke in the eye to the world, and a slap in the face to God. This is not the reverence of the nation’s Founders for a divine majesty guiding the affairs of history and His creation.
With switch-hitting Republican appointee Anthony Kennedy joining to create the majority, the court struck down, by 5 to 3, the commonsense Texas law to require abortion clinics to meet the health and safety standards of other ambulatory surgical centers, and to require hospital admitting privileges for their doctors.
In the Texas case, Ginsburg tried to pump blood once again into the lifeless fiction that permissive abortion is safer than childbirth. However, as attorney Clarke Forsythe wrote in the scholarly Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade (Encounter Books, 2013):
“If the comparison were valid, a doctor would likely commit malpractice unless she informed every pregnant woman of the…comparison and counseled every pregnant woman to consider abortion….But regular obstetrician-gynecologists do not do that because they apparently don’t believe the comparison is valid. Only women considering abortion are given the mantra.”
Defiantly imposing abortion, not honoring women’s dignity, long has energized the court. Ever since it held, close to a half-century ago, that routine abortion mainly involves medical mechanics, cases keep returning, like the current Texas decision, as to what is allowable about methods and mechanisms.
In 1983, a decade after the original Roe and Doe decisions, the court faced an issue of clinic regulations in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, author Forsythe recalled. Working on writing the majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell expressed an uneasy realization to strongly pro-abortion Justice William Brennan.
“I had thought from the discussion at Conference that we were of one mind, namely, that abortion mills do exist, and are operated to the great profit of unethical physicians who care little about their patients,” Powell said. However, Brennan urged Powell not to worry about this immorality, because acknowledging it in the opinion would give “aid and comfort to those who would justify burdensome regulation.”
And pro-abortion Justice Harry Blackmun soothingly chimed in that of course “there are rascals in the medical profession, as there are in the legal profession.”
The justices, Forsythe wrote, “could not even acknowledge what they knew to be true, and proceeded to strike down a regulation that second-trimester abortions up to 16 weeks be conducted in a hospital setting.”
Hunger for profit powers the abortion industry, just as hunger for grim ideological triumph still powers the abortion-dazed dominant media.
Radio talkmeister Rush Limbaugh noted on June 27 that when liberal legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin was asked about that day’s ruling, Toobin got into the politics of the issue — a rebuke to “Republican landslides” and to “Republican-dominated” state legislatures.
No cultural sensitivity here to try to accommodate strong pro-life sentiment reflected in voting in state after state, long after the High Court thought it had removed the issue from public discussion back in 1973. Instead: Don’t you dare, you GOP conservatives!
The Supreme Court has slammed down the nation for more than 40 years, and apparently incredibly thinks it can do so for another 40 years, or 140, or 440 — however long it takes to beat the unruly peasants into submission. This is dictatorship, not medicine or law.
Of course, none of the current justices still will be around to issue absurd rulings in the year 2140’s Planet of Mars v. Martian Reproductive Health Clinics case. They, like the rest of us today who weren’t aborted, will be in crypts and urns and under gravestones. However, there’s a greater immediacy about choosing one’s ultimate destiny when pro-abortion justices already are in the neighborhood of 80 years of age.
One would hope they’re seriously considering how to prepare to meet their Maker. One also hopes they plan to go before Him with something other than oceans of innocent blood on their hands.
It may seem easier to please and delight elite friends and editors in the current moment, but that moment will be over before they know it. And the really Supreme Judge who rules upon all other judges isn’t an inexplicable opinion editor of The New York Times.
The Rorate Caeli blog noted on June 27 that it would at least seem unrepentantly bad Catholic Justice Kennedy would be denied the Eucharist in a conservative diocese like Arlington, Va. “But that never happens” under a bishop’s direction. A shepherd who scatters his flock faces judgment, too.
Back in 1992, when the Supreme Court issued another consequential pro-abortion opinion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court sought to wash its hands of its moral crimes by saying that society had come to rely upon the availability of abortion. But who taught society this expectation? Pro-abortion justices.
That won’t sound like a good excuse Up Above. Sounds more like a ticket for Down Below. There’s still time to change. Then there won’t be.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress