Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Regarding the decision to allow a ban on an abortion technique
And that is all you need to hear from a sad story by the Supreme Court today.
The ban on intact dilation and extraction does not prevent abortions. It simply says that, even if this is the safest way to perform the abortion, it can not be done.
It is the first time in history that our nation has said that one person must potentially undergo greater medical risk to prevent some other person from being bothered by the performance of a procedure.
Intact D&E is ugly-looking, make no mistake about that. A lot of medical procedures are ugly. Nevertheless, if a pregnancy is going to be terminated, it should be done in as safe a manner as possible. It is foolish to argue that it's immoral to terminate a pregnancy in a particularly ugly-appearing manner, but okay to use another, potentially less safe, method.
This law is inherently bad. A law that flat out forbade abortion would be be a better law than this, because at least such a law, however unconstitutional, would at least make sense.
This law is simple pandering, and an attempt to get a decision like this from the court, where a woman's health is considered secondary to a pro-lifer's moral outrage over the how, not whether, to perform an abortion.