February 26, 2005
WHAT CRIMINAL DOESN'T HAVE HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW?:
Murky Debate on Abortion Law: Kansas legislation states precisely its terms for ending pregnancies late in the term. But how doctors interpret those rules may not be clear. (P.J. Huffstutter and Stephanie Simon, February 26, 2005, LA Times)
The law in Kansas is explicit: A fetus old enough to survive outside the womb cannot be aborted — unless continuing the pregnancy would endanger the woman's life or irreversibly harm her physical or mental health.In demanding access to the medical records of women who had late-term abortions, Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline suggested this week that doctors might be violating that law by aborting viable fetuses too freely.
His aggressive action earned praise from abortion opponents, some of whom maintain a vigil in front of hundreds of white crosses pounded into the grass outside the state's sole late-term abortion clinic, here in Wichita.
"The attorney general is doing his job. He's enforcing the law," said Troy Newman, president of the abortion protest group Operation Rescue West.
But abortion providers — and patients — say the thought of a prosecutor sifting through medical charts to second-guess their choices terrifies them. [...]
Fetal viability and maternal health can be assessed using objective scientific measures, but there is inevitably a subjective component, said Janet Crepps, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York
"If you look far enough, you can probably find a doctor who will have a different opinion, especially in an area as politically charged as abortion," Crepps said. "That's why physicians feel vulnerable" when prosecutors demand that they open their medical charts.
Easy enough to avoid prosecution. Don't kill. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2005 9:32 AM
It's hard to believe Justice Blackmun and his fellow judges were completely oblivious to the possible ramifications of their reasoning in Roe v Wade. The idea that some human beings were below legal protection was always known to be the direction in which his constitutional thought would lead the country. Women's equality was the basis and the will of the people was not to get in the way. The nullification of state law regarding the question was not only an exercise in raw power but of arrogant stupidity. The decsion needs to be overturned and returned to the states where it has always belonged. A just society is possible, one of perfect equality is not. The Kansas legislature is answering to the will of its constituents. Does it have that right? Justice Blackmun and his defenders would say that it does not.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at February 26, 2005 2:12 PMWhat about the rules pertaining to unreasonable search and seizure?
If there is not reasonable cause then why should privacy be infringed?
If you search every house in the US you would find some stolen goods, that does not make it ok, to search every house.
The courts have alot to say about rights. It's their job. Citizens in general, and citizens the current red states in particular, do not have perfect record on respecting rights.