April 20, 2007
THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHATEVER TONY SAYS IT DOES:
Justice Kennedy is key to abortion future: Justice's wording in opinion is seen as good news and bad by both sides (MARK SHERMAN, 4/20/07, Associated Press)
Kennedy holds the balance of power.Posted by Orrin Judd at April 20, 2007 9:51 AMHe has written key decisions on both sides of the long-standing divisive issue.
Particularly since O'Connor's retirement last year, what he thinks probably is where the court will come out when asked to consider new abortion restrictions.
Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Scalia and later an official in the Bush administration Justice Department, said the decision most likely would invite new state laws banning the same procedure covered by the federal law and requiring that women seeking abortions be given detailed warnings about the dangers of abortion.
"Those regulations seem to me far more likely to be sustained," Whelan said.
We are not seeing too much good commentary in the meanstream media about the judicial procedure at work here. The dismanteling of the Kindermord machine is proceeding according to JudPro 101. It won't be as fast or as total as we would wish, but it is going forward. We need to keep winning elections to acheive the Endseig.
A very intersecting side issue here is the Commerce Clause discussion. As with gun control, there really isn't any CC nexus for the Federal Goverment to be legislatively involved in the Kindermord. In the recent case, several justices more or less said that they would have tanked the Federal Partial Birth law on CC grounds, but nobody raised the issue. Fascinating.
Remember here, that this would have been mostly a win-win for the pro-death side. If the option to make a holocaust on one's children remains a "fundamental" constitutional right, it may still be enforced against the states. But still, they did not want to give up federal statutory jurisdiction.
This tells me that they still hope to win legislatively at some point in the future. It is up to us then to see that this does not happen.
We need to keep winning by education. Watch the ultra-sound counselling case, and watch the Commerce Clause issue.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 20, 2007 12:37 PMWhy do pro-choicers object to the law requiring that women seeking abortions be given detailed warnings about the dangers of abortion? They put warnings on cough syrups, and cigarettes.
Why do pro-choicers object to women changing their minds about getting rid of their babies? The issue was supposed to be saving women from having alley abortions. But why did that evolve into preventing women from changing their minds in having abortions?
The terms should be pro-abortion, and anti-abortion, not pro-choice and pro-life.
Posted by: ic at April 20, 2007 1:14 PM