The Legal and Catholic Blogspheres are abuzz with discussion of the Supreme Court's recent affirmation of the partial birth abortion ban.
A lot of the discussion is centering around whether the majority (all five of whom happen to be Catholic--Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy) voted based on the law or voted based on religion.
I strongly suspect the majority vote was based more on the justices' theory of Constitutional interpretation much more than it was based on their religion. After all, it's not as if they did anything overly radical--they upheld a law that had been passed by Congress.
Sure, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy were dark horses but anyone who's ever read any opinions authored by Scalia or Thomas had to know how their vote would go. Neither of them sees a Constitutional right to an abortion.
What saddens me is that the discourse focuses on the justices' religion than it does on the state of our society. What kind of society legalizes infanticide? If you don't think it's infanticide, read the description of the procedure from the majority opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Amen.
I for one keep shaking my head when I read the O'Donnell-type complaints about the Court's ruling. It could be out of a Jack Chick tract, only secular.
It's especially disturbing to hear Congressmen who voted for the law complaining about the decision. It's almost like they voted for it to score political points but secretly expected it would be struck down...which may actually be exactly what's going on, now that I think about it.
Kasia,
I have a feeling that exactly what the senators intended. The original law passed in 2003, so everyone was trying to score points for the 2004 election. Now that the law is upheld, they're trying to score points for the 2008 election.
Sara,
You're probably dead on there. It's the political gift that keeps on giving.
This is why I don't work in politics. I don't have the stomach for it.
Post a Comment