Friday, November 04, 2005

Below the belt

NARAL's former president, Kate Michelman, takes a cheap shot at Judge Samuel Alito with this online article that discusses her abortion experience and Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. She reveals an amazing level of ignorance regarding Alito's actual dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and how our judicial system works. NARAL and other organizations have so distorted and politicized the courts that they view every judicial nominee as if they were a member of Congress who should share everyone of their political views.

Kate fails to mention that Pennsylvania's spousal notification law included broad and simple to provide exceptions by stating:

" EXCEPTIONS.--The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statements need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

I think this is worst part though:

"When Casey made it to the Supreme Court in 1992, O'Connor, writing in the majority, reaffirmed the core principle that the right of choice is central to women's dignity and equality. And though the court failed to strike down all of Pennsylvania's restrictions, it did find spousal notification constitutes an "undue burden" -- placing Alito's views among the nation's most radical for jurists."

What's the reasoning here? Alito is "among the nation's most radical jurists" because the Supreme Court disagreed with one of his dissent by a 5-4 margin? Does Michelman actual believe that?

And if so, wouldn't that reasoning also put every pro-choice organization (including NARAL) which opposed the other abortion laws as being radical since the Supreme Court didn't uphold their view that Pennsylvania's other laws regarding abortion weren't "undue burdens?"

Charles Krauthammer's piece on Planned Parenthood v. Casey is definitely worth the read.

Ah, say the critics, but when Casey ultimately came up to the Supreme Court, O'Connor disagreed with Alito and found that spousal notification is indeed an undue burden.

To which I say: Such is Alito's reward for having tortuously tried to follow O'Connor's logic. Brilliant Alito is, but alas not brilliant enough to divine O'Connor's next zigzag -- after Alito had blown hundreds of neurons trying to figure out the logic of her past (pre- Casey ) rulings.

So true.

Bob Novak must be reading my blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment