Gonzalez Supreme Court Decision Not So Great

A week or so ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of a law outlawing the disgusting and evil partial-birth abortion procedure. Pro-life advocates rejoiced, and headlines declared a victory for our cause.

However, writing for RealClearPolitics.com in an editorial posted at FoxNews here, Stephen Warshawsky gives more detail about the opinion authored by liberal justice Anthony Kennedy. There are four (out of nine) conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Kennedy is among the most liberal. He is very pro-choice. Yet he sided with the four conservatives in this case (not that one's opinion on the morality of such a procedure should matter). Why? Warshawsky explains.

What we learn is that Kennedy took the time to outline a large number of situations in which a partial birth abortion really could still be performed, and done so legally. He gives specific details, almost as though he is making suggestions to doctors. The whole thing is disgusting to read. Here is a taste of just one of those examples:

* "The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability." (Slip. Op. at 20-21.) Hence, late term abortions in which the fetus is "disarticulated" — i.e., cut or torn into pieces as it is being removed from the mother's body — do not violate the statute. Even if the prohibited form of partial birth abortion happens to occur during this process, no criminal liability can be imposed because such an outcome was not intended by the doctor. (See Slip. Op. at 24.)

As I said, there are many examples of this kind of thing in the editorial. The conclusion is that the fact that these kinds of gigantic loopholes exist in the law is because it was the only kind of abortion bill that conservatives could get the liberals to help them pass. Liberals won because it's basically a toothless law; conservatives won because they could go back to their constituents and claim success in passing an anti-partial birth abortion law. Our tax dollars at work.

The closing quote of Warshawsky's piece is true and should motivate every conservative in the country -- at a time when we have two very old justices about to retire -- to get out and work hard to get whoever the Republican nominee is, elected:

Unless and until one of the four dissenting justices in Gonzales is replaced by
a reliable conservative judge — which will never happen if the Republican Party
does not win the presidency in 2008 — the Supreme Court "counter-revolution"
long hoped for by political and religious conservatives in this country will not
occur.