I am very sympathetic about what the GOP Congress is trying to do (saving prenatal lives is not done as some grand scheme to control women in general). Other than the exceedingly rare exception for saving the life of the mother, late term abortions morally should be banned (for example, they are banned in Norway and many other progressive parts of Europe). My question is whether this particular legislation is the right strategy (since we know this legislation is not going to pass while Barack Obama is President, absent a majority sufficient to override a veto) and whether this should be an issue dealt with on the individual state level.
Instapundit make the federalist argument (leave it to the individual states to regulate): Elizabeth Price Foley and Glenn's argument here, here and here and Jonathan Alder's take on it, Of course we have the Supreme Court on the cusp of judicially imposing same sex marriage nation wide (does same sex marriage increase abortion--it may). And most state efforts to regulate late term abortion have been stimed by the courts, yet the Supreme Court did say Congress has the power to regulate late term abortion (and Justice Kennedy was reportedly not happy how some of his previous decisions went).
Is there a way Congress can empower the individual states more both politically and in a later Supreme Court review (which will inevitably come if any legislation is passed)?
Instapundit: George Will: Democrats don't want to regulate how babies are treated before they are born, but whoa nelly they are all for intervening after those kids are out of the womb and China is the model Progressives like for controlling pesky religious people and controlling population. How do you think Millennial Progressives are going to balance social programs, by actually paying those benefits out to late baby boomers?
TOM: Men cannot be feminists
I haven't followed this that much, because the State of Texas already put their law on the books. I'm against the expansion of powers at the federal level, and this is included. However, I do think the US Congress could do one thing to regulate abortion, although it would have to be carefully worded. The one thing is to determine that a fetus is a person at X week. This would grant them the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in as much as a toddler has same. After X week, depriving them of life should require a legal review (for cases, of rape, incest, or life of the mother).
ReplyDeleteI think the most important part of this discussion is two fold. What progressive eugenic fans claim are far right wing religious fanatics have decided that humanity no longer begins at conception. This moves the decision out to viability, which is really after 20 weeks, but with current science (and isn't current science arguments used to allow all sorts of other things?) that can be as low as 22 weeks and more often 28 weeks. And this movement from conception to 20 weeks means abortion is lawful and ubiquitous for anyone woman prior to 20 weeks. Further, these uncaring religious zealots have put into the law the decried exceptions for life of the mother, rape and incest after 20 weeks. This is important because the progressive eugenics have not moved an inch from their argument that abortion should be legal up to the "breath of life", which has absolutely no scientific merit. You might as well claim abortion is legal up until the umbilical cord is severed, because life began along time before using the lungs.