Morality...I Mean, Majority Opinion

Useless talent #36: Reading and analyzing the logic of US Supreme Court cases.

From Gonzales v. Carhart
Argued November 8, 2006 - Decided April 18, 2007

Quote: "In deciding whether the Act furthers the Government's legitimate interest in protecting fetal life, the Court assumes, inter alia, that an undue burden on the previability abortion right exists if a regulation's 'purpose of effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the [woman's] path,' id., at 878, but that '[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State ... may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose,' id., at 877."

What I have to say about it: (This quote comes from the Summary, in which the Court reviews precedents and central case holdings that they will either affirm or dispute in the opinion. The internal quotes come from the opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southern Pa. v. Casey, in which the Court began to separate parts of the pregnancy into abortion and abortion-free zones.)

1. Does the Government have a more legitimate interest in the life of my potential-future-child than I do? At the present rate of global overpopulation, I'd have to say no.

2. If the aim is to prevent the murder of children, why draw the line at viability? The Court has attempted to reason this out repeatedly, and there is no satisfying conclusion. If it's inside my body, it's mine. If it's not, it's not. And then, if the line is drawn based on the potential existence of this collection of cells as a child, well then, shouldn't the line of viability be drawn at the point of self-sustaining survival? So, really, child murder should be legal until the age of, say, 4 or 5, right?

3. Since when does "the State" "express" anything? "The State" is a political construct, and therefore has no opinions, feelings, or profundity of its own. This is linguistic lunacy at its best.

4. Does "the State" have a more profound respect for the future of my potential-child than I do? Or, given the weight of having to choose between my own survival and his/hers, I choose myself. Is that really that bad? How does "the State" know what kind of life I'm facing if I bear this child? How does it know that I will be a good parent?
All these questions really boil down to one issue: having a baby is not the same thing as raising a child into an adult. If "the [motherfucking] State" showed any interest in supporting the development of this fetus into a healthy, well-educated, productive individual AFTER the point of birth, I might view this as slightly more consistent. Until there's universal housing and healthcare, fully subsidized education, and continuous job training and upgrades, this is a moralistic, ill-thought-out, socially- and economically-draining dictate.

Quote: "Casey reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman."

My reaction: ... but not the life that is the woman.

Quote: Congress determined that such [partial birth] abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned.

Umm: Except when sanctioned by the state itself. So, we DO allow capital punishment.

Quote: The Act also recognizes that respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in a mother's love for her child. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, ... , which some women come to regret. In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence, some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the abortion procedure used. It is, however, precisely this lack of information that is of legitimate concern to the State.

I think: They almost have a point. Transparency of information is a key goal - for someone undergoing any kind of health-related procedure, of course, and for the State as well. Problem is, the State ain't so hot on full disclosure when it comes to other things that put people in danger, like... terror suspects, any human under the age of 18, pharmaceutical usage...

I'm bored with this now, and too busy to finish, so I suggest you continue on your own.
Back in a flash with the Dissenting Opinion