Just Say No to Crushing That Baby's Skull

So yesterday the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that it was not unconstitutional to ban partial-birth abortion. I guess that's a good thing. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not so sympathetic of a type of second-trimester abortion that involves cutting open the baby's (excuse me, fetus's) skull so you can suck out the brains and collapse the skull to make the dead thing easier to remove. What about the baby's rights?

But I digress.

The bottom line is that I don't really like the method of this decision any more than I do the original decision that made abortion OK in the first place. Sure, I'm all for it, just like I'd be all for the Supreme Court deciding that it's unconstitutional to play Nickelback on the radio (cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the way these decisions should be made.

The commenters and bloggers are all dissecting this decision and arguing about women's rights and child's rights and all the hashed and re-hashed arguments. But frankly, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with any of that. It all came down to the personal opinions of whoever happened to be presiding at the time of the decision, just like the first decision did.

The problem with the judicial system is that they have to decide between constitutional and non-constitutional. This is an either/or fallacy because sometimes events are simply a-constitutional, not mentioned one way or the other. And thus, our conservative victory yesterday is a shallow one, because in the future a different set of judges could use the opposite arguments to make the opposite decision. Much of our law has been reduced to an oligarchy of nine.

But that is all the stuff of old conservative rantings. What's new here is that we feel the need to get the feedback of all the presidential candidates. As if their opinion would really make that much difference if they were elected (unless a justice happens to die and they get to pick a new one that agrees with their abortion views AND gets confirmed by Congress. But we just replaced two). As if their statements are any more meaningful than the decision itself, since they are only saying what will appeal to their potential voters. In case you hadn't guessed, all the Republican candidates supported it, and all the Democratic candidates opposed it. (see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/high_court_upho.html for specifics)

In other words, things have become so politicized that we can't even know what the candidates really think about anything. Everything they say will be dissected by the media and public, so every response has to be carefully orchestrated. Even the sincerity of something like sending condolences to Virginia Tech loses its meaning because... well, what else are they going to say?

Supreme Court making laws... Presidential candidates forced to say things... we are simply experiencing the inevitable results of massive-scale democracy mixed with the corruption of power. I guess Carmen (don't you remember, back in the day, when he was cool?) got it right when he said, "The only hope for America is Jesus..." Let's humble ourselves, turn from our wicked ways, and pray for God to hear from heaven and heal our land. May corruption be removed, and may truth be made known and set us free.

Edmond the Hun