« Kerry’s Dishonorable Discharge On Memorial Day | Home | Flipper Flips Off Vet »
Activist Judge Performs An Abortion of Justice
By Matt Margolis | June 1, 2004
Abortion has never been about “choice”.
“Choice” is just the left’s championed buzzword for the abortion debate. It often finds itself grouped with “civil rights” or “privacy rights.” Somewhere, somehow, “constitutional rights” got equated with abortion too.
But it has nothing to do with any of these things. Today’s ruling by the Clinton-appointed, gay-rights activist Judge Phyllis Hamilton shows how perverse the equating of “choice” to abortion has become.
Claiming the Partial Birth Abortion Act “poses an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose” is such a despicable invocation of the concept of choice, but the left has been able to make the “choice” and abortion synonymous.
The people who think the act of a partial birth abortion is right of women clearly have no understanding of the heinous act, and those who oppose of the law claiming it violates “a woman’s right to choose” also must not have read the law.
I have.
Those who claim that there is no clause in the law that providing an exception when the health of the mother is in jeopardy are lying, or have not read the law.
The actions of this activist judge show how extreme the left has become, advocating a child’s brain being suctioned out and its skull crushed (and that’s only one gruesome way the murdering is accomplished). These are the same people who rush to the defense of lowlifes like Andrea Yates and Susan Smith.
Activist judge Phyllis Hamilton has performed an abortion on justice by trying to legislate from the bench. Abortion, no matter what method of it, is never about choice. It’s about absolving oneself of responsibility and it’s about liberal feminism.
If it were really about choice, why doesn’t the child, the life that is being threatened, have a choice? If the child is not a child while still in the womb, why is it that liberals think they’ve been given the divine knowledge to determine when life begins? When and how did liberals determine that the line that distinguishes “choice” from murder is between the three inches separating partial and complete delivery of a newborn baby?
This decision by the activist judge is an outrage. The political agenda of a liberal activist judge is not going be allowed to stand.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
June 1st, 2004 at 11:09 pm
I’m pro life, I oppose partial birth abortions very strongly. But I think that caring an unwanted baby is a burden and our society and government should be more compassionate towards women who have to struggle with that burden. Worldnetdaily isn’t the most reliable site for news, I heard about this decision elsewhere. I’m not really a big fan of the activist judge thing, I supported gay marriage so I think the judges are sane, but this judge was just going out of bounds.
June 1st, 2004 at 11:12 pm
* When I say its a burden and there should be more compassion I mean that there should be social programs and support systems set up to help mothers with their babies that would have been aborted, especially when its from rape or an illegitimate relationship.
June 2nd, 2004 at 1:48 pm
Actually Matt, the Supreme Court has stated numerous times that there is a protected right to choose to have an abortion. And there are constitutional rights to privacy as well. But you wouldn’t know or care because A) you are a zealot and B) you have no legal training. So leave the constitutional interpretations to those who are qualified.
June 2nd, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Just a hunch, but I don’t think you have read the actual text of the opinion, Matt. Can you specifically tell me what makes this ruling “activist”? The judge did not create a right to an abortion out of whole cloth. That right has existed for more than 30 years now according to our courts and there is ample precedent upon which to base this opinion. “Acitivist” does not mean a decision that you don’t like because it doesn’t fit in with your beliefs. Where in the opinion does the judge advocate the positions that you attribute to her? It would certainly be “activist” for a court to outlaw abortion right now, but judging from the post, I doubt you would have a problem with that. Isn’t it true that you, like many conservatives only rail against “judicial activism” when it suits your purposes.
June 2nd, 2004 at 2:50 pm
Here here, Eamon.
June 2nd, 2004 at 5:19 pm
My problem with this procedure is that by this time the baby is capable of survival. The practice of inducing birth but stopping half-way to kill the baby that would have lived if the birth continued is on the very edge between abortion and murder according to present day law. The inability of partial-birth abortion supporters to present a case where the life of the mother was in danger makes me even more uneasy about the procedure (and the partial-birth abortion ban makes a greater allowance than that).
Where is the line between fetus and baby? Pro-choice says that the line is when the baby draws it’s first breath. I cannot be so sure (lots of medical evidence to the contrary), and do not wish to condemn innocents to death for convenience’s sake.
June 2nd, 2004 at 7:30 pm
Cole, you missed my point. my point is abortion is not about choice. it’s about life and death. if abortion is “a woman’s choice” than murder is “a criminal’s choice”– choice is just a buzzword that has become associated with killing babies. Abortion has nothing to do with privacy either… while the left have succeeded in turning it into an issue of privacy, you will never find the word “abortion” in the constitution. do you have the right to abuse your own child because of the right of privacy? no. you don’t.
June 2nd, 2004 at 11:13 pm
Abortions have occurred almost as long as child birth has existed. Carrying a baby that is not wanted for 9 months is a great burden, and then having to raise him or her afterwards can completely offset women’s lives and their goals. I don’t think it should be illegalized if women are just going to have unsafe abortions with wire hangers or kook doctors. I think the choice is decided when a person has sex, abortions used as birth control disgust me. But there are also numerous cases where are abortions are done to save the mother or prevent the birth of a crack, Aids positive, deformed etc baby.
I think an adequate support system would have to be set up by government if it plans to illegalize abortion, otherwise abortions will occur illegalily or unwanted babies will be maltreated.
June 3rd, 2004 at 2:01 am
Abortion will continue if it’s illegal. As Miles said, it has and always will be around.
However, there are some instances in which a partial birth abortion is neccisary in order to save the life of the mother. Are all these mothers condemned now?
June 3rd, 2004 at 8:28 am
as i stated before, and is covered in the law, there is an exception for instances when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. if that’s the big issue pro-abortion people have, then they should have a problem because the law already took that into account.
June 3rd, 2004 at 11:19 am
Abortion isn’t going to go away. Neither is murder. Should we legalize murder because people will just do it anyways? A better argument than that one is needed to justify abortion.
I repeat the question: Where is the line between fetus and baby? Between a mass of cells able to be cut out and thrown away like a cancer, and a human being with all the rights and privileges thereof? Partial birth abortion draws the line when the infant draws it’s first breath and kills the baby just before that can happen. Do we believe that a baby inhales a soul with it’s first breath? What other reason is there to draw the line at that point? We know that late-term fetuses respond to various stimuli, have brain activity and definite muscular movements. Recent prosecution in many states for two deaths where the victim is a pregnant woman in the 7-9 month range shows that the legal system is starting to consider a viable fetus, one able to survive (albeit with medical assistance) as a baby.
Finally, Dred Scott was a binding Supreme Court ruling just as Roe vs. Wade is. Slavery was once legal. That did not make it right. Are partial-birth abortions morally right?
tweell
June 3rd, 2004 at 1:15 pm
Tweel, It isn’t the job of our courts to say what is “moral”. This whole post has gotten off tangent, with a discussion of whehter PBA or abortion in general is moral or not. That isn’t what the judge was facing. She was to rule if it was constitutional or not. That’s what she did. No one, especially not Matt, has been able to answer what is “Activist” about this judge’s ruling.
June 3rd, 2004 at 3:08 pm
How come they’re “activist” judges if they side with a liberal point of view, but not if they support a conservative view? (i.e.- The Supreme Court in the 2000 election.) Are they de-activist judges? As far as the whole abortion thingee, I guess the author supports abortion as long as herself and her rich friends can fly down to Mexico to get an abortion. For the rest of us, our only choice is a coat hanger . . .
June 3rd, 2004 at 4:49 pm
“How come they’re “activist” judges if they side with a liberal point of view, but not if they support a conservative view? ”
Why are conservative books “surprise best sellers”?
Why is a Republican administration working so hard to bring the country to the far right? (as if the Democrats don’t do the opposite)
June 4th, 2004 at 12:32 am
Look, we the people of the United States made the laws and we make the laws. The Supreme Court is NOT always right. Was Dread Scott right? Was allowing the internment of Japanese right? Was choosing Bush right? (I think it was - YOU may not think so)
This issue has really divided my family. I think, that I do not know the exact time a fetus becomes a baby. And, I don’t think anyone does. The first tri-mester? what about a day before that? No - it is an artificially induced date. I don’t know - I admit that. But I don’t think you know either (can you admit it?) And, if none of is sure, absolutley sure that the fetus is not a baby - then how can we possibly kill it? It is really similar to the slave is not really a person argument that the southern Democrats mde before the Civil War. While in hind-sight, their arguments seem ludicrous to us -it was not perceived that way then. I just don’t want to find out that I was wrong someday after untold babies have been slaughtered.
June 4th, 2004 at 12:36 am
Hmm. So, a judge isn’t about morality, are they? Well, here I thought that murder, theft, guilt, innocence, etc. was dealt with by them. It’s a good thing I’ve been informed otherwise. All right then, a court’s main function is Justice - it says so right on the wrapper. Where is there justice for the unborn? Who will speak for those who cannot? Is it Just that these babies be killed before they can draw breath?
Now you abandon even trying for the high ground and concentrate on one word in the blog (albeit a repeated one), ‘activist’. Well, according to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition is “A doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.” Well, I do believe this judge fits the definition by this and other rulings she has laid down. Anything else?
June 4th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
The day the liberal whiners defend a woman’s right to CHOOSE to arm herself to protect her already-born children, is the day I’ll listen to the rest of what they might have to say.
June 4th, 2004 at 12:46 pm
Oops. Sorry forth double post there.
Furthermore, if a woman makes it to her third trimester, isn’t that evidence enough that she already CHOSE to carry the baby to term? Much like Johnny Weathervane Kerry, they want the right to choose AGAIN, only differently than their first choice.
June 4th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Tweell, no a judge is NOT about morality. Please learn something about our legal system. The items you mentioned may be based on a moral view, but the judge can’t rule based on his or her moral beliefs. It is possible for something to be legal, but not moral, or moral but not legal and of course, we have different views about what is moral. For example, gambling is legal in some places, but there are those who find it immoral. Alcohol is legal too in most places for most people, but many find that immoral too. A judge in this circumstance is NOT supposed to decide what is moral, but rather, whether it violates the Constitution or established case law.
Finally, your webster’s definition is inappropriate here, as it’s the wrong kind of “activism”. The dictionary definition you used refers to activism of the “street” kind, protests, petitions and the like. The host of this blog was referring to judicial activism, which is soemthing entirely different. It generally refers to judges who “make laws from the bench”, and there isn’t any evidence that this judge did that. I have actually read the opinion, unlike you and Matt and can’t find that here. All she did was apply the exising case law to the facts of this case, which is what a good judge should do.
June 4th, 2004 at 1:17 pm
Tweel, I say again, Judges are not supposed to rule based upon what is moral. That isn’t their job. While some of our laws clearly have a moral basis, it is up to the judge to rule based upon law as applied to the facts of the case. It is highly possible for something to be legal but not moral, at least in a judge’s opinion. For example, gambling is legal in many places but many people find it immoral. A judge cannot simply outlaw gambling based upon a feeling of moral outrage however.
June 4th, 2004 at 6:29 pm
Earnon, Is this not a question of the status of the fetus/baby? If it is not a baby, then it has no rights. If it is a baby then it has rights that superceed the mothers (gee, that Harvard education works - maybe you should learn something about how our system works). Of course this is a moral/metaphysical decision.
The United States Supreme Court at one time decided that Dread Scott was not a human being. So, he was not entitled to the freedoms available to an American citizen. Does that not seem absurd to you? It does to me. A legal question? Yes. But a legal question based upon the metaphysical definitions of what a human being is. Is a negro human? Is a second tri-mester fetus human? Are Japanes citizens citizen enough to not be locked up while German and Italian citizens are? Courts make this kind of decision all the time when the rule on FACTS. Courts rule on FACTS and LAWS. But, a mistaken fact ruling can null a valid law ruling. Yes, no? Please elaborate with your enormous brain and vast knowledge.
June 5th, 2004 at 3:47 am
I am impressed with your evasions, eamon. I am not impressed with your arguments. JUSTICE! That is the first and highest calling of the courts. Justice and morals are inextricably entwined, and your claiming otherwise does not change that fact. Check your dictionary.
Your examples work against you. Gambling and drinking are not legal everywhere, and not illegal everywhere. Why? Because the people said so, and made the local laws to suit their collective moral standard.
You seem to view the justice system (note the word justice?) as something to be gamed, where there is no wrong or right, just winning or losing. That is a truthful view to some extent, but the founding purpose is justice, and people like you damage that purpose while professing to serve it’s ends.
So, you don’t like the Webster’s definition of activist? Too bad. It fits like a glove. Abortion is a controversial subject. Check. Blocking a law that limits an abortion procedure = direct and vigorous (defying Congress and the President? Pretty direct and vigorous - the Taliban didn’t do so well) and coming down on one side of the issue. Check and Check.
Seeing that this is the same judge that stated public school districts could have mandatory Islamic studies where the students had to read the Koran and participate in praying to Mecca at the proper times, as well as dress accordingly (Constitutional? Hah!!) her past definitely qualifies as well.
Partial-birth abortion cannot be defended on moral grounds, it is unjust to kill a viable child, and even on legal grounds it is shaky. Why are people being charged with two deaths when by their actions a woman over 6 months pregnant dies, and her unborn child with her? The fact that the child is wanted vice unwanted? Still doesn’t work, for infanticide is murder - we cannot have it both ways, for that is inherently unjust.