Friday, July 23, 2010

Abortionists Who Mock Viability

Anthony Kennedy is the fifth vote for Roe, and he likes viability.  So we pro-lifers are stuck with this stupid concept, on loan from Plato and baby-killers everywhere.  "She's not viable, she's too weak to survive.  So kill her."

One of the reasons the Supreme Court likes viability is that it's such a vague, unenforceable doctrine.  The doctor has a tray full of pieces, and he shrugs and says, "She couldn't have survived."  What would viability-enforcing cops do, weigh the pieces?  "She was a two-pounder, maybe she could have made it." 

Viability is a lie.  Nobody is trying to keep the baby alive, so the baby's chance to survive is nil.  It is this failure that gives pro-lifers an opportunity.  We can use the Court's own viability arguments on behalf of a new law.  It's almost impossible to prosecute a doctor for killing a viable infant.  But it's a lot easier to prosecute a doctor for not having an incubator in his clinic.

Our opponents insist they are not baby-killers.  We are told that all the pro-choice people--the Supreme Court, liberals, the Democratic party, the medical profession and half of America--care about viable infants and want to protect them.  Okay.  You do have an incubator in your abortion clinic, right?  Cause that baby might be cold.  And her lungs are tiny and undeveloped.  She really needs to be in an incubator.  If you want to try to keep her alive, maybe you should have the proper equipment.  You think? 

If a health inspector goes to an abortion clinic and they don't have an incubator, how do they keep viable babies alive?  What do you put him in, panty hose? 

I say, shut the clinic down.  That's right.  If you can't actually save the life of a viable infant, then you're disrespecting the viability standard.  In fact, you're dissing the Supreme Court.  How dare you!  Yes, we are shutting you down in the name of Roe v. Wade and Casey and the God-fearing Americans who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, you viability-mocking bastard.  Who do you think you are, running an abortion clinic without bothering to acquire the machine that keeps viable babies alive?  It's almost like you don't give a damn.

Now, I know it's an expensive piece of equipment.  Keeping a preemie alive costs a lot of money.  Okay.  Hospitals spend that kind of money, because hospitals are in the life-saving business.  You are in the pregnancy-termination business.  And you are certain, oh so certain, that none of the little squids you dispose of could have survived in a hypothetical incubator that you do not own.  You are certain, like the Supreme Court is certain.  "Oh, we never make mistakes.  We only abort non-viables, that's for sure.  We don't try to keep the baby alive or anything.  But we know we're right."  

Of course, since nobody in the room is actually trying to keep this baby alive, it's an artificial standard.  It's make-believe.  If you actually give a damn about the viability standard, Supreme Court, then you would allow states to enforce it.  Right?  I mean, "viability" is not just some rhetoric you use to save face.  Or is it? 

One thing we do know, if you actually want to keep a preemie alive, you need an incubator.  It's not my standard.  It's your standard, Supreme Court.  You came up with it.  

I'm just asking.  Where are the incubators?  How come abortionists don't have any incubators? 

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Hi Mom!

If you're on the Supreme Court and you're writing an abortion opinion, there are some words you want to avoid. For instance, don't say "mom". You don't say "mother" either but you really don't want to say "mom". If you say "mom" there will be gnashing of teeth and people will cry. Don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever say "mom" in an abortion opinion.

What do you say? "Woman." If you're really daring and provocative you might say "pregnant woman," but some people don't like that either. Ginsburg will glare at you. "How dare you call her a pregnant woman, she might not be a pregnant woman, it's her choice." For that matter, she might not be a woman, right? I mean, a little nip and a tuck and clip, clip, clip and she's a man, baby.

One day this "woman" word will upset the PC brigade, too. Right now it's okay. They say "woman" all day long. Don't say "lady." Oh my God, you said lady. Lady will start a shitstorm. Pregnant woman is borderline. But mom is verbotten. You say mom you might as well be a deranged right-winger or something.

Have sex with a man. Go on, do it, it's fun. Now, wait a month. Okay, now tell him he's a father. Yes, that will freak his shit out. "How did that happen?" That's when you give him a look. Or you can remind him. "You put your penis in my vagina and..."

If a man's happy about your pregnancy, what does he say? He says, "I'm a dad!" Happy moms and happy dads with their happy baby do not end up in Supreme Court caselaw. If you're an unhappy man, what do you say? "No I'm not. That's not mine. I didn't do it. I don't want it." You deny, deny, deny.

So when the Supreme Court refuses to use this "mom" word, what are they doing? They are denying your status as a mom. The Justices are denying your motherhood. You're not a mom. You're a woman. Maybe a pregnant woman. But you're definitely not a mom.

Which, of course, is a lie. You're a mom. And he's a dad. You might need a DNA test to sort out which one is the dad, but there's a definitely a dad. And you're definitely a mom. Deny it all you want. Shake your head and jump up and down and have a nice little feminist snit. You're still a mom. Might be a really crappy mom. Might be a horrible mom. But you're a mom, all right.

That's the whole point of abortion. "I don't want to be a mom!" But you are a mom. What you want is to go back to your previous status as a non-mom. You want to turn back the clock. You want to get in your DeLorean and set the dials on one month ago and put a condom on that damn idiot. That's what you want. Because he made you a mom.

Why does the Supreme Court object to this "mom" word? Well, it's warm and friendly. The Supreme Court hates it when anybody is warm and friendly. What this world needs is more cold and distant rhetoric. I mean, the Supreme Court writes an opinion, and then they read it and they say to themselves, "let me suck all the love out of it." And then they say, "let me suck all the humanity out of it." And then they say, "let me add some big words so I sound smart." And that's how you do it!

But the main reason we don't call an unhappy mom a "mom" is because we want to allow her an easy path to make maternity disappear. And one way to do that is to deny motherhood in the first place. In Roe v. Wade, the Court slips up and says "mother" in a few places. They don't say "mom." Nobody says "mom". But they did say "mother" once or twice. This was back before the Supreme Court got any hate mail. Now they say "woman, woman, woman."

If you're a mom, after all, you got duties. You got obligations. You got a baby. The Supreme Court says you have no duties, no obligations, no baby, and you're not a mom.

The reality, of course, is that an abortion, like a pregnancy, changes your status. A pregnancy means you're a mom now. And somewhere out there is a dad. And you got a relationship. Yeah yeah, with that drunk one-night-stand. You thought it was thrills and spills but it's actually a relationship. Go on, tell him. He'll deny it, too. "We're not in a relationship!" Oh yes you are. Hi, Dad!

When you deny maternity, when you deny paternity, when you deny the baby even exists, what are you doing? You're lying. It's a mindgame the Supreme Court plays with us all. Their use of language, their refusal to say "mom" or "baby," it is an ideological sham. It's a subtle use of rhetoric to dissemble, to obfuscate, to hide. The Supreme Court, like any lawyer, knows how to deceive.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Harry Loses His Mind, Part II

In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Harry Blackmun writes, "I remain convinced, as six other Members of this Court 16 years ago were convinced, that the Roe framework, and the viability standard in particular, fairly, sensibly, and effectively functions to safeguard the constitutional liberties of pregnant woman while recognizing and accommodating the State's interest in potential human life." In other words, everybody agreed with me 16 years ago, but now we have more and more right-wingers who are unhappy with my opinion. And that's ridiculous! Because I am fair and sensible and my opinion is effective, damn it.

"The viability line reflects the biological facts and truths of fetal development..." Huh? What biological fact? What truth? Why is viability important? He still doesn't know.

" marks that threshold moment prior to which a fetus cannot survive separate from the woman..." You know if you abandon a baby in the woods he's not going to survive, either. Babies are weak, man. And when is that threshold moment, anyway? Abandon a newborn in the woods, see if he makes it. Maybe he'll be suckled by wolves, like Romulus. You know that's a threshold moment. Woo-hoo, wolf milk! You can't kill me, I'm a Roman now, I'm surviving on my own. I'm running with the wolves, mama.

"...and cannot reasonably and objectively be regarded as a subject of rights or interests distinct from, or paramount to, those of the pregnant woman." Wow. He's claiming that the baby is a part of the woman--like a really valuable kidney, Laurence Tribe once suggested--and has no interests distinct from his mother. If she doesn't want him to be alive, the baby doesn't want to be alive, either. Cause the baby has no interests separate from what mom wants. If she wants him to kick, he kicks. If she wants him to stop kicking, he stops kicking. You know what? That baby's a slave. He has to escape his owner--get out of the womb, buddy--and then his humanity will be recognized. The womb is South Carolina, and an incubator is Maryland. Run! Run for the incubator! We need an underground railroad to get some of these babies into incubators.

"At the same time, the viability standard takes account of the undeniable fact..." I don't know what he's going to say next, but 10-to-1, I deny it. 100-to-1.

"...that, as the fetus evolves into its postnatal form..." That's the most bizarre description of a birth I've ever read. "Honey, honey, the fetus has evolved into its postnatal form! And it's a girl."

"...and as it loses its dependence on the uterine environment, the State's interest in the fetus' potential human life..." Damn it, I thought she was born. Once you're postnatal, you're pretty much a baby, right? Even in Blackmun World. How did she become a fetus again? What did she do, climb back in? And if she never left the uterus, that doesn't even make sense. How can you lose your dependence on the uterine environment while you're still in the uterus? Who's feeding the baby? I am so winning this bet.

"...becomes compelling." Compelling to whom? What if a state isn't compelled at all? What if California goes full-fledged pagan, and they start killing newborns? Using, I dunno, Supreme Court viability theory. What if you prove too much, Harry? You baby-killing maniac.

You ought to re-read your secret memo, just to remind yourself what you were actually thinking when you wrote Roe v. Wade. Because all your moral and legal certainty--no mistakes were made, it's undeniable, I am so right--is a reaction to the reaction. Pro-lifers say you killed some babies, and you, getting rather hysterical, insist that is not possible.

Maybe I'm wrong, you know? I admit I might be wrong. I like total brain death because all 50 states like total brain death, and I want us all to be happy. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not wrong on the baby-killing issue--baby-killing is evil, you pagan fuckheads--but I might be wrong on exactly when death occurs. Okay. I admit it. Are you willing to admit it, Harry?

If your opinion in Roe is so factual and true and reasonable and objective and undeniable and compelling, why are so many people unhappy with it? And there seem to be more and more of us all the time. These lying, false, unreasonable, subjective, denying and uncompelled people seem to be voting and sending lying, false, unreasonable, subjective, denying and uncompelled people to the Supreme Court. How does this happen? Oh my goodness, unreason is spreading. It's the dark ages. Unreason is riding on the backs of rats, spreading its filth into America.

Yes, that sounds sane. Somebody needs a bigger candle.

Monday, July 5, 2010

That Damn Right-Wing Media

Can you imagine if our media was made up of pro-lifers? I mean, abortion would last like a week. Mike Wallace would be ambushing Justice Breyer on the steps of the Capital.

"Partial-birth abortion. You're now getting the baby out of the womb and terminating her out here?"

"No comment."

"Aren't you concerned about infanticide?"

"No comment."

"Let me ask you about free-floating fetal heads."

"No!  No comment."

"We're aborting children because they're retarded?"

"No comment!  Get the fuck off me, Wallace, you fucker. Don't quote me."

It would be bizarro world, right? Man, that would be an interesting place to visit. The arbitrary memo that Justice Blackmun passed around would be considered a smoking gun. Hell, in our world, Bob Woodward discovers the memo and runs a story on it. In his story, this cracks me up, in his story Woodward talks to a bunch of legal experts, and all of them say, "Arbitrary, uh, that's really bad. That's, you know, unusual and bad. Like really bad. I mean that's really kind of unusual and bad."

On bizarro world, the heat is on, right? You'd have Senators calling for a Senate inquiry, issuing subpoenas to judicial clerks. "What did you know and when did you know it?" Some of the clerks would resist the urge to rat out the Court. "It's a privileged conversation." They'd be squirming under the spotlight. All of a sudden there's talk of charging them with obstruction of justice.

"Holy shit," says Geoffrey Stone, former Dean of the University of Chicago law school, and former underling to William Brennan in 1973.

"You did not see the arbitrary memo?"

"I do not recall."

"Did you not realize that an arbitrary point, without regard to the life of the unborn, would likely result in infanticide?"

"On advice of counsel, I plead the fifth."

On bizarro world, you know there's some liberal who's ranting about how President Nixon needs to be impeached. And everybody's shrugging and saying, "whatever".

I feel for you, liberal on bizarro world. I do.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Meet Obama's Science Czar

John Holdren.  In 1977 he co-wrote the book, Ecoscience.  Selected quotes:

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction."

"Indeed it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution..."

"Illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged.  One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption--especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.  If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.  It would even be possible to require single women to marry or have abortions..."

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child...might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.  Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems."

"The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"The United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources..."

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world..."

"Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force.  The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."  

Thomas Malthus was ranting about this stuff in 1798.  "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish..."  


Zero Population Growth

In the third paragraph of Roe v. Wade, Harry Blackmun writes, "In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem."  Oooooh, that's a suggestive little sentence.  Harry seems to be acknowledging the liberal obsession with controlling the number of people in a society.  This is an obsession dating back to Plato, at least.  "For in our state, population has a limit."

Harry also foreshadows the liberal obsession with carbon-dioxide.  Too many air-breathers!  If only we could get rid of some of those air-breathers. 

What the hell does pollution have to do with abortion?  Why is this "pollution" word in Roe v. Wade?  Maybe it's cause the world is dirty.  Dirty, dirty, dirty.  And we need to clean it up.  In a nice, sanitized doctor's office.  We will clean up our dirty world and keep those dirty people from reproducing with that dirty sex thing they do.  Humanity is so dirty and we must stop it!

Oh, Harry Blackmun doesn't write these sentences.  But as he puts this "pollution" word in Roe v. Wade, you have to wonder what the hell is going on in his subconscious.  It's complicated.  Maybe if we give them a right to abort, the dirty people will terminate their own offspring?  Maybe that's a solution.  We'll apply one of our famous balancing tests.  Bring out the ol' judicial scales.  Eugenics, bad.  Making unpopular racial groups disappear by force, bad.  But abortion is voluntary.  Maybe that's a solution?  It's definitely complicated.  Luckily, the Supreme Court has a plan.  A plan for us all! 

As the Supreme Court wrote in 1927, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.  (Three) generations of imbeciles is enough." 

Yes, let's all sing the Anomalies song!

What makes this complicated, of course, is the ugly liberal history of eugenics, which in Germany morphed into the Holocaust.  Eugenics is a progressive plan to force undesirable people to stop reproducing.  You could perhaps castrate them like a dog, or in the more refined 20th century version, force them to be sterilized. 

Buck v. Bell, of course, upheld a statute written by elected representatives.  Roe v. Wade is a bit more notorious.  Among other reasons, unelected people are now crafting our laws.  On the plus side, the Supreme Court is not forcing anybody to undergo an abortion.  Undesirable people can still breed.  But if you undesirable people decide not to breed, that's definitely right.  It's right, right, right.  Particularly if something is wrong with your baby.  Not that we're imposing our value system on the American people or anything like that.  We're just trying to do our little part to stop pollution.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Question

If there is one question a nominee for the Supreme Court hates, it is this one: "Is a baby in the womb a person?" All the hostility and anger and fear of Roe v. Wade are summed up in that one question. And it is a question that a nominee for the Court cannot legitimately duck, because no one on the Supreme Court has ever argued that a baby in the womb is a person. Yes, that's right, all the right-wingers sign on. It's unanimous. Even Thomas and Scalia agree that a baby in the womb is a non-person.

Since it's so frickin' unanimous, can Kagan honestly say the issue is likely to come up in the future? It's not like it's 5-4 on the humanity of the unborn. It's 9-0 against. Actually, mark it 19-0. Every Justice on the Supreme Court, implicitly or explicitly, have signed on to Justice Blackmun's dehumanization of the unborn (with the exception of Sotomayor, who hasn't had an opportunity yet to express her agreement).

You would expect, with this widespread unanimity, that the dehumanization of the unborn is a no-brainer, a softball, an easy question. But it's the opposite of an easy question. It's a damning question. It's the whole ball game. You know Kagan hates the question. They all hate the question. Because if a baby in the womb is a human being, then the Supreme Court has killed innocent people.

The Supreme Court held, in essence, that you become a person when you become a citizen. That is to say, when you're born. And you stop being a person when you stop being a citizen. That is to say, when you're dead. Birth is the beginning and death is the end.

Justice Scalia nods his head at this bright-line test. Birth! Death! It's simple. Who can argue that birth is when you start being a person and death is when you stop? Well, actually, anybody who uses his brain can argue with it.

Say that a baby, Sue, is conceived on January 1st. Another baby, John, is conceived on April 1st of the same year.  On October 1st, John is born 3 months prematurely and is rushed to an incubator. He weighs one pound. He's sickly, weak, and might die. Sue, meanwhile, is in perfect health. She weighs seven pounds and is ready to come out any day now.

According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, John is a person and is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. And Sue, who is older, and bigger, and stronger, and healthier, has no constitutional rights at all.

According to Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Alito, Roberts, White, Kennedy, Burger, O'Connor, Stewart, Powell, Souter, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Blackmun, that unborn baby in the ninth month must be classified as a legal object. It's required.

Now that should not be a unanimous opinion. I think many people would say that a seven-pound baby is more of a baby than a tiny 1-pounder. Cause, you know, she's bigger.

Of course it's pretty ridiculous to use pounds to measure humanity. What are we doing, buying meat? On the other hand, size appears to play a part in our compassion. Microscopic organism? Too tiny. Kicking baby in the ninth month? Definitely human.

Of the two, it's kinda bizarre to suggest the younger, smaller, unhealthier and less viable baby is a person.  But of course you have to agree she is, because she's a frickin' citizen. So what's really insane is to insist that the older, bigger, healthier and more viable baby is not a person at all.

You would think Carhart would blow this whole stupid argument out of the water. Unborn = object. Born = person. What's partially-born, the missing link? A partially born baby is like a minotaur to the Supreme Court. You're half-person, half-animal.

As all the right-wingers on the Court go into conniption fits about the homicidal uneumerated rights found by their liberal colleagues, you would think it would occur to one of them to revisit the issue of legal humanity. But it doesn't.

Why is this stupid argument still followed?  Because it's unanimous. Since it's unanimous, the issue never comes up.  Now, a unanimous opinion may mean it's an obvious point of law and only dummies like me are yelling about it. Or what it might also mean is that it's a weak argument that has gone unchallenged.

What do we know about an unchallenged idea? Well, you've never had to defend it before. You've never had to struggle with it. You've never had to think it through. You coast on your Ivy League credentials and your lazy assumptions.

Even more damning is the issue of bias. Why do liberals dehumanize the unborn? Because they want abortion rights for women. And the baby gets in the way. Okay, but why would right-wingers, the opposition, why would they dehumanize the unborn?

Again, bias. Some of them dehumanize the unborn because they are worried about their institution, the Supreme Court, and they want to protect it. Others have a strict jurisprudence and try to limit the Constitution whenever they can. They really don't mind the possibility of states murdering helpless and innocent people. "Go ahead and classify people as objects, we don't mind." Maybe they have a fear of being called an "activist." Personally, I would rather be called an activist than a baby-killer. I'll bet Scalia would, too.

Regardless, for whatever reason, no right-wingers in the judiciary have accepted the argument that a baby in the womb is a human being entitled to the equal protection of the laws. And obviously no liberals are accepting it. Thus we have a widespread judicial consensus on this issue. A consensus that is lacking among our people.

What this means, for purposes of a confirmation hearing, is that Elena Kagan has no legitimate reason to avoid talking about what all the Justices say is true about Roe: an unborn infant is a legal object without any constitutional right to live. Again, this is a seemingly unanimous, 19-0 opinion. Harry Blackmun in Casey even pointed this out, daring anybody to object. And nobody did. And since so many of our citizens are upset about precisely this aspect of the opinion, it seems fair to ask Kagan to explain the logic of the doctrine.

How do you define what a person is? Who defines that word? Is it an ordinary word that you look up in a dictionary? Or do you need to go to Yale or Harvard to know what a person is? Is it a legal term of art? Is there a danger of bias, of judges narrowing the word so that it doesn't protect people whom we want to discriminate against?

What do you think, Elena?

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

This Will Get Her Talking

General Kagan,

In Planned Parenhood v. Casey, the Supreme Court claimed that abortion was stare decisis now.  It has been decided.  And yet you are refusing to answer any questions about Roe v. Wade.  You claim that the Court will be hearing abortion claims again and again and again, and will be revisiting Roe again.  In other words, it has not been decided.  It's still a fight.

Brown v. Board of Education is stare decisis.  That's been decided.  No one's arguing that one anymore.  You are willing to talk about that case.  But your very silence on Roe v. Wade indicates that the Supreme Court was wrong in Casey.  It is not settled law.  

Empathy, Part III

Many abortion people, of course, don't need our empathy.  They're fine, no problem.  And that might be because abortion is no big deal.  On the other hand, what it might be is that you are detached from your feelings about what you did.  This might be why the most fanatical pro-choice people all seem to be Ivy League eggheads.  Really smart people can be a wee bit cold on the emotional side of the spectrum.  When's the last time Ruth Bader had a big, blubbery cry?
I imagine a lot of women feel kinda bad about having an abortion.  Even women who are pro-choice might feel bad about their abortion.  You imagine all the happy moms.  And you realize you're not one of them.  You're not a loving mom, and the father is not a loving father.  At some level, this realization has to suck.  And when you get pregnant again, for real this time, how will you feel about that first one?   
What do we do, as a society?  We don't talk about it.  And we deny anybody feels bad.  Here's Justice Ginsburg, in Carhart II:  "the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence:  Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from severe depression and loss of esteem." 

Yeah, cause abortion is just a routine medical procedure.  This is empathy?  Does Justice Ginsburg know every single woman who has had an abortion?  Have you talked with them, Ruthie?  Have you held their hand?  Or are you talking out of your ass?  

Here's a website, Madam Justice:  It's a website run by people who have had abortions, so that other people who have had abortions can talk about them with each other.  It puts me and my blog to shame.  Here are people who are genuinely distraught about their abortions.  And they are pro-choice, they are pro-life, they are all over the ideological map.  Emotionally, they are a mess.  Very upset women. 

This is humanity, and this is what humanity is like.  Messy.  Illogical.  Emotional.

How is empathy going to help the Supreme Court deal with these women?  "You have a constitutional right to feel like you killed your baby."  I want to give these women a hug.  What can I do for them?  What can you?  Nothing.  Cause feelings are feelings and you feel them and they're not even logical sometimes. 

My rationality fails me.  "It might not be a homicide.  He didn't have brain activity.  Under our death statutes..."  And she's just bawling.  What can I say, what can anybody say, to make her feel better?

I don't say anything to these women.  I can't.  It's too painful. 

Empathy, Part II

One thing you notice is that we don't talk about abortion much in our society.  Maybe that's because we don't know what to say.  Is abortion like a miscarriage?  Cause a miscarriage, I know you feel bad.  You were happy to be pregnant, and now you're sad.  I feel sympathy for you.  I can give you a hug, or buy you a card.  An abortion, on the other hand, you wanted to do that, right?  Or did you?  Already I'm confused.  Do you feel bad?  Do you feel okay?  Do you want to talk about it? 

I have no interest in making people who had an abortion feel bad.  It was legal when you did it.  And it's in the past.  Ain't nothing we can do about it now.  It's like spitting on somebody for killing babies in Vietnam.  Today liberals remind themselves to be respectful to the military.  But in the back of their head, they wonder, did you kill innocent people?  But it doesn't do any good talking about it, right? 

So maybe empathy drives us to silence.  We just won't say anything.  Meanwhile, we had 1.3 million abortions last year, we're having 1.3 million abortions this year, and we'll have 1.3 million abortions next year.  Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."  Rare?  How's that coming along?

Part of the problem with our silence is that young girls, innocent girls, are not prepared for sex.  We all think we're ready, at a younger and younger age.  And we have sex.  No big deal!  But of course once you get pregnant, you're little game of russian roulette is over.  It was so much fun being wild and crazy, but now we just made a little baby.  Oops. 

Maybe all our silence is one of the causes of our massive abortion numbers.  You don't want to say anything because of all the women who already feel bad about their abortions.  But as we maintain our respectful silence to the current crop of aborting women, we don't say anything to the future crop of aborting women.  Is all our silence making us a nicer, more loving society?  Or just a more repressed one? 

Of course, empathy doesn't mean you are pro-choice, or pro-life.  That's a political position reflecting your view on the baby in the womb.  (Or the squid).  We have asshole pro-lifers and asshole pro-choicers.  You know that's right.  Many of us nice people can veer over into assholery ourselves, if the moon is full. 

Harry Blackmun, like William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, was an empathetic guy.  At his confirmation hearing, he said the job of the Supreme Court was to "look after the little people."  And liberals go, "Awwwwww."  And pro-lifers snort coffee out of our nose.  As empathetic as he was, and he was a big ol' crybaby, I think it's safe to say that Harry forgot about some of the little people.

Of course, when an elite Supreme Court Justice says "little people," he's not actually talking about little people.  He's talking about you and me.  Big people.  We're the little people.  When you're a super-duper Supreme Person, big people become little people and little people drop off the map altogether.    

Is lack of empathy the problem, or is the actual problem the Supreme Court's willingness to play God?  You just imagine Harry Blackmun up in the clouds, looking down, speaking to 300 million Americans, saying, "I'll look after you from way up here.  Don't worry!" 

On my non-empathetic days, I imagine Harry Blackmun in the afterlife, trying to breast-feed 6 million babies all at once. 


President Obama has announced that he wants his Supreme Court Justices to have empathy.  Kinda like Oprah, except with a law degree.  Okay.  How do we resolve the abortion debate, with empathy?

First thing you do, is censor all images of aborted babies from the media.  Cause we don't want to upset anybody.  So no aborted baby in the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or ABC news, or CBS or NBC or 60 Minutes or CNN.  Even Fox News is on board.  No dead baby photographs.  None.  Stop it.  Shut down the internet.  Oh that rude internet.

And no dead baby jokes.  Outlaw all dead baby jokes.

"How do you keep a dead baby from falling down a manhole?"

"Stick a javelin in his head."   

You're upset, right?  I upset you.  I know.  Not enough empathy.  This is why Obama's not nominating me to the Supreme Court.  Can you imagine an abortion opinion where the Supreme Court told dead baby jokes?  No legal analysis.  No thoughtful opinion on our abortion jurisprudence.  Just a dead baby joke, a dead baby joke, and a dead baby joke.

"Why do dead babies have soft spots in their heads?"

"So you can pick them up five at a time."

It's kind of like Justice Stevens' little joke in Carhart I:  "A lot of ink is spilled today..." 

You know, empathy is good.  I think we should all work on being more empathetic in our private lives.  But since empathy requires you to self-censor and avoid saying what you think, it is a very bad trait in a public speaker.  We don't actually want a journalist, a lawyer, or a Supreme Court Justice to be so empathetic that they keep the truth to themselves.

Harry Blackmun, very empathetic guy.  In one abortion case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Harry says the Court "casts into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman in this country."  Man!  Even Sarah Palin?  One thing about Harry, he's a feeler.  He was Bill before Bill was Bill.  He's our Supreme Feeler.  Feeling across state lines.  Feeling from Alaska to Maine.  All Bill could feel was your pain.  Harry can feel your hopes and visions.         

Not being an empath, I'm not sure how this works.  Apparently the unborn are not transmitting any empathy signals.  Are you sure, Harry?  Yes.  Of course he's sure.  No doubts at all.  Women, on the other hand, definitely are sending out empathy signals.  "Help us, Harry."  And Harry's picking them up on the ol' radar.  He speaks for all women, their hopes and their visions.  Their dreams too?  Yes, of course:  hopes, visions, and dreams. 

How many babies did you kill, Harry?  "We need not resolve that difficult question."  Yeah, yeah.  And what a mean question!  I have no empathy.