Friday, June 25, 2010

The Commie Analogy

The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence reminds me of Karl Marx. Not because of any economic theory (if anything, it's laissez-faire). It's the use of ideology and rhetoric that reminds me of Marx. The Orwellian use of language to hide what is really going on, which is to say, homicides.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Anthony Kennedy co-writes an opinion that uses high-blown rhetoric. "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." He claims that abortion is part of "the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." And he says at "the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

According to this, abortion is a happy event. It's meaningful and mysterious, philosophical, even. You're not flushing an embryo in a toilet. You're soaring in the clouds! It's this kind of babble that makes Communism appeal to a certain type of mind. They skip over the censorship, the dictatorship, the shooting in the back of the head, the shutting off the borders so nobody can flee. It's equality!

Now compare the happy rhetoric of Casey with the brutal language in Carhart. Justice Kennedy writes, "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb." This language seems like it's coming from a critic of abortion. It's like Ronald Reagan talking about an evil empire. It's kinda bizarre that the guy who co-wrote Casey is the same guy who would go on to dissent in Carhart and write Carhart II.

If we are analogizing abortion to Communism, then of course Roe v. Wade is The Communist Manifesto. It's the blueprint, the basis of the ideology. Upon reading Roe, you see that our analogy starts to falter. Harry Blackmun went to great pains in Roe to avoid any high flown rhetoric about the rights of women. He was not actually impartial, or fair, but at least he tried to sound like it. (His later opinions were far more partisan). However, Roe v. Wade, despite the lack of feminist rhetoric in the opinion itself, is nonetheless the basis and the heart of an ideology. It is the abortion bible, a sacred object that cannot be overruled, for if it is overruled, all of womenkind will chained.

If Roe reminds me of Marx, it is because so many people passionately worship the opinion, and form an ideology around it. In both cases this adoration comes from people on the left, and in both cases it swirls around the idea of equality. Marx was obsessed with class and inequalities. Feminists are obsessed with gender and inequalities.

It seems to many people who do not share these obsessions that these leftists do not actually care about people dying. Or rather, they are willing to overlook it. The ideology is so important that the brutal facts are dismissed, ignored, overlooked.

Thus if Roe and its progeny are like the The Communist Manifesto, then an analogy for Carhart is that it's rather like The Black Book of Communism.
It is an accounting of death and killing done in the name of an ideology. The authors of The Black Book are French intellectuals and former Communists. So in that sense, they are similar to Anthony Kennedy. He signed on to Casey and affirmed Roe. He's a believer. But he has seen the error of his ways. He acknowledges, honestly and forthrightly, that babies have died as a result of Roe v. Wade.

"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he's going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out."

Yet we see that this analogy too is inapt. After all, Justice Kennedy still affirms Roe to this day. Anthony Kennedy, despite his open and honest discussion of infanticide in both of his Carhart opinions, has not actually abandoned the cause. The failure to repudiate Roe makes Kennedy's outrage seem hollow. It strikes me, reading Kennedy's work, that he more closely resembles some American leftist who is unhappy about Stalin shooting people in the back of the head. Kennedy is like a Trotskyite. Communism is right, Communism is wonderful. It's that damn baby-killing Stalin that's the problem.

Continuing our analogy, Dr. Carhart himself might be Stalin. Kennedy goes after him with a bat. "Dr. Leroy Carhart (is) a physician who received his medical degree from Hahnemann Hospital and University in 1973." Now you're going after his school! "Dr. Carhart has no specialty certifications in a field related to childbirth or abortion and lacks admitting privileges at any hospital. He performs abortions throughout pregnancy, including when he is unsure whether the fetus is viable." Yeah yeah, it's Carhart's fault. Don't blame us. After all, we went to the Ivy League.

Kennedy writes, "The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while it's limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with extensive parts of the fetus removed. (He) testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm. At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart's words, the abortionist is left with 'a tray full of pieces'."

So Carhart is Stalin. He's probably more hands on than Stalin, but Kennedy is definitely appalled. So it's pretty startling when you realize that Kennedy, Anthony Kennedy, Justice Anthony Kennedy, from Harvard, is the fifth vote for the procedure described above. You did it, dumb ass. This is your work.

Carhart allowed states to outlaw the D&X procedure, but not the D&E procedure described above. D&E remains a constitutional right, as decided by him, Justice Kennedy, and four other Ivy Leaguers. As Kennedy writes elsewhere, "The State's constitutional authority is a vital means for citizens to address these grave and serious issues, as they must if we are to progress in knowledge and understanding and in the attainment of some degree of consensus."

Well, take your time, buddy. No hurry. Progress! Onward! See you in twenty years!

No comments:

Post a Comment