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.