Pro-abort hardliners aren’t all who oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Some pro-life hardliners do as well.
From Alan Keyes, April 28:
… I cannot join in, or even understand, the approbation which others have expressed for this decision. It is in fact an abominable affirmation of the Court’s unconstitutional decisions in Roe and Casey. With grotesquely meticulous care, the man whose pivotal vote preserved so-called abortion rights in the Casey decision (Justice Kennedy) carves out an exception intended to prove and strengthen the rules set forth in Roe and Casey….
As my good friend Judie Brown put it recently… Kennedy played the part of a skillful gardener, cutting back the evil planted by Roe/Casey in order to strengthen and extend its roots, hoping no doubt to make it harder to overturn in any subsequent ruling. While allowing for a state interest in restricting one brutal way of murdering the nascent child, he makes it clear that this restriction is tolerable under Roe/Casey only because abortionists still have access to other equally brutal modes of killing.
At one point, with what seems like dogged satisfaction, Kennedy describes such an alternative in almost clinical detail….
This reminds me of the careful logic that I’m told is often characteristic of serial killers, psychopaths who follow arcane rituals in order to distinguish their killings from anything so profane as ordinary murder. In like fashion, Kennedy makes clear that the abortionists who rip the child limb from limb while it is still within the womb are doctors helping a woman to exercise her “right to choose” – while those who mangle the child when it has emerged past a certain point are violators, subject to the restrictive force of law. Though the child is in principle the same person in both situations, the Court’s glassy-eyed observance of its own fanatically arcane and ritualistic logic is supposed to establish some invisible line of demarcation separating one act of murder from the next.
This decision is not a harbinger of hope for an end to the Court-imposed reign of terror in the womb. It is evidence of a legal elite gone mad, hopelessly lost in the maze of its own psychopathic logic.
From Pastor Bob Enyart, April 24:
Our Christian leaders have mislead millions into thinking this ban would prevent at least some abortions. In reality, pro-lifers volunteered, they made phone calls, and gave money, all to promote a ban that utterly lacked the authority to save even a single baby. Sadly, our leaders are not wiser than that. Rank-and-file pro-lifers were never told that this ban had no ability to actually save a child, and instead was a public relations event “to keep the issue in the news.”
Even the justices themselves wrote… “The question is whether the Act… imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term… abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle…”
The opinion… is repeatedly vulgar in its affirmation of the brutal tearing apart of living unborn children…. [F]or the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled that, “the removal of a small portion [such as 'of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg,' first pulled outside of the mother, as far as up to the navel] of the fetus is not prohibited.”
Here’s another like-minded opinion.
Pro-life hardliners view any prohibition of abortion as sanctioning all else. I have many reasons for supporting the PBA ban, both ideological (incrementalism works) and actual (as I stated in a column, “We cannot overlook one human atrocity for fear of being outsmarted with another.”). It also should be a red flag when pro-aborts and pro-lifers agree on the same abortion ruling.
But I have many good friends who disagree with me strongly on the topic of incrementalism. And I am concerned Alan Keyes’ assertion that the PBA decision might actually have codified Roe.