liveblogging gonzales v. carhart

sure, some may liveblog the oscars or the gonzales hearings, but let's find out what happens when SCOTUS justices stop being polite and start "following precedents."

p. 3-9: gross, AMK! even if i believe your claim that "The Act proscribes a particular manner of ending fetal life, so it is necessary here...to discuss abortion procedures in some detail," let's try to stay away from unnecessarily inflammatory descriptions like "[A] leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman."

p. 17: wait, what is this? "The Act...is inapplicable to abortions that do not involve vaginal delivery (for instance, hysterotomy or hysterectomy)." why, it's still okay for the doctor to remove my entire uterus? all's forgiven, SCOTUS! ha ha!

p. 18: ruh-roh, i'm in trouble now...AMK has introduced my least favorite word in law, "scienter." what's the doctor gonna say if s/he's prosecuted, "yes, i totally delivered the fetus 'for the purpose of performing an overt act that [i knew] would kill [it]'"?

p. 19: this is becoming more and more mushy: "Doctors performing D&E will know that if they do not deliver a living fetus to an anatomical landmark they will not face criminal liability." then AMK goes on to tell me that this statute isn't vague! it has a mens rea requirement! uh...say what? are eyebrows up or down? omg westen, i hate you.

p. 20: i'm getting kind of bored. AMK repeatedly mentions "anatomical landmarks" when i know he just wants to keep writing about the va-jay-jay. where is the florid, soft-focus AMK of casey v. planned parenthood? c'mon, whisper sweet nothings like "[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt" to me.

p. 28: oooh yes, AMK: "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child." ooooh, say it again. and while you're at it, turn on the sade.

p. 29: say what, AMK? "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained." you can't say with a straight face that outlawing intact D&E is going to prevent women from feeling some regret and/or ease the painful moral and emotional dilemma abortion poses on people in general, regardless of sex. but thanks for worrying for me? what?!

p. 30: the name of this act is an affront. let's call the procedure by its medically precise term.

p. 31: "[w]hether the act creates significant health risks for women has been a contested factual question." don't patronize me, AMK. have you even read your amicus briefs? like the one from the ACOG? hmm...let's see here:
"Over 95% of induced abortions in the second trimester are performed using the D&E method. The alternatives to D&E in the second trimester are abdominal surgery or induction abortion. Doctors rarely perform an abortion by abdominal surgery because doing so entails far greater risks to the woman. The induction method imposes serious risks to women with certain medical conditions and is entirely contraindicated for others."

part V: oh wait, you left me room to mount an as-applied challenge to this Act? i don't know a whole lot about medicine, but what are the options here? a letter to the nytimes editor says it better than i: "

This ruling puts the few doctors willing to perform abortions in an impossible position. In the rare situation where a doctor determines in his best medical judgment that a dilation and extraction is the safest procedure for his patient, how is the doctor to choose between obeying the law and respecting his personal and professional commitment to protect the health of his patient?

For a doctor who confronts that dilemma, it will surely be cold comfort that the court has left the door open for an “as applied” challenge to the law.

whew! now i'm exhausted and i don't have the energy to read batman & robin's concurrence. i'm sure it's something along the lines of "screw you, [penumbra theory/constitutional right to privacy/living constitution]." choose your own originalist adventure, reader!

ginsburg writes a passionate and urgent dissent.

there you have it folks. it's a convoluted opinion, of which i've yet to make sense for myself regardless of how many people are urging me to sound the alarms. i will say this much: i don't think much will hold this court back from chipping away on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. and i shant forget the requisite shout-out to o'connor: thanks a lot.

and as jon stewart once told us, jesus + fetus = SCOTUS.