Partial-birth Abortion Ban

William Saletan has an excellent article in/on/over at (internets confuse me) Slate entitled Never Say Never, The arrogance of the partial-birth abortion ban.

Three days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would review the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The announcement signaled a possible rescue of the law, which had been struck down by appellate courts. Pro-lifers rejoiced. Pro-choicers fumed. The press saw it as a possible turning point in the campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade.

He makes the case that the partial-birth abortion ban bill is too simplistic considering the complicated situations concomitant with pregnancies.

Because the justifying scenarios are exceptional, and because the rationales for the procedure are technical, the federal judge who heard testimony in this case [overruling the ban -ed] issued an opinion short on generalizations and long on details. His opinion runs 474 pages. It spends 57 pages reviewing congressional testimony over a nine-year period, and another 278 pages reviewing medical testimony at the trial. It discusses numerous health conditions which, according to doctors who testified, make partial-birth abortion possibly the safest procedure for the woman. It concludes, "The trial evidence establishes that a large and eminent body of medical opinion believes that partial-birth abortions provide women with significant health benefits in certain circumstances." Not all circumstances—just certain ones. (emphasis mine)

Now contrast the above with the thourough and detailed wording of the bill in question.

The ban's authors in Congress, like its defenders in the Bush administration, show no such humility. The nine years of congressional testimony that took 57 pages to describe in the trial court's opinion are boiled down in the ban's text to five pages. Every inconvenient nuance, witness statement, or piece of evidence is obliterated. The word "never" appears 10 times. "Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother," says the law, offering no details. "These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman." Who needs information when you've got informed judgment? Who needs sometimes when you've got never? (emphasis mine -ed)

I'll concede the trial judge might have had diarrhea of the word processor, but it is unlikely. Attorneys are taught to say/write exactly what they mean to convey. It took 57 pages to precisely explain the testimony.

The last two sentences belong to Saletan of course and show his snark and style.

Please go read the whole article.