By-by Bogus Health Exception<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Andrew Longman
 
Justice Kennedy feels remorse.  That much is clear.
 
He is trying mighty gymnastics to justify the Casey decision which he recognizes, now, has caused the death of millions of people.  He cherry picks every nice thing that Casey, ever said and delivers it with more family-values spiel than Mitt Romney doing his hokey gee-boy Casey Kasem impression.
 
Abortion is evil and partial measures are morally flawed.  That said, this decision sounds the death knell for Roe if, as the Supreme Court is telling us, if we will only row, row, row our boat loads full of "dialog" and proof that "yeah, it hurts the mother" faster.
 
In short, it is a treasure trove of "little bits" which are going to add up to one, cataclysmic, unsurvivable, tomahawk cruise-splat into Roe v. Wade.  Roe will never recover from this.  It's death by a thousand aneurysms.
 
I'll only mention one.
 
Health exception's gone!
 
If PBA-ban was to be upheld we expected the demi-gods to agree that the ban had upheld the bogus, "health of the mother" exception . After all, they are mullahs and to allow a ban they had to retain all made-up fatwas from the '70s.  Anaphylactic shock Batman: They didn't, like, do that.
 
…whether the Act creates significant health risks for women has been a contested factual question. The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their position.… There is documented medical disagreement whether the Act's prohibition would ever impose significant health risks on women
 
That guts it.  If you show, now, that there is documented and substantial disagreement, especially where the other side doesn't have studies to back it up, then the health exception is nixed.  They ruled in favor of PBA ban despite the fact PBA 'did not prove' 'health of the mother'. From now on, you've only got to prove that there is a state of 'documented medical disagreement' on the issue.  I figured that out all by myself. (Hi Mom!)  Then I read them say it:
 
The question becomes whether the Act can stand when this medical uncertainty persists. The Court's precedents instruct that the Act can survive this facial attack. The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.
 
So, it's a brand new day and a whole new ball game baby.
 
Memo to the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />South Dakotas: Time to pass those "all-abortion-is-illegal" laws right now.  And then jump up and down on the creaky bridge, in unison please. You know marching, Bridge Over the River Kwai style but with more pounding? (cue whistling music).
 
Creak.
 
And the Supreme Court thinks that doctors might, you know, get corrupted by all that killing they are asked to do.  They agreed with Congress that PBA:
 
…undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world."
 
No kidding.
 
Justice?
 
Chanting "Dred Scott, Dred Scott, Dred Scott" didn't absolve the Supreme Court from slavery.
 
Kennedy?
 
No matter how many times you say "Casey," Judge, it won't make it right.