Skip to main content

Further Proof that Judges are Not Good Scientists

I recently cited a US Supreme Court decision to indicate that judges often do not make good scientists. Two cases do not a certainty make, but the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals went a great way toward substantiating my theory today.


The State of South Dakota appeared in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
today to defend its requirement that a doctor remind a woman prior to her receiving an abortion of the following:

  1. That abortion takes a human life
  2. That women have a right to continue the pregnancy
  3. That abortion may cause psychological harm to the mother
It might have been billed as an excellent waste of time brought on by the bullying of Planned Parenthood--who sees its main livelihood reduced as more and more women become more contemplative--simply because it can. Remind me again how Planned Parenthood has any standing in this case?

But then the following conversation ensued (a recording of which I heard on the CBS radio news at 6:00 PM mountain time this evening):

Chief Justice Loken: This compels the preaching of ideology.

Assistant Attorney General: Sir, we don't feel that this is ideology.

Chief Justice (with great fervor): It's not science!

Me (with greater fervor): AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

Item 2 is a generally understood and agreed-upon tenet of political science, but I don't think that's the sentence the judge was referring to anyway.

Item 3 has been statistically and anecdotally proven to occur at least sometimes, but I don't think that was the issue he was looking at either.

Which leaves us with Item 1--which deals the non-science of ultrasound technology. Which deals with the non-science of reproductive biology.

The judge needs to go back to high school. And if he sticks to his guns that abortion cannot be scientifically proven to be the taking of a human life, then he shouldn't be a judge.

Comments

  1. The legal issues here are not as simple as you think.
    http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20030528.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right. I think he has a good point that feticide with an exception for the mother would be a good thing. The story of the mentally disabled woman who is pregnant because of rape is particularly troubling, but if she clearly cannot support the child and would be endangered to take the baby to full term and deliver it (which I imagine she would) this is a probably a case where the baby's life should be taken.

    However, my original point is that the science of whether a human life is being taken during an abortion is indisputable. I suspect (hope) the judge wishes he hadn't blurted out what he blurted.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...

One Sure Thing about Global Warming: Loss of Liberty

In all of my reading about man-made global warming, never once have I come across the statement that 'we are absolutely sure' that mankind is causing irreversible global warming by our behavior. No one has dared make this claim yet. The closest anyone has come is being pretty sure that something bad might happen in fifty to one hundred years if we don't act now. One thing that several people have stated (on both sides of the debate), however, is that slowing the supposed effects caused by man on the warming of the globe will require significant strengthening of governments around the world, along with a significant reduction in your freedom to choose. My religion teaches You may think, from this article, that I am having a hard time separating my views of church from my views of state. That would be correct. that there was a great war in heaven between two ideologies. The first faction advocated our Heavenly Father's plan, which was a blueprint for freedom of choice...