Dear Editor
In Mr. Jenkins most recent missive, he stated that most liberals
are anti-God, Kerry supports partial birth abortions, Kerry would
support gay marriage if there were more supporters of it,
affirmative action is racist, liberals want to release prisoners,
that I assumed he was an angry white conservative, and that God
wishes he were Republican.
Dear Editor
In Mr. Jenkins most recent missive, he stated that most liberals are anti-God, Kerry supports partial birth abortions, Kerry would support gay marriage if there were more supporters of it, affirmative action is racist, liberals want to release prisoners, that I assumed he was an angry white conservative, and that God wishes he were Republican.
These are all, of course, fallacious.
I hope Mr. Jenkins does not seriously believe any of them. Let me handle just one of them in brief detail.
“Partial-birth abortion” is a made-up name. The procedure does not exist. It is a political name made for political right wing purposes. Late-term procedures even remotely analogous to whatever it might be are done so seldom that a thorough search of the records showed only a handful over a decade, and then only to save the life of the mother. No one that I know supports them in the gory way they are usually described.
The partial-birth abortion federal law was ruled unconstitutional within one hour of when it was signed. It has now been found unconstitutional by three federal courts after full hearings. The law is dead.
In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Supreme Court overturned a Nebraska statute banning abortion, deceptively called a “partial-birth abortion” ban.
First, the court found that the ban would outlaw the safest and most commonly used methods of second-trimester abortion, and therefore constituted an undue burden on women’s right to obtain abortions. Nebraska’s law banned not only the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) technique, it also prohibited the most commonly used second trimester abortion method, dilation and evacuation (D&E), of which D&X is one variant. Second, the court ruled that women have the right to choose the safest method of abortion throughout pregnancy, and that this right was violated because the ban lacked an exception for women’s health. As the court’s opinion states: “the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.” 530 U.S. at 938.
In Carhart, the Supreme Court made it clear that, under the Constitution, legislation restricting methods of abortion must be specific and must not ban the most commonly used methods. Furthermore, such legislation must contain an exception for the woman’s health. But the new federal law defies the Court’s ruling on both scores.
First, the law does not prohibit one abortion technique at one stage of pregnancy; it prohibits the safest and most commonly used techniques in the second trimester.
Second, the law contains no health exception. Its drafters contended that the banned procedures are never necessary to protect a woman’s health. This, however, was precisely the argument rejected by the Supreme Court in Carhart. The law is thus unconstitutional despite the declaration in Congressional findings that the legislation is exempt from the Supreme Court’s analysis in Carhart.
Any person who values the constitution would vote against the law – it was well known in Congress that they were passing a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, and were doing so to buy votes.
I am surprised someone as erudite as Mr. Jenkins fell for their ruse.
Thankfully, the abortion rate decreased dramatically during the Clinton years from 24 to 16 per 1000, after not decreasing during the 1988 – 1992 term. Unfortunately, the abortion rate appears to be rising during the current Bush administration.
If Mr. Jenkins truly is against abortion, maybe he should rise in praise of the only president in the last three who has seen the abortion rate lower during his term, President Bill Clinton.
Kerry has consistently spoken out against gay marriage. Affirmative action was an attempt to undo past wrongs – frankly, Hispanics such as Mr. Jenkins benefited greatly by it in the past. Maybe the time is now past for affirmative action. Neither liberals nor conservatives want to release prisoners. I have no idea if Mr. Jenkins is green, blue, or what race he might proclaim himself to be. He will have to answer the angry part for himself.
All those for president and vice president had the same stance on abortion and gay marriage, except Bush who wanted to increase federal power by taking away personal and state choices and giving that choice to the federal government. Even Cheney did not support him in this.
I would rather be on God’s side. I doubt if God is very pleased with either party right now, nor with us.
Mel Tungate, Hollister
