2009/02/20 Friday: Abortion bill may invite suit

This was a B1 article about an anti-abortion bill.

"A bill that would increase penalties for performing an illegal abortion lacks [awaits] a final routine vote on an amendment before heading to the Governor's Office ... but critics warn the measure could lead to costly litigation."

Oh, brilliant way to show the weakness of a bill: fail to mention any weakness but warn of "costs" that people like you will incur when you challenge it in court.

How did we used to decide whether to pass a law? We elected representatives who thought like we did to go discuss its pros and cons.

How do we decide now? We determine whether any rich fringe group might find the law offensive or not so we can avoid getting bankrupted in court defending the law. If there IS well-funded opposition, we do not pass the law, no matter its merits or the desires of our constituents.

Stupid. We shouldn't argue legislation with threats of potential "lawsuits"; and if that's the best criticism you have of a bill, you don't have very much.

"Missy Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Council, points to language in the bill that defines a viable fetus as one that potentially is able to live outside of the womb as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

" 'The problem is that those lines don't say for a 'sustained period of time.' The standard should be a 'reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the womb,' ' Bird said."

So this girl, whose mother organization pockets many hundreds of millions of tax revenues and many hundreds of millions more in baby-slaughtering revenues, thinks it's wrong to legally protect babies who would survive an immediate birth, but who may not last for very long on their own. And who better to determine such survivability than Planned Parenthood clinicians, whose standard of infant care involves a trash bag and a dumpster. Why, in that case, not even babies brought to full term would be "viable", and could still legally be dissected and suctioned. Heck, even toddlers aren't "viable" by that measure, so out with their rights, too.

Oh yeah, let's ask Egghead McCoy, that moral beacon in the legislature whom all of Utah, not just the central liberal enclave, is so proud to keep re-electing:

"Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, questioned the potential costs of defending the legislation.

" 'This could cost the state literally millions of dollars to defend,' McCoy said. 'The definition of viability is constitutionally suspect, and while it's pieced together from other court decisions, it's inaccurate to say this language used in this context has been endorsed by any Supreme Court decision.' "

So it's not 'unconstitutional', it's just 'constitutionally suspect'... although it would admittedly be tough to have a Supreme Court endorsement EXCEPT by piecing together definitions from other court decisions. Kind of backwards there, Scott, but you're the best Salt Lake's got. O.k., well, let's not pass it. It could cost millions of the dollars we donate to the ACLU to prosecute, and millions of our tax dollars to defend.

"The American Civil Liberties Union's Marina Lowe said the organization will look at pursuing legal action if it becomes law."

Whew! Thank goodness for those guys, protecting us from those of ourselves who want to protect ourselves. You know, it's common conservative lore that one of the left's most well-used tactics is to frighten local governments and entities into submission with threats of court costs -- not because their laws or positions wouldn't stand up in court, but because they can't AFFORD the defense, and dare not commit fiscal suicide in such a battle.

It's sick, it's terroristic, and it should be illegal. What we really ought to do first of all is to pass a law capping the fees involved with consitutionality cases. People could still sue at will, and people could also defend themselves at will, without any undue financial pressure. And then there would be no more complaint against this bill, apparently.

Thanks again, Tribune!