Monday, August 16, 2004
“… Tremendous breakthrough”, says ACLU spokes-person. “This case represents a giant leap in the right direction.”
Exact details are sketchy, but what is known is that a woman, known only as “Jane Doe” gradually fed her two day old baby into a food processor.
In arguments before the court, Ms. Doe’s lawyer, Mr. Sharq, argued that the alleged murder was in fact an abortion. Mr. Sharq noted that Ms. Doe had not wanted the pregnancy, but didn’t know that federally funded abortions were her right as a woman. As she did not have enough money to pay for an abortion, she had been forced to bear an unwanted child. The lawyer then focused on the legality of abortions, centering on the viability of the fetus.
Noting that in the Roe v Wade decision the Supreme Court had left the ultimate determination of the viability of the fetus up to the doctor, Mr. Sharq then called in a pediatrician as expert witness. The pediatrician, responding to Mr. Sharq’s pointed questions, admitted that a new-born baby was just as helpless as a fetus. Elaborating, he acknowledged that a new-born was just as dependent on the mother for survival immediately after birth, as before. With the term “viability” hinging on survivability outside the womb, the pediatrician commented that a baby wasn’t able to survive “on its own…” until it was able to feed itself. A newborn, not being able to feed itself, would not survive outside the womb on its own, and was therefore not viable. In summation, Mr. Sharq said, “So, a new-born is in actuality simply a post-uterine fetus, and a non-viable one at that.” Turning to the judge, he continued, “A non-viable fetus is subject to abortion, under the laws of this land.”
The court then focused on the grisly manner in which Jane Doe had disposed of her baby. In testimony, Ms. Doe asserted that she had only heard of two methods of abortion, suction and D&C. When vacuuming the baby did not have the desired result, she resorted to D&C, or chopping the baby into little pieces.
The court dismissed the charges. The judge, in the written opinion, noted that “in court case after court case the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy has been upheld as an interpreted constitutional right. As the natural result of pregnancy is a child, it can be argued that the prevention of an unwanted child is implied. Further the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a fetus is a human being entitled to protection under the Constitution. It has been here established that a new-born is simply a post-uterine fetus. As such it has no standing under the law, and no crime has been committed. May God help us all.”
In a related story, you will no doubt be fascinated to learn that in Santa Clara County v The Southern Pacific Railroad(1886) the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a “person” under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is Unconstitutional to pass laws applied specifically to corporations and not to flesh and blood persons, as such laws deny corporate “persons” civic equality. (Conlin, The American Past, A Brief History. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Copyright 1991)
I originally wrote this in 1991 in a joke newspaper I ran called The Global Exclaimer and which I printed and mailed out to my nine subscribers (all family). When I printed it in my first blog, the Glob Blog in 2004, people freaked out. I saw it as simply the end point of the whole abortion mentality in 1991, and in 2004 we had the ghastly horror of partial birth abortion. Just to be clear what is meant by this procedure, labor is induced in the mother of the child and when the baby is partially birthed, and the (witch) doctor has the baby’s head in his or her hands, they ram a scissors or scalpel into the back of the baby’s head and kill the child. I pointed out that this fiction of “partial birth” to get around the fact that they were simply killing a baby was only the final step toward just killing babies after they are born.