It's interesting that the abortion industry has stopped trying to logically defend partial birth abortion. While dismissing Judeo-Christian values and traditions against aboriton as intrusive, it finds itself forced to stand solely on its own values and traditions to defend pba. From the Washington Post, October 1:
In a brief on behalf of several doctors challenging the ban, the Center for Reproductive Rights told the [Supreme] court that it owes Congress no deference on issues of medical practice, and that the administration's suggestion that Stenberg may be overruled "demonstrates an inadequate regard for the societal values held safe by the principles of stare decisis [past decisions, i.e., tradition]."
It is tenuous for the abortion industry to rest on these arguments alone. Sound law stands over time because it is based on logic borne of moral values. It proves itself healthy for society. Unsound law cannot stand over time because it is based on illogic borne of immoral values. It proves itself unhealthy for society. Dred Scott, voting rights for blacks and women, and segregation laws come quickly to mind. Does the abortion industry really want to stand on its 30-year share of American history to demonstrate the validity of its values and traditions?
