What's Truly Unconscionable
The LA Times predictably condemns yesterday's Supreme Court decision as "unconscionable."
What's truly unconscionable is that the newspaper would oppose a reasonable piece of legislation that both outlaws a barbaric procedure which is never medically necessary and which was also supported by 70% of Americans at the time of its passage.
In the Times' world, apparently, the Supreme Court solons are supposed to tell us that it's unconstitutional to prohibit plunging scissors into the base of a baby's neck in order to kill it. Hey, that's "choice," at least as the Times sees it.
Extremism at its finest . . .
What's truly unconscionable is that the newspaper would oppose a reasonable piece of legislation that both outlaws a barbaric procedure which is never medically necessary and which was also supported by 70% of Americans at the time of its passage.
In the Times' world, apparently, the Supreme Court solons are supposed to tell us that it's unconstitutional to prohibit plunging scissors into the base of a baby's neck in order to kill it. Hey, that's "choice," at least as the Times sees it.
Extremism at its finest . . .
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:39 AM
1 Comments:
Hyperbole ("unconscionable", "extremism") does little to advance public discourse.
The LA Times article strikes me as ignorant, since it overlooks the narrowness of the ruling and makes little effort to understand the rules the court applied and the distinctions it drew.
Post a Comment
<< Home