Outrageous Abortion

Where does Judith Warner get off writing in The New York Times about late-term abortion like she knows something about it. Her graphic description in her op-ed today of dilation and extraction procedure, banned by the Supreme Court, was unnecessary and completely misses the point. Yes, abortions are gross. I mean, to hear tell, so is childbirth. And, come to think of it, most medical procedures, if described, are probably pretty damn disgusting, fetus or no fetus.

But neither the men on the Supreme Court who voted in an egregious way, nor pictures of aborted fetuses or any of Warner's rhetoric changes the fact that nobody, and especially not the government, should be dictating a woman's private medical decision.

Now, if we start having Supreme Court cases on vasectomies (after all, that's ending lots of potential life, is it not?) or whether some old geezer should get an RX for Viagra, then maybe the old guys on the Supreme Court would have a different point of view. But since women are still the only ones saddled with pregnancy, it is they who have to live with their decisions. Not Judith Warner, who is affronted with the Obstetrics and Gynecology trade journal that treats the Supreme Court decision with a "mocking tone." Well, how's this for an affront: a doctor who is criminalized for a medical procedure done in 1/2 of one percent of all abortion cases? A woman who must deal with an abortion of a wanted pregnancy due to a horrible birth defect, or forgo a procedure necessary for her health because a bunch of old guys said they didn't like it, it's gross. That's not gross. That's life.