February 6, 2009

Weekend abortion round-up

Needless to say, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's decision to undertake the business of performing (constitutionally protected) "second trimester" abortions is generating the requisite local hoopla.

That torch bearer of progressive social justice, Patrick McIlheran, leads the way, reminding you that you will be facilitating the killing.

The always dependably and amusingly unhinged State senator Glenn Grothman helpfully informs you that you are in fact and deed a murderer,* and bellowing medium wave harlequin Charlie Sykes cries CULTURE OF DEATH!!!1 at the top of his largest and boldest fonts.

McIlheran, wisely seeking legal counsel, provides a citation to Marquette law professor Rick Esenberg, who advises the university "may" be violating State statutes. He admits he has no idea whether it is or not, but some people find tautologies compelling, I suppose.

This one goes something like: There is a law, and if the university is violating it, then the university is violating that law.

"Right-wing guy" McIlheran presses forward by calmly predicting that unlicensed UW staff will soon enough be assassinating fully delivered babies and bagging them up in cardboard boxes labeled "biohazard."

Following which one of McIlheran's devoted disciples wishes another blog commenter himself could be an especially late-term abortion.

Welcome to the family planning "debate," where existence is futile.

At least nobody's mentioned "holocaust." Yet.

But far more interestingly, where is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's rational antidote to Patrick McIlheran's barely contained ravings?

* Culpability by tax contribution, exactly the same justification as Osama bin Laden offered for the deaths of civilians on 9/11/01.

8 comments:

Rick Esenberg said...

McIlheran, wisely seeking legal counsel, provides a citation to Marquette law professor Rick Esenberg, who advises the university "may" be violating State statutes. He admits he has no idea whether it is or not, but some people find tautologies compelling, I suppose.

The reason I say "may" is that I have not untangled the relationship between the UW and this clinic or the way in which these abortions will be financed. Nor could I since the latter is yet to be made public.

But I don't need to do that to say, as a moral matter, that second trimester abortions that are not necessary to save the life of or avert serious medical risk to the mother are reprehensible. I don't want my state government to have anything to do with them. That they may be (wrongly, in my view) constitutionally protected does not make them any less morally repugnant. I have come in my life to know a great many doctors. They have been Democrats and Republicans; Catholics and Protestants; Jews and Hindus; agnostics and atheists. I have yet to meet one who would perform one of these. Some will but the fact that they are an infinitesimal fraction of those licensed to practice medicine tells you something.

illusory tenant said...

Of course I respect your moral position. I guess my moral question — at least in the context of abortion — is whether I get to make the dispositive determination on somebody else's moral question.

John Foust said...

I think what the Professor is trying to say is that once all Catholic thought is written into law, and the Eschaton is properly immanentized, Catholics will have no reason to gently lobby and moderate the process by misleading the rabid hordes with weasel "may" and "might", and then there will be no conflict between anyone's moral question and the law.

illusory tenant said...

Heh. Well, I don't know about that, but I think Prof. Rick is correct in emphasizing that one needn't be religious at all to object to the procedure. Still, respect for privacy precludes us from being made aware of the particular circumstances of each of them.

Pete Gruett said...

UW Hospital has been an independent public authority for decades. Its physicians are technically faculty in the School of Medicine and Public Health but the university certainly doesn't fund any clinical activities. Neither does the state.

The UW - Madison's entire direct role in this affair was the chancellor's one vote on the hospital board. I'm sure she wished she didn't have it.

Mpeterson said...

Isn't it simply illegal for taxpayers dollars to be spent on abortions? In which case, why the hoopla? Unless it's just rabble rousing to keep the faithful charged up during these dark days for the neocon Falangist faithful.

In fact isn't it the case that Wisconsin law allows 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions only when, to use Mr. Esenberg's own words, the abortion is necessary to save the life or avert serious medical risk to the mother? [I admit I'm going by memory on the state statutes so I apologize if I have that wrong.]

So, no tax dollars are being spent and no illegal abortions being performed.

Does the Professor find that those abortions which are necessary to "save the life of the mother or avert serious medical risk" to be non-reprehensible? If that's what they'll be doing in Madison, then what is he complaining about?

This simply looks like another media-Mullah pile-on.

hiho

sonyajk said...

You missed JS letter writers in your roundup.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/39237767.html

illusory tenant said...

Thanks, Sonya.

Linky.