Catholics - 5; The Rest of Us - Nothing

Well, as I warned in these pages a year and more ago*, the five conservative Catholics who make up the new majority of the United States Supreme Court struck today, in a ruling that follows straight Catholic dogma, in upholding a largely symbolic nationwide enforcement of the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion" ban.

[* In these blog postings, and others:

• 
  

Faith of Our Fathers and Justice for All



RED MASS or, THE DEATHSCORT AT THE ABORTUARY



CLASS WARFARE or, WHEN IS A WAR NOT A WAR? (Parts I and II)]

"So-called" because there isn't any technical medical procedure by that name. It is a classic Right Wing smear, like "Secular Humanism," a philosophy that only existed as a doppelgänger for Jerry Falwell to preach his message of an unforgiving and hate-filled Jesus—until some of the more feeble-minded and reactionary decided to adopt the moniker as a badge of honor.

It is as phony as George W. Bush's endless lectures about the "ideology of evil" that Al-Qaeda supposedly embraces, defined entirely BY George W. Bush as the continuing raison d'être for his ongoing war crimes and slaughter of innocents who never did a thing to him.

[By the way, the Virginia Tech slayings, horrific though they were, ought not to shock you, if you have a heart, or conscience, or any decency in your corroded soul: that is a NORMAL day in Baghdad, thanks to us. Remember, the day following McCain's rug-buying junket to the Baghdad market, 21 regulars of that market were kidnapped, blindfolded and executed, their bodies found north of Baghdad. How is that less a tragedy that the Virginia Tech slayings? But, as usual, the "good" people of the United States don't mind any atrocity as long as it ain't Americans being atrocitized—to coin a Bushesque turn of phrase.]

The one guarantee I can give you is that Chief Justice John Roberts will finally get his Skeletor-like wife to give him that blow-job he's been hankerin' after for all these years.

He's been a good Catholic prick. The 5-4 decision was written by Anthony Kennedy, who often votes against the Inquisition-style punitive viciousness that the other four Catholic jurists so dearly love: Antonin Scalia (who converted Thomas), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the aforementioned John Roberts.

I hesitate to refer to them as "Justices" for fear of making a bigger mockery of the term than they already have. But, as I said, the great victory of five white men in decreeing what should be done about women's bodies was a purely Catholic effort. All Catholics voted for it, even though it makes no exception for incest or the life of the mother, and all non-Catholics voted against it.

Did you REALLY think that anything else was going to happen? I warned about this, and, Cassandra that I am, the warning went not merely unheeded, but uncommented.

I bring it up here because I doubt that anyone else is going to notice that five "jurists" whose souls are, technically, in thrall to the former chief of the office of the Inquisition (no matter how PeeCee the retitling of the venerable and wormy office might have been) who was the "Enforcer" for Pope John Paul II, the most conservative and hard-nosed pope of the XXth Century—the antithesis, if you will, of the fundamental doctrinal decency of Pope John XXIII.

And they have delivered for Pope Joey Ratz.

I have news for you "pro life" pricks: We are overbreeding the planet. We are drowning in a sea of babies (that you don't seem to give a good goddam about once they're born) but you are more than happy to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, because YOU know what "God" wants.

That's why we've invaded Iraq without provocation, right? And that's why we've hamstrung the World Health Organization with "abstinence only" education in Africa as the only means of stopping AIDS, and why we've managed to make giving out condoms impossible for them (thus sentencing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions to the slow death of AIDS). Right?

Yeah, I think that as long as one dumps Jesus' litmus test of "by their fruits ye shall know them" you're doing a heckuva job, you moral shits. Here in Eugene, we have one of their segregated (from reality) schools on 18th Street that I pass often called, unselfconsciously, "Home of the Warriors."

Yup. Killing in the name of Jesus, that old oxymoron. But you can't terminate a pregnancy, because WE (who have no dog in the fight) have to uphold our version of what we have decided "God" said, no matter whether or not we cause pain, whether it is beneficial to the victim of our "Christian" lovingness, or whether we even have the capacity (as in the case of five Catholic judges) to become pregnant as a biological possibility.

Congratulations, you generation of serpents.

It doesn't mean much that Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382* (neither of which are referenced by most "news" coverage, by the by) are only symbolic victories. As the opposition notes (opposition to the opposition of abortion, who have oxymoronically painted themselves as "Pro life") the ability to perform abortions in the third trimester is hampered not a bit by the ruling upholding the banning of a non-medical procedure. "Partial Birth Abortion" was always a chimera, and a shibboleth. It was meant as an example of something SO horrific that no one could, in good conscience, support the notion.

[* download the full decision here, don't rely on the media to interpret it for you. Pay special attention to the dissents. ]

It was coined, hatched and fomented to create a clear fault line, to grab ANYONE sitting on the fence of "I believe in abortion, but not necessarily ALL abortions."

And, after an endless, decades long struggle to enshrine in law a fundamentally fictional ban on a non-procedure (a couple years ago, the hate-filled fanatical pricks of the "religious right" inspired by their role model, Lucifer, attempted to pass a "partial birth abortion" ban on the floor of the Oregon legislature, when someone got up and asked, "How many were performed in Oregon last year?" and when the answer came back "zero," the bill died a quiet death, aborted, as it were, by facts) after years of phony organizing, and showing endless gore-filled photos, supposedly of the cute baby seals, er, BABIES, victimized, a law was finally passed in the lunatic Republican Congress—since forcibly dismantled—and the lower courts dutifully relied on former non-Catholic Supreme Court precedent and struck it down as unconstitutional.

But they had not taken George "Son of Satan" Bush's court-packing into account, and so, by that narrowest 5-4 margin, precedent was reversed.

So: take it as a warning shot across the bow.

And recognize that all the "Red Mass" attendees have had their way, and Kennedy, too, who does not attend the medieval "Red Mass"—rightly in my view, feeling it inappropriate to his high office.

Meaningless, yes. A warning, as well. What was most frightening was that EVERY Republican candidate released a "huzzah" press release, and all the Democrats condemned the action.

That, IN AND OF ITSELF, is sufficient to guarantee my vote for a woman's right to NOT be treated as a brood mare, as a breeding animal by sick, celibate patriarchs with little humanity and less compassion. Here's the poop from the New York TIMES:

Mr. McCain:

Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.

Mr. Giuliani:

The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.

Mr. Romney:

Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.

[...]

Tommy G. Thompson, a Republican:

I commend the United States Supreme Court for upholding the nation's ban on partial-birth abortions. This decision sends a clear message that the United States values life and has no tolerance for this gruesome, abhorrent way to take a life. There is no place for partial-birth abortions in this country, and I am pleased the court upheld the law passed by Congress.

Note that at least two (Giuliani and Romney) had formerly been in favor of a woman's right to choose. But, the lust for power is sufficient that they've done a complete 180, which speaks volumes about their "trustworthiness," and "morality."

The only woman on the Court (the only jurist with any actual experience of pregnancy, in other words) noted this slim ray of non-Catholic hope in her dissent:

If there is anything at all redemptive to be said of today's opinion, it is that the Court is not willing to foreclose entirely a constitutional challenge to the Act. "The Act is open," the Court states, "to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case." ("The Government has acknowledged that preenforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act can be maintained."). But the Court offers no clue on what a "proper" lawsuit might look like.

—Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justice Harry Blackmun (the author of Roe v. Wade) wrote in his 1989 dissent to Casey v. Reproductive Services (the third abortion "test" case of the term): "For today, the women of this nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows."

That chill wind is blowing from Rome.

Courage.