Data Troll

Musings of a database designer, right-wing constitutional anarchist and overly idealistic schmuck.

My Photo
Location: Texas, United States

A middle-aged database designer, specializing in Oracle. I have a teen-aged son and Chinese wife.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Roe v. Wade from a Judicial Perspective

I haven’t posted for awhile and there is plenty of information on Iraq on the Iraqi blogs. I thought I’d put out something is a equally controversial area .

Roe V. Wade is unique in terms of the emotion it raises, based on the two extremes. Almost never does one hear or see actual judicial considerations. And, based on judicial concerns, Roe v. Wade is a flaming disaster.

Let’s put a cork in the highly flammable emotions involved here and consider abortion for what it clinically is. It is a medical procedure, not one (at the time of the court decision) capable of being done by the woman involved. The medical community is one of the most highly regulated industries there is. There is no other part of it that has been ruled a Constitutional right!
Even worse, abortion is normally a medical procedure of convenience; it is not a life-saving process (except in rare cases, which have always been legal). Does it make sense that there is no judicial precedence that makes an appendectomy a legal right, but an abortion is? What about heart transplants? Control over one’s own body? Fine; do an abortion on yourself without any help from the medical community.

Arguing minors have a right to have them without informing parents is ludicrous, as would be the only medical procedure allowed to be done that way! Also, arguing partial-birth abortions should be covered as an extension of the judicially granted right puts abortion beyond the specifically granted Constitutional right to bear arms (otherwise, I could have a M1 Abrams tank in my garage!).

Roe v. Wade completely ignores the constitutional component that actually covers this (and a great deal of other areas): the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Decisions such as Roe v. Wade make extensive reference to the ‘Elastic Clause’

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”

The problem with this argument is that it completely ignores the temporal nature of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment was added afterward and, therefore, it takes precedence over the Elastic Clause! Even if laws had been passed at the national level to make abortion legal (they have not been), this makes abortion a State’s issue; exactly what it was before Roe v. Wade.

Those that say abortion was illegal , that it was only done as a ‘back alley, coathanger’ procedure before Roe v. Wade were not around (or had no contact with the medical community) before 1973. In Kansas, the rule was ‘medical necessity’, which was very loosely defined. One doctor was well-known for listing the medical need as ‘depression’.

Was abortion openly accepted by the general community (medical and otherwise)? Of course not; but part of the ethical question I have not addressed is, should it be? Should assembly-line abortions be performed as a commodity medical function, not far removed from flu shots? Or should it be a last-resort option? Or not available at all? Should partial-birth abortions be allowed? That is the ethical question that has consumed so much. However, the judicial aspects are far clearer, more rational and should be the driving factor of the discussion.


Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Winners and Losers

Now that the election is over, here is my take on the winners and losers, in order of importance:

    The Iraqi People
  • As important as Bush’s re-election is to America, it was vital for the Iraqis. This will give them hope that they will be backed consistently on their march toward democracy and freedom. The enemies of that freedom can now be hunted down like the dogs they are, with no concern of electoral impact.

    The Middle East
  • This one probably won’t be obvious for several years but then, neither was Reagan’s effort against the Soviet bloc. Freedom and democracy is the long-term answer there, an answer only Bush was brave and visionary enough to undertake.

    Freedom of Speech
  • The independent blogosphere played a key role after the Imperial News Media went completely over to the Dark Side immediately following the war (see Losers below). The blogs of free thinkers are now known, by much of the public, to be sources of more reliable and timely information than the IMN. Soros’s and Michael Moore’s attempt to bludgeon the campaign with their socialist, elitist millions was met by more cost-effective, impactful efforts by conservative 527s. Whether you agree with the Swift Boat people or not, they proved more effective than the radicals at (whose Web site was not reporting the election as of today). My kudos to the Swiftees; they again served their country honorably (even if I felt they were a bit over-the-top on some things).

    The American People
  • Consistent leadership in a time of war (and we are in World War III) is essential. I could go on for pages on this, but it has been covered by others better than I can.

    The Republican Party (short-term)
  • They picked up seats in both houses and crippled the Democrats for the next session by eliminating leaders like Frost and Daschle.

    The Democrat Party (long-term)
  • I am not kidding on this one. Getting rid of Daschle and Frost clears some of the impediments of them actually coming up with viable left-leaning strategy and tactics for the 21st century. People like Obama and the Queen Bitch junior Senator from New York will need to get past the old labor union and ‘turn-out the minorities, then ignore them’ model that worked in the decades from the 30s to Reagan era. They need to actually come up with some modern, workable ideas (and folks; gay marriage ain't it!); hopefully, somebody will realize this soon among the Democrats. The Republicans are headed for the flabby, status-quo-defending degeneracy any party falls into when the competition is consistently weak; for the good of this country, we need two viable competitors.

    Usama Bin Laden and Islamic Terrorism
  • Nobody is selling life insurance to them these days, especially in Fallujah. Usama came out almost as a whiner. He’ll be whining a lot more soon (if he’s able).

    The Imperial News Media
  • The Imperial News Media pulled out all stops trying to swing this election to Kerry. They didn’t event try to maintain a veneer of objectivity, violating their own journalistic code repeatedly in an attempt to get their way. The last straw to me was the release after the election of the full Bin Laden transcript; if that had come out with the rest, Kerry would have been slaughtered. Of course, it did leak out to the blogworld before the election, but not that widespread.
    The most ludicrous was Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who could not be seen for all of the last few months without a backdrop of sign-waving Kerry supporters. CBS was subtle compared to this cartoon character; he should be canned, except I’m certain he was following direction from the higher-ups who totally skewed the network hard-left about four months before the election.

    ‘Old’ Europe
  • Between the election and the Food-for-Oil scandal, they’ve been even further emasculated from where they were. They can’t even hold the EU together; no one looks to them for any kind of leadership.