The Partial-Birth Abortion ban is currently on trial. Or, I should say, on “trials” – there are three separate trials, in New York, Lincoln and San Francisco.<\/p>\n
Judge Richard Casey of the New York trial is making headlines for his extremely biased and pro-life questioning of doctors<\/a>. The mainstream news coverage is pretty restrained; if you want to hear the disgusting details, you have to visit pro-life news sources, whose unending appitite for gore has them delighted with Judge Casey. (For an example, check out this post at After Abortion<\/a>, reprinting some pro-life reporter’s “trial notebook.”)<\/p>\n Well, fair is fair – after all, some of the other judges seemed biased towards the pro-choice side<\/a>. Whatever.<\/p>\n Whatever the lower courts decide, the Supreme Court will definitely find the PBA to be unconstitutional. That’s the current <\/i>Supreme Court, though. It seems to me that pro-lifers are hoping that by the time the Supreme Court examines the PBA ban, they’ll be dealing with a different Court.<\/p>\n So what’s important for the future of the PBA ban is not what’s going on in the courts, but what goes on in the 2004 election. Here are the options:<\/p>\n So that’s why I’ll be holding my nose and voting for John Kerry..<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Partial-Birth Abortion ban is currently on trial. Or, I should say, on “trials” – there are three separate trials, in New York, Lincoln and San Francisco. Judge Richard Casey of the New York trial is making headlines for his … Continue reading \n