In Utero Laws and Double Speak
The US Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003. By a decision of 5 to 4, with President Bush’s recent appointees’ support, the court extended its power over the uteruses of America. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg boldly read a statement explaining her dissent, but the good-old-boy majority still clings to the illusion of patriarchal privilege in forcing their will on millions of women’s private parts.
To further insult the masses, vacuous crowing ensued from the White House:
Bush said in a statement that the decision "affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people’s representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."
He added: "The Supreme Court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life."
Sadly, the American people are getting their fill of "the Constitution does not stand in the way" in regards to the pursuit of happiness and health of current and future Americans. In fact, the Constitution is becoming less relevant in the decisions of the Embattled War Elephant Brigade.
As for "reflecting the compassion and humanity of America." Reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions in order to torture selected people goes far to reflect the compassion and humanity of America. So does the Iraqi war. Or the failure to provide for our idealistic, young, and fully indoctrinated soldiery the necessary equipment to their safety, or the failure to provide clean hospital facilities for the injured, or the failure to support the families of the fallen. Very compassionate, that fabled American humanity.
The above paragraph speaks also to the "progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life." Lying our way into an unnecessary, un-winnable war. Turning victims of friendly fire incidents into virtual Rambo’s to boost flagging recruitment quotas. Lying to the American public about the motivation for the war, about the progress of this war, about the consequences of this war: forbidding photos of returning coffins, under-reporting the numbers of casualties, injuries, psychiatric evaluations. The list is interminable.
Perhaps he should have said this:
"The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people’s representatives enacting laws. Reflecting the compassion and humanity of America is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in (undermining) human dignity and (devaluing) the sanctity of life."
But that would be the first honest thing he ever said since stealing the presidency in 2000. Why start now?