Justice Breyer Molested as a Child

"When I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day. . . and people did sometimes stick things in my underwear."

Justice Breyer misspeaks during Supreme Court hearings in Safford Unified School District v. Redding, No. 08-479. Ms. Redding accused school officials of strip searching her in a search for pain killers. The school officials say their behavior was okay. NYT

I Was Loitering and I Didn't Even Know It. Courts: Err, That's Not Okay

Stonewall , by David Carter (2005). Shocking. So is NY Law. Did you know you are not allowed to be [sic] according to the law? Don't worry, that part of the code was struck down by a 4 to 3 margin of the Court of Appeals of New York in 1973. Yah, 3 judges dissented. Thought making it illegal to just be was okay. You actually have to explain to the police officer why you are in order for it not to be a crime. They call this crime loitering.

That part they got in '73 was NY Penal Code § 240.35 (6). Section 240.35 (2) lasted another decade. That was the part about "loitering for the purpose of engaging in deviate sex". Once the consensual sodomy laws went bye bye in People v. Onofre, "loitering for the purpose" couldn't be that bad, right? So the Court of Appeals struck it down in People v. Uplinger (1983). Ha. I just found that it went to the Supreme Court (New York v. Uplinger, 1984). They held that the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted . So the statute remains down.

Next, § 240.35(7), "loiters or remains in any transportation facility, or is found sleeping therein, and is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of his presence," came under fire in People v. Clark (1987). The New York Supreme Court struck down the statute on 14th Amendment (due process) grounds.

see also Chicago v. Morales, in which the US Supreme Court struck down another loitering law in 1999.

Loiter: to remain in an area for no obvious reason, Merriam Webster.

To Stop Discrimination

School administrators and bureaucrats are so heavily invested in the idea of diversity that they will try an amazing array of policies to get around the ban of the use of race. John Yoo, UCal Berkeley (NYT)

The new US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in a string of recent decisions, has been steadily eroding American freedoms and expanding the power of federal government. Not surprising, considering he is a Bush appointee.

Notwithstanding, his latest decision was a win for racial equality. In a 5-4 decision, the Court has ruled that schools may not use race as an admissions criteria for public high schools and elementary schools. School disctricts in Seattle and Jefferson County had labeled students "white" "black" or "non-white" and used these values to disadvantage white students in school assignments. In the opinion of the Court, Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

A Response to Drazen

Has the Court Been Practicing Medicine?

In a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Drazen chastises the Supreme Court for meddling in affairs which he believes should be discussed and decided by "informed and knowledgeable people who are acting in the best interests of a specific patient" and not by blanket rules created by government and regulated by the courts.

Dr. Drazen points out the "disastrous consequences of congressional interference in the case of Terry Schiavo" (namely, that Schiavo's death may have been delayed) and bemoans the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart as an unfortunate foray by the courts into the realm of medical practice.

A careful examination of the Court's decision, however, reveals that it did take into account the physician's discretion and the best interests of the individual patient. The Court merely upheld a congressional ruling that once the head or at least half the body of a baby has been delivered, it too is a patient whose best interests the physician must also have in mind. The Court is not telling doctors how to practice medicine; it is performing its duty as set forth in the Constitution, to interpret the law and promote the general welfare.

While it would be unfortunate if this decision became a precedent for more intrusive invasions of government into medical practice, this decision seems confined to a very specific interest in preserving the life of our country's newest citizens. Doctors' practice of medicine remains, as of this ruling, outside the scope of judicial interference.

Abortion Ban Upheld by Court

Disclaimer: Abortion is a necessary and proper tool in many cases, and there are a variety of procedures used to accomplish one. The following deals with a specific class of procedure called D&E that is often used in second trimester abortions. Please don't let the details of this procedure bias you against all abortion in general.

The Unites States Supreme Court delivered a decision last week in Gonzalez v. Carhart upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Clinton had vetoed similar bills twice during his presidency, and Bush finally signed it into law on November 5, 2003 (you can just imagine his silly proud smile as he signed the thing).

The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.

Surprise! This procedure is not the one on which the Court allowed a ban. No, this is okay. The banned procedure is similar, except instead of ripping the baby apart as they take it out, they coax it out gently and then crush the skull. This is illegal if the baby is first partially delivered until "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother".

If I sound like I'm anti-abortion, describing the details of the procedure and all, I'm not. I'm just pro-life. Just kidding. I'm pro-abortion. No, wait, then I'd have to say I'm pro-choice, right? Talk about abortion and you suddenly get all these stupid euphemisms. Know what the pro-abortion organization that brought one of the suits in the Supreme Court was called? Planned Parenthood Federation of America. How is anyone supposed to know what they stand for? You might get a fund raising letter from them and donate thinking, "Yah, I'm on the pill and my bf uses rubbers, so yah, I support planned parenthood," and then they'll go and rip apart a little newborn baby. Planned Parenthood, indeed.

For the record, I don't have a strong opinion yet on the issue. I just find it fascinating the way different people approach the topic, with cool intellect or with all their raging emotions flying off the handle when it doesn't even concern them. If the issue comes before me for a psak, I'll render one.

Interestingly, when I first read the description of the half-born fetus flailing its little arms and the doctor sticking his scissors into its skull and spreading them and then sucking the baby's brains out with a suction tube, I thought it seemed wrong. How can we end that precious little life (my personal hesitations on the value of life aside)? But then I remembered that a life isn't just a cute little baby. That baby will grow up. An unwanted child. Cared for by a mother who doesn't believe herself capable of raising the child. Often, the unaborted fetus will grow into a criminal, making life more difficult for not only its mother and father, but also other innocent victims. The innocent baby is liable to become a monster. Does that make it right? I don't know. It's just a thought.