Pro-Abortion Advocates Be Damned

As the nation and the media recover from Virginia Tech and Imus, a little Supreme Court ruling finally went the conservative way this week, with little media fanfare:

Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

and was Ruth Bader Ginsburg STEAMED:

"In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'
"She called the ruling 'alarming' and noted the conservative majority 'tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases' by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists."

How about the assumption in this dissent that abortion only affects women's lives? Where did Ginsburg come up with the gall to say that? Or even think it, for that matter? CNN's sub-headline reads "Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent" - and then, immediately, again emphasizes that Ginsburg is "the only woman on the high court"...as if she's more qualified to voice an opinion on this subject because she's a woman. Sorry, CNN, but I have to point out: many women disagree with Ginsburg.

A reminder from one of my earlier posts on abortion:

1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - ...If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER.

This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully now, the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade will be revisited altogether - and here are two quick reasons why this should take place:

1) The premise of the case was based on a lie. "Jane Roe" initially claimed she was gang-raped - this turned out not to be true. Her pregnancy was the result of a failed relationship.
2) That same "Jane Roe" now opposes Roe v. Wade

I'll be looking for loony lefty responses and posting them later...