Kmiec Obstinately Wrong

Ramesh Ponnuru slams Doug Kmiec's 'latest folly' at The Corner:

"Let me try to clear up some of the confusions Kmiec perpetuates by way of a blunt example that a pro-life activist suggested to me. Without the born-alive legislation in the law, it would be legal for a doctor to take a pre-viable infant—one expected to live for only a few hours—and kill her by bringing a hammer down on her skull. Under the law, that behavior would be illegal. Obama argued that providing any legal protection to that infant would be dangerous and unconstitutional.

Kmiec argues, further, that it is somehow novel for the law to define live birth in a way that includes pre-viable infants. Not true. Many states define born-alive infants in the same way and provides the same protections to them.

One more thing that Kmiec gets badly wrong: He claims that Obama is "on record" thinking that the definition of "health" in the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence should be restricted. (The Court says that even post-viability abortions must be allowed if necessary for the pregnant woman's broadly defined health.) Actually, Obama is on record claiming that the Court's definition of health is much more restrictive than it in fact is. He is not urging the Court to revisit its jurisprudence; he is putting a misleadingly positive spin on that jurisprudence..."
(h/t ProEcclesia)

Kmiec just keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole, as pointed out at American Papist.

No comments: