Miscellaneous

I hereby define "Seth" to mean "the greatest thing since slice bread"

Man, the Eight Circuit really fucking blew it on this one. Last week, Slate published an interesting article on the Eighth Circuit's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, a decision which will allow South Dakota's 2005 abortion law to finally go into effect. That law requires doctors to give abortion candidates a written statement which states: (i) that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;" (ii) that the woman has "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" which is protected by the constitution; and (iii) that "depression and related psychological distress" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide" are "statistically significant risk factors" associated with an abortion.

The Slate article is really worth a full read but, in a nutshell, the Eight Circuit's decision was focused on the "human being" part, since the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, explicitly found that a fetus is not a legal person. But get this. The South Dakota law defines "human being" as "an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation." And the Eight Circuit said that's fine, ignoring the fact that women being told they have "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" aren't going to go look up what the statute defines "human being" as. As Emily Bazelon, the Slate article's author, puts it:

The idea that a fetus is whole and separate will probably be news to a lot of women who have carried one. But what's more distressing, because the majority's reasoning is so strained, is the assertion that by defining a phrase one way, a state can erase its ambiguity and the variety of perceptions people bring to it. It's one thing to say--as the case law the majority relies on here does--that a statutory definition binds judges and their interpretation of language. It's another entirely to say that when doctors tell women they are carrying a human being, that women will think, Oh, right, that means only the long, convoluted thing that the state says it does. Most patients won't think that, because they won't necessarily define "human being" the way the statute does.

I'm sorry, but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, I don't see how you can possibly justify the Eighth Circuit's willingness to be nonsensical here.

Full post as published by Quiz Law on July 07, 2008 (boomark / email).