Saving the unborn?
A Georgia legislator has introduced a bill to require a full formal and contested hearing before any woman can have an abortion, with a court-appointed guardian for the unborn child and the issuance of a "death warrant" by a judge.
The sponsor, Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, said "A mother would have to argue why the child should die and why her rights would take priority over the rights of the child." The introduction of the bill will be timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
Franklin is also quoted as saying:
"I am pro-life, but this bill does not restrict abortion. It does acknowledge the child's rights to due process."
This exemplifies one of the problems with the presumption of constitutionality and legitimacy afforded to legislation. The courts indulge in the belief that legislation is introduced in good faith, in order to accomplish a goal for society in a legitimate and constitutional way. And most often it is. Unfortunately, legislation is sometimes introduced for the purpose of good old-fashioned grandstanding, with no consideration for whether it will pass constitutional muster.
On further thought, I will correct that. Franklin cares very much about the constitutional issue. If his bill passes, he will undoubtedly looking forward to the certain Federal court ruling finding it unconstitutional, since it will give him a campaign issue for 2004.
Such legislation is pursued solely to enhance someone's political career, and has nothing to do with saving the unborn.
8:35:03 AM 
|
