Thursday, April 19, 2007

Accept the unexcepted

More from the New York Times:

"Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was “medical uncertainty” over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them."

So Kennedy says the mother goes unprotected because of 'uncertainty.' Justice Ginsburg says the approach is 'gravely mistaken.'

An individual need for a health exception? Who are we trying to protect here? Or not protect, as the case might be?

1 comment:

sarasel said...

That seems totally counter-intuitive to me. If there's no exception, then the courts can't grant a challenge...right?