Good Faith, Abortion and Terrorists
His column contains this interesting quote from Sebelius explaining her veto.
A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution."
Sebelius claims to be personally opposed to abortion but believes it is unconstitutional to restrict late-term abortions in the manner proposed by the Kansas state legislature. (That at least is what her advisors tell her, as Rutten notes, Sebelius is no lawyer.)
There is certainly no telling how a divided U.S. Supreme Court would rule on such a law.
But what jumped out at me was the assertion that an abortionist "acting in good faith to save a woman's life... should not be subject to later criminal prosecution."
Substitute "A CIA operative" or "Bush Adminisration official... acting in good faith to save American lives... should not be subject to later criminal prosecution" for using harsh interrogation tactics against known terrorists to extract information that prevents future lethal attacks.
The proposed law in Kansas would not retroactively allow prosecutors to bring abortionists to trial for having performed late-term abortions in the past. There is quite a difference between that and what many on the left are demanding be done to men who acted in good faith to protect this nation.
The Kansas law makes clear to abortionists that they would be subject to the criminal sanctions if and when they violate the new law.
So if the Democratic majority in Congress wants to legally define certain harsh interrogation techniques as "torture" and outlaw them, they have the power to do so. But defining them as torture and illegal after the fact and then prosecuting individuals for what they did years ago when there was no such clear-cut law, is simply and obviously wrong.
What the Obama administration did when it came to the issue is further confuse and polarize it. By releasing the legal memos that defined how far interrogators could go the new administration told our enemies just what and how much they will have to endure when it comes to giving up information when and if they are captured. That is not smart.
What is not fair or right is threatening the prosecution of lawyers and other U.S. officials who were engaged in "good faith" efforts to set the parameters within which information could be gleaned in the hope of protecting innocent American lives.
It is doubly ironic that the same "good faith" argument would be used by the abortion lobby when it is about the business of taking the lives of innocent human beings.
Granted, a 7-month-old fetus is not legally a human being, given that WE haven't democratically CHOSEN to define him as such. But legally defined or not, such a human life surely deserves some protection from those who wish to do it harm.
Fully grown human terrorists also deserve some protections from abuse. And they've got them, as the legal memos themselves prove.
But how telling is it that progressives are more concerned with the rights and freedoms of abortionists to ply their trade, than they are with the responsibilities of government officials to protect this country from our enemies.
In the meantime, Rutten is fretfully concerned about the power of the Catholic church to intimidate Democratic politicians who happen to be Catholic. He needn't worry so much. It is quite obvious that Catholics like John Kerry, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and the rest fear the abortion lobby more than they fear any old bishop. They'd much rather be ex-communicated from their church than from their political party.