Wednesday, January 03, 2007

2007 Predictions

The CBC asked me make some predictions for 2007 in the fields of bioethics and biotechnology. Here it is for those who may be interested.

posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:23 AM   7 Comments

7 Comments:

At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

I think the prediction that state funding of ESCR will step up is the safest. I think politicians in the states will fall over each other trying to fund ESCR. They won't succeed everywhere, but they'll try. I wish I understood why more precisely. It definitely works to say "I want you to get better, but that uncompassionate pro-lifer who is letting his religion get in the way, does not." But there's way more to it than that.

I'm hoping you are right about partial birth abortion/infanticide. Kennedy's dissent in Stenberg was hot-at least to a non-legal specialist like me, but I'm not betting on him. The minute he says yes to any restriction like that, the roar of the crowd stops. Unfortunately I think that matters to way too many people in positions of power.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Don. I think you meant to say you hope I am wrong about PBA since I think the ban will be overturned by Kennedy's vote, and precisely for the reason you mention.

It is called a stampede. Mostly, it is about business and worrying about what the "better people: think, e.g., not wanting to appear to be backward.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Royale said...

re: PBA

You're absolutely right and I hope so. Not because I like it as I emphatically don't, but because:

(1) no exception for the life of the mother,
(2) Congress should not decide medical emergencies, rather, that should go to doctors and states

For number #2, neither should the Supreme Court either.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

Wesley, you're right. I totally misread your column. Maybe my wife is right about me not listening well.

I hope you (and I) are wrong about the coming partial birth abortion decision and Kennedy. I'm a committed anti-abortion pro-lifer. But still, I think partial birth abortion argues for infanticide. If we can kill inches and moments from birth, why not inches and moments after birth when we discover "it's" not exactly what we were hoping for? For all the propaganda about health exceptions, PBA happens because they don't want the baby.

I know abortion is not a subject of Second Hand Smoke, but I think it might be relevant because it argues for infanticide.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

Wow, you guys are cynical about Kennedy. A few years ago he gave an interview in which he expressed some reservations about the court's going around saying that this or that is the meaning of the Constitution. Fr. Neuhaus responded dryly, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown." In other words, it wasn't that Kennedy was getting any better a grip on principles of jurisprudence but rather that he just felt "funny" about being a philosopher-king.

Still and all, he was pretty ticked off at the bait-and-switch performed in Casey. My impression from his dissent in Carhart (which I haven't read in a long time) was that he felt he'd been had--he'd agreed to the majority opinion in Casey believing that some limitations on abortion, including on methods, would still be allowed, and now it turned out that wasn't what the other guys had really meant at all.

Kennedy will never be a good jurist. He's totally screwed up on his metaprinciples. But if he retains the feeling of annoyance that characterized his dissent in Carhart, he might vote with jurists much better than he in the upcoming federal case.

Hadley Arkes believes the greater question is whether Justice Thomas will feel he has to strike down the federal ban in order to be consistent in his position re. the overuse of the commerce clause to give the federal Congress legislative power. That would be very interesting, and sort of weirdly sad, if it happened, though I could really respect Thomas's position, but it would still mean a good possibility for state PBA bans to be upheld.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Don: I agree, PBA is infanticide and I have written accordingly. That was approximatley what Patrick Moynihan said, too, and he was not pro life.

Lydia: I think Kennedy will reverse himself because so much has been made of him being *the* swing vote. He felt like he had been taken in Cathcart. But anger dies as one is lauded as the hope for enlightened jurisprudence. He favors bringing in foreign decisions into American constitutional analysis. Not a good sign. I think that the power of the swing will have him take a step in the other direction. I could be, and hope that I am, wrong. But, I doubt it.

 
At January 03, 2007 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

Lydia, I agree that if Kennedy is the same person in this case as he was in Carhart, the ban will be upheld. He was definitely upset in Carhart and felt the majority was misinterpreting/misapplying Casey.

I hope my cynicism is wrong. Pro-lifers thought everything was over in Casey, but then we got the screwy Casey decision and that ridiculous "mystery passage" from people who we thought would come our way. We've had a lot of disappointment with the court. Hence my pessimism and belief that Kennedy is going to cave and find a way out.

I thought Hadley Arkes was good in both of his articles on Thomas and Kennedy in First Things (the periodical).

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home