"Your Honor, what do you think of my gallbladder? Should I get it removed? Maybe mount it on a little wooden base (after having it bronzed?…or do you think bronzing is kind of tacky?) I only ask because you and some of your fellow Supremes have taken it upon yourself to make medical decisions for a whole lot of American women."
Now what is wrong with this argument — the argument that justices do not have the authority to make medical decisions. Beyond the obvious that the Supreme Court was actually ruling on the constitutionality of the Congress’ authority to make such, I mean.
Too easy. I have never seen a gallbladder yet, nor read of one in the medical literature, with its own heartbeat, brainwaves, and DNA distinct from the rest of the organs in the body. In fact, a gallbladder is, by definition, a body part, an organ, while a baby is, by definition, an extremely young child, an infant. In other words, a unique human being all together.
When doctors make medical decisions or use their medical knowledge to transgress the Law (such as Do not murder), then justices do indeed have the authority, and also the duty, to intervene. There are precedents in history. Nazi doctors were tried and convicted at Nuremberg for "murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhumane acts." Weren’t they just practicing medicine and making medical decisions? Yes, with unique human beings the victims. Human beings who were stripped of any power to resist that which was being done to them. Just like babies. If you don’t know anything about the Nazi medical experiments, you should learn a little something about them, but not at mealtime.
"But," I can hear someone already saying, "You can’t possibly compare partial birth abortion to Nazi medical experiments! The comparison is completely flawed!" Is it? This fits the definition of murder, brutality, cruelty, torture, and atrocity in my book.