The voices of extremism.

Today’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart provides yet another moment of clear distinction between mainstream Republican thought and liberal Democrat extremism. Republican candidates across the board express agreement with the Supreme Court’s recognition that government can restrict abortions based on the stage of pregnancy during which the procedure is sought.

Democrat leaders labeled the decision as a “an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings” (Obama); as an “erosion of our constitutional rights” (H. Clinton); or, as an “an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition” (John Edwards), who took a moment from his campaign of class warfare to opine).

Regardless of one’s position on Roe v. Wade, what is the basis for finding a right to a partial birth abortion? It isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly. It doesn’t arise from any statute or common law that predates 1973. A legally cognizable right to an abortion was created 34 years ago by the United States Supreme Court.

Since abortion rights arise from Roe v. Wade they are defined by Roe v. Wade. Even the Roe court recognized that there is no unlimited right to abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy. “[A]ppellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree”. Only paragraphs later, the Roe court went even further to circumscribe the limits of abortion choice. “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

By any measure of human conduct, partial birth abortion is a particularly grisly form of infanticide. Overwhelming majorities of the population oppose the practice. Partial birth abortion bans have passed the states and Congress by large bi-partisan majorities.

Yet, even a restriction on the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion is viewed as a devastating attack on some fundamental right of personal privacy, notwithstanding the complete lack of any legal, historical or moral basis for the charge by a Democratic mainstream. The Democrats are deep in the grips the most anti-human; morally impaired and historically non sequitur ideology that has ever driven the left wing in this country. Now that is radical.

Worse yet, it’s the very same libs who empower government workers to drug test pregnant women and then charge users with child abuse for using meth while pregnant. So the liberal thinks it’s a crime to expose a fetus to meth but they’re O.K. with inducing labor, puncturing its skull and sucking out its brain? Go figure.