By Dave Andrusko

Chief Justice John Roberts, the object of a bitter attack by  authors  Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick

Nothing but nothing irritates pro-abortionists more than the step-by-step process of "whittling down" Roe v. Wade. If you think about it, they're whining, "Hey, come out and fight like a man." (This from folks who defend butchering defenseless unborn babies.) "How dare you 'stack the deck' with cases so extreme [see partial-birth abortion] that even courts predisposed to support abortion balk at believing Roe permits that!"

One example of this increasingly angry lament ran Monday: "Watch as We Make This Law Disappear: How the Roberts Court disguises its conservatism," by Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick. (www.slate.com/id/2269715.)

Three thoughts. I understand that in arguing a position/criticizing your opponent, it's very easy to forget that the technique you attribute to them is exactly the technique you've used. For example Friedman and Lithwick bitterly denounce the "conservative justices" on the Supreme Court for their decision in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion. Why? For "deck-stacking." This has to be read to be [almost] believed.

"The law bans late-term abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered before its brains are sucked out and skull collapsed," they write. "If you find it hard even to read that, you've caught the point: That's deck-stacking." They are not kidding.

By that logic it's not playing fair to even mention that abortion is (a)bloody, (b) violent almost beyond description, and (c) performed on babies that everyone concedes can feel pain--and on thousands of other babies medical science demonstrates can experience pain, even if the tender-hearts at PPFA deny it.

Of course, in the case of Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade), the plaintiff was supposed to have been raped by three men. She had not been. (Norma McCorvey never even had an abortion.) If that isn't "deck-stacking," what would qualify?

Second, apropos our conversation in Part Two, everything that does not adhere to the pro-abortion narrative--abortion is a positive good, in most instances, a "necessary evil" in the rest and is free of all aftershocks for women--is haughtily dismissed as "junk science."

As a culture we tend to bow our heads reverentially when the name of "science" is invoked. If what you assert is nothing more than "junk science," it's as if you've committed two heresies!

So, there can't be a link between having an induced abortion and increasing the risks of breast cancer, even though a multitude of studies and a common sense understanding of why this would be so (given the biology of how breast tissue matures) say otherwise. And, of course, no unborn child can actually experience pain--whether at 20 weeks or later along--even though this takes a suspension of disbelief the level of which is unimaginable outside of a theatre.

Talk about deck-stacking!

Third, to offer up real-life (and death) examples of unborn babies slaughtered like animal at a meatpacking house--by crushing their heads and vacuuming out their brains; or tearing arms off of torsos when these babies are obviously mature enough to experience mind-numbing pain--are not examples of "highly dramatic facts," as Friedman Lithwick huffily insist, with the implication that they are staged/falsified/ exaggerated. It is where an unchecked Roe v. Wade takes you.

And you don't have to be a subscriber to National Right to Life News to know this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Pro-Life Governor Christie Defunds Planned Parenthood in New Jersey

GOP Enjoys "Yawning Double Digits" Advantage Among Those Most Likely to Vote