Tuesday, November 23
Wong on facts, wrong on law
The New York Times has joined the chorus of fetal bloodlust regarding Hyde-Weldon, calling it "a discgraceful sneak attack on on women's health and freedom." But I like this line best:
In essence, it tells health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to ignore Roe v. Wade. . .
Does anyone intelligent proofread these editorials before publication? Could anyone in the room have pointed out that Roe v. Wade is irrelevant to non-state actors like private health care providers? Or even if it were relevant at all, it sure doesn't compel the performance of abortions? I suggest a re-read of Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson. The Constitution does not require that which it barely permits.