Good for this particular Court

The California Supreme Court told Rump Ranger First Class Gavin Newsom of San Transexual to go shove it up his heterophobic ass last week.

Good for the California Supreme Court.

I sympathize, guys, but this is ridiculous

As most of you know, I'm as pro-life as they come.  My personal motto is "No abortions, no exceptions".  I believe we've come far enough, technologically speaking, where we don't have to make an "either/or" choice between mother and baby.  And I don't believe in killing the child for the crimes of the father.

That said, I think these guys in Utah are taking things a little too far...

SALT LAKE CITY – A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin has denied the charge, saying she already had scars from earlier C-sections.

Excuse me?  When did it become illegal to refuse a C-section?

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged Thursday of showing "depraved indifference to human life," ignoring medical advice to deliver her twins by C-section because she didn't want to be scarred.  One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

Okay, when did the Utah Legislature pass the "Depraved Indifference to Human Life Act"?  You know - the one that says it's a felony to ignore medical advice now?  And where'd they find the money for their own thought police?

Rowland told Salt Lake City radio station KSL from jail that "I already have a pretty nasty scar, it doesn't matter at all now," The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Her attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told the Tribune "it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it."

I don't think any  woman would exactly welcome it - mental illness or not.

The documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege.  When she delivered them on Jan. 13, the twin girl survived but the boy died.

This is indeed tragic - but it's not like she went to an abortuary and had them killed.

Shortly afterward, Rowland was jailed on a child endangerment charge involving the surviving twin, who has been adopted by a family Rowland knows.

Now, this is downright pathetic. She's being jailed because she didn't want a C-section.

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

It's more than troubling.  It's freakin' outrageous.  And even if you're pro-life, like I am...if you've ever clashed with your OB-GYN over anything,  you should be just as frightened as I am about this.

Using this precedent, any doctor could have any mother jailed and her other kids taken away just for disagreeing with him over the slightest thing.  Do you want your  doctor to have that kind of power?

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

What of it?  You can get an abortion for "cosmetic motivations" - but I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that...

It flat-out doesn't matter.  If a mother doesn't want a scalpel penetrating her body, to do so is no better then the bastards who performed the forced abortions.

Is it?