The Ninth Circuit recently decided the case of Isaacson V. Horne, striking down an Arizona law that banned abortion after the baby reached 20 weeks gestation. One of the judges, Andrew Kleinfeld, on the three judge panel wrote the following in his concurring opinion:
I have alluded to administration of the death penalty to convicts because in one respect it is analogous. Many people have very substantial moral, philosophical, practical, and religious objections to one or both. Of course the analogy is limited, because convicts sentenced to death have committed horrendous crimes, but fetuses have committed no crimes. But the analogy applies to the extent that regardless of the objections we may have, a lower court is bound to apply Supreme Court authority, which allows executions and requires states to permit abortions. And under the authority by which we, and the state legislatures, are bound, the Arizona prohibition is unconstitutional.
Too bad he didn’t reject the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence as unconstitutional, which it most definitely is. But at least, he recognized that abortion is nothing but the death penalty for unborn babies who’ve committed no crimes.
He certainly could have added:
The analogy is also limited because when we kill convicted murderers, we make sure that that we execute them in the most painless way possible. With unborn babies, we don't care in the least; we just rip their arms off, crush their heads and shred their bodies.
