Supreme Squeamishness

I have had supreme respect and admiration for our highest court of the land, until last week's supreme nuudlings pontificated by justice Anthony Kennedy. Without doubt justice Kennedy's brief, one of the most passionate brief I've read in recent times, was also one without sense and reasoning. How does someone with training in reason come up with a justification for banning a medical procedure based on the means rather than results? If one upholds the choice of abortion, why should one ban the method which achieves the outcome of that choice? The obvious misjudgment in upholding the ban is the effect of banning a means based on its squeamishness factor rather than the intent and usefulness of the procedure. How can judge Kennedy know its usefulness? Apparently based on statistics put forth by the advocating lawyers. Statistics whose nature is to show how acceptable percentages of cases involving this procedure are categorized as unnecessary. We all know how statistics work. If you fall within the norm, you would be inclined to side with the politicians making your decision. If however you are in the minority who falls outside the norm of the statistics, then this law is designed to put you in jeopardy. In the vein of 'it is better to let a thousand guilty go free then to let one innocent suffer', I must say the law in this case must protect the 'innocent', who is the mother that needs a safe and practical procedure to abort a prenancy. The Pro Life advocates are taking a radical view that in effect is backwards and 'anti mother'. 'Let the mother die rather than let one unborn suffer,' should be the Pro Life moto. It wasn't so long ago that puritans in the old world as well as in this new world who view mothers as vessels for bringing children to their husbands and families. Judge Kennedy is regressing to this view unbeknown st to himself.