[Prudence]

I'd like to go down a different avenue -- scaeagles mentioned earlier that he wouldn't object to abortion to save the life of the mother. Who would get to make that assessment? Would death have to be certain? What if death were 90% certain? Or 20% certain? What if the woman's doctor said it was an 80% risk of death but another doctor said it was only a 15% risk? And isn't there always some small risk? If so, then to effect a ban wouldn't that require drawing a line in the sand? 50%? And isn't one of the criticisms of medical malpractice cases that you can always find a medical expert to support one side or the other? What if she wouldn't die, but would suffer certain, permanent, and drastically debilitating injury? What if the pregnancy wouldn't kill her, but the chemotherapy she needs to stop the spread of cancer would terminate the pregnancy? Should she be required to wait? And in any of these cases, should the spouse's permission still be granted? Should spouses be put in the position of choosing their wife or their potential child?

Anyhow, that's a big laundry list of reasons I don't like the abortion debate becoming the focus of judicial nomination sessions. And why is it the focus? Because each side is just chomping at the bit to get the issue back into court. Any case. Doesn't matter which one -- each side wants "their representatives" in place so they can appeal the next possible case up the ladder. You want to talk about judicial activism -- *that's* judicial activism -- manupulating the courts into taking cases that promote a particular philosophy. And don't get me wrong -- both sides are equally culpable in this particular mess.

And frankly, I think this question doesn't belong in the courts at all, much less over and over as it has in much of recent history. My personal view? On the one hand, I *don't* think that a woman should have unilateral authority to terminate conception, any more than I think a woman should have total financial responsibility for the results of conception. I don't think it's "fair."

On the other hand, I don't know how to answer the questions I asked above. I don't anticipate, without miraculous developments in medical science, that I will ever have answers to those questions. I don't think it's my business to answer those questions. I hope and pray that I am never in a situation where I have to answer those questions, either for myself or someone else. If I ever do have to answer those questions for myself, I hope and pray that I will be permitted to do so.

I haven't found a way to be "fair" and still address my laundry list of questions. I haven't heard a solution from anyone else, either -- not from pundits, senators, special interest group spokesflunkies, or judicial candidates. And I wish this debate would step out of the spotlight already. I don't doubt that the newest nominee is fully qualified. (Although seriously, can one Supreme Court handle more than one "Scalia"?) But I hate the feeling that what makes him *most* qualified, from the conservative side, is his alleged stance on abortion. I hate feeling like the qualification checklist has, instead of professional accomplishments, little boxes next to terms like "affirmative action," "gay rights," "death penalty" -- with the AG in the wings ready to pounce as soon as all the pawns are in place. I hate feeling like the "independent judiciary" is a myth, and that the supreme court is like any other executive branch appointment, responding to that particular President and his (or her) whims -- only the appointees are for life.

But possibly this is all because I'm sick and cranky.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bra that needs burning and a social order to overthrow.