Planned Parenthood refuted.

From http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=577


Head Of South Dakota Planned Parenthood Abortion Death Chamber Clueless Re: True View Of American Government


Printer friendly E-Mail this page
By John Lofton, Editor


PRO-DEATH Looby perpetuates myth that Supreme Court rulings may not be challenged
The South Dakota Legislature – God bless them – has passed a law banning almost all abortions. And Kate Looby, head of the only Planned Parenthood abortion death chamber in that state, is, of course, outraged. I saw her on ABC’s “World News Tonight” (2/24/06) saying: “I’m always shocked that the South Dakota legislature is willing to defy the United States Supreme Court and to defy the United States Constitution.”

Well, now. And I was shocked to see a person so abysmally ignorant regarding our system of government. So, I interviewed Looby and here’s the way it went when I asked her, for openers, why, exactly her group would be suing because of this new law:


A: Well, clearly, this bill banning all abortions in South Dakota violates the United States Constitution, and the Supreme Court Ruling from 1973 of Roe v. Wade, and there isn’t a judge in the county who, you know, wouldn’t agree with us that this is a violation of precedence. And it would immediately be enjoined, and would not take effect and the women of South Dakota would not be able to continue accessing safe and legal abortions – while this case moves through the courts system.
Q: Well, sad to say I think you’re right. There probably aren’t many judges who would disagree with your point of view….Is it your understanding that no state legislature can pass a law that disagrees with the Supreme Court?
A: Well, my understanding is that the South Dakota Legislative body takes an oath to uphold the United States Constitution when they are sworn in as legislators, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that under the United States Constitution there is a right to privacy in this country which includes the right for women to access safe and legal abortion care. So this would obviously be a violation of that.
Q: Well, I would pick up on exactly what you said. Roe v. Wade says that there’s a right to privacy, etc. I don’t see that, where in the Constitution is it?
A: Well, the Supreme Court of the United States has identified that within the Constitution there is an inherent right to privacy and that’s where they came up with their decision on Roe v. Wade.
Q: Right. So, sticking closely to the language, I guess, what you’d have to say is that the South Dakota Legislature has defied what the Supreme Court says is in the Constitution – in other words there is nothing. So, in other words, even though we both may differ on this issue, we could read the text and both would agree that well, yeah, in the United States Constitution itself, there’s nothing in there about the right to privacy, much less the word abortion and the right to have one. Right?
A: Oh, that’s certainly true, but that applies to many, many decisions that the Supreme Court applies.
Q: Absolutely.
A: And certainly, their job is to interpret the Constitution for us.
Q: And of course, the State Legislature and the Governor and everybody else who takes an oath to the Constitution has to interpret it for themselves. They do not have to slavishly, mindlessly, like lobotomized automatons, go along with the Supreme Court, right? I mean when you take an oath it means that you will interpret the Constitution. It doesn’t mean that I will necessarily abide by what someone else says is in the Constitution, right?
LOOBY hangs up phone refusing to discuss details of what happens in an abortion
A: Well, I think that we look to the Supreme Court — and the role of the Supreme Court in this country is to provide the final interpretation of the United States Constitution for us. And that is the role that they play in our form of government, and for the South Dakota Legislature and the Governor of South Dakota - to attempt to reinterpret the United States Constitution for the Supreme Court is outside of their bounds and outside of their role.
Q: Well, I think that under our form of government and as our country was founded – you correct me if I’m wrong, or if you think I’m wrong, under our form of government, when we look to who we, the people, who we the people are, it’s not the courts. They’re not elected, the Supreme Court. We the people means the legislators – you know, the people out there in South Dakota that you elect. That’s how we determine who “we, the people” are.
A: Well, I would agree with that, however, we have three branches of government, as you well know, and one of those is elected by the people – being the legislative body and one of those branches of government is appointed and then confirmed by the United States Senate and then appointed by the Governor or by the President and then confirmed by United States Senate, and that’s how the system works and clearly. I think that if we are looking at a majority rules situation on abortion in this country that abortion would certainly continue to be safe and legal. And you know it is a minority view in this country that is saying that abortion should be made illegal. Certainly even in the state of South Dakota, a very conservative state, by all accounts, we know from multiple polls done over an extended course of time that the majority of people in South Dakota support access to safe and legal abortion care, at least in the case of incest, and this bill excludes those.
Q: Well I’m not a majority rule person and the people who founded our country weren’t majority rule people either. You, in this particular case, are on a slippery slope if you are invoking majority rule because the majority could change tomorrow and I assume that would not change your position. We have elected representatives who represent people, so there isn’t a kind of direct majority rule, but I mean your Legislature can defy the courts all they want. Courts don’t make law, you don’t believe courts make law do you?
A: As I said, the court’s job is to interpret the Constitution, and if you pass laws that are unConstitutional it is the rule of the court to determine that.
Q: Yeah, but what I’m saying – my understanding is that a Supreme Court ruling is just that, it’s an opinion, it’s not the law. I mean the South Dakota Legislature – any state legislature could just say well that’s interesting, thank you Supreme Court, now we’re going to do what we want to do.
A: Well, but you can’t enforce it if it’s against the United States Constitution.
Q: Sure, well we already —.
A: So what’s the point of passing a law that’s not enforceable?
Q: Well, I don’t believe that the Supreme Court has any way of enforcing its rulings, does it?
A: Are there any other topics you’d like to talk about John? Because I’m not going to sit here and argue with you about —.
NOTHING AT ALL in the Constitution guarantees, in any way, a ‘privacy right’ to an abortion
Q: No, this is a very – one of the reasons I wanted to interview you was to try to, well, to use your quote, make you less “shocked” that the South Dakota Legislature was willing to defy the United States Supreme Court because, number one, it’s fine – it’s okay. Calm down – it’s OK if they defy the Supreme Court. They can disagree. It’s not a crime to disagree with the Supreme Court. And we already went over that ground, that some right to privacy, and much less the word abortion – they aren’t in the Constitution. They are in a Supreme Court decision that says they’re in the Constitution. So, that’s behind us right?
A: Well, I would agree with you – yes
Q: Well, are you less shocked now that the Legislature would do what it’s done?
A: No, I’m not less shocked. I continue to be dismayed by the fact that they’re completely willing to pass something that is clearly unConstitutional and will be struck down by the courts and —.
Q: Well maybe and maybe not.
A: And the people of South Dakota will pay for a court case that is, you know, absurd, in my opinion.
Q: Well I thought that we agreed that the right to privacy and abortion are not in the Constitution. Now you’re back to saying that they clearly violated the Constitution. But, no, they violated Roe v. Wade, which was a Supreme Court opinion saying what the Constitution is. There is a difference. I mean you do see a difference between what’s in the text of the Constitution and what a Supreme Court decision is, right?
A: I think I understand what you are trying to say. Is there anything else that you’d like to talk about?….
Q: Well, let me ask you, finally here — I interviewed Kate Michelman the other day about her new book and I’ve talked to her and pro-lifers and I’ve asked them: How do you characterize what it is that is aborted in an abortion? What words or phraseology do you use?
A: I’m sorry?
Q: In other words, how do you characterize what happens in an abortion? What happens – what is aborted in an abortion? What are the words or phrase that you use to characterize what’s aborted in an abortion?
A: John, I agreed to come on to talk to you on the radio if we were talking about the um, the state of South Dakota’s ban on abortion.
Q: Right.
A: If you want to get into details of abortion care here that wasn’t —.
Q: It was a simple question.
A: That was not how we agreed to do the interview.
Q: Look, first of all – this is clearly within the topic we are talking about – abortion. Because when I talked about an unborn baby or an innocent baby unborn with Kate Michelman she corrected me and said it’s a fetus. So I’ve started out now to ask you what is the language or phraseology that you use to describe what it is being aborted in an abortion. Just tell me in a sentence or two because I’m sure you’ve used some phraseology in the past to talk about that.
A: We’ve typically talked about terminating a pregnancy.
Q: Terminating a pregnancy. Okay. I saw something several weeks ago that I wish I hadn’t seen (a video of an abortion.) Have you ever seen an abortion?
A: Of course.
Q: Well, it was horrifying to me — to see little arms and legs being torn apart and come gushing out —.
A: John, I’m going to stop the interview now.
Q: I figured you would.
A: I’m not interested in this – this is ridiculous.
Q: I figured you would. I wouldn’t want to defend it either if I were you.
She hangs up the phone.