Juxtaposition

Once again, the Tribune gives us a strange juxtaposition on positions. Today they printed this article about Nancy Keenan's pro-abortion group and her rating of the states' positions on abortion. Montana received an A for its position on "reproductive rights."

Then, in its editorial, the Tribune wrote that all states were winners in the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding Oregon's right to enact an assisted suicide law. According to the Editorial Board, the decision was based primarily on states' rights. The Tribune lauded the fact that the decision prevents the delegation "to a single executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government"

Hmmm.

The AP's NARAL article failed to describe the criteria applied in grading, but you can find it here. Their pamphlet points out a wide variety of criteria upon which states were graded, including providing "Choose Life" license plates and mandating abstinence only programs. The criteria also includes a bonus for "state constitutional protection." I am unaware of any state where the constituion explicitly protects abortion; Montana's certainly does not. Thus, in a state like Montana, our "constitutional protection" stems only from judicial decisions.

How many people serve on the Montana Supreme Court? 7. And they are selected from a limited subgroup, Montana lawyers. As of May 2005, that's 4,092 Montana citizens who are eligible to serve on the Montana Supreme Court.

Thus, 7 out of 4,000 in a state of nearly a million people get to create a "constitutional right" to abortion. (In Armstrong, they ruled that the legislature cannot even decide who can perform abortions.)

So, am I the only one who finds the Tribune's editorial just a little bit disingenuous, given that the Board clearly supports "choice?" Instead of running NARAL's propaganda piece, why is the Tribune not protesting the fact that in Montana we have delegated to seven judicial officers "the power to effect a radical shift of authority from" the people to the Courts?

I am not pro-life. I think abortion a necessary evil in some circumstances. But let's be honest and consistent. The Editorial Board is completely hypocritical. Power grab against conduct we support? Bad. Power grab in favor of conduct we support? Good.