Now, the question is, by calling this stupid law unconstitional, is this “ruling from the bench”? I say no; it’s protecting the essential right of citizens to be free of burdensome interference from government, which is what the Bill of Rights is all about. This is something I discussed in an old post, here:

http://www.mahablog.com/oldsite/2005.08.07_arch.html#1123930273109

Be advised that I don’t generally engage in long debates with righties in this blog. You’ve had your say, I’ve had mine, and now we’re square. Further argument may be deleted unless you say something interesting and original I want to respond to.

…pitch a fit over an abortion…
What type of “fit” are you talking about? Something that would put her in physical danger? Exemption from the law. Something else? Well, you see, they didn’t actually present evidence that any women were actually in that circumstance, and they didn’t attack the law on those grounds.

Alito said in his dissent (yes, I read the silly thing before I made up my mind) that
“Because the plaintiffs made a facial attack on Section 3209, they could not rely on a “worst-case analysis” or on proof showing only that the provision would impose an undue burden “under some conceivable set of circumstances” Thus, proof that the provision would adversely affect an unknown number of women with a particular combination of characteristics could not suffice.
…
Second, the plaintiffs offered testimony that the exceptions in Section 3209 would not cover a case in which a woman did not want to notify her husband for fear that he would retaliate in some way other than the infliction of bodily injury upon her, such as by subjecting her to psychological abuse or abusing their children. The plaintiffs, however, do not appear to have offered any evidence showing how many (or indeed that any actual women) would be affected by this asserted imperfection in the statute.
…
Needless to say, the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern. It is apparent that the Pennsylvania legislature considered this problem and attempted to prevent Section 3209 from causing adverse effects by adopting the four exceptions noted above. Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards.” [I removed citations, if you want ‘em, look it up yourself]

The lawsuit was saying that this law was unconstitutional, but the way I’m reading this, there were other ways to deal with the law which would have taken into account a possiblity of women having a certain set of characteristics, or even that this might have stood as a challenge if the women with this type of problem weren’t hypothetical to the court.

Now, if you’re going to sit there and tell me it’s a stupid law, I’m going to agree with you. Just as long as you realize we’re in the minority (less than 30% of the population agrees with us), and that the judiciary isn’t responsible for creating laws. A jury may decide not to convict based on the fact that it’s a stupid law (and I think that the actual orignial judge, if it is not a jury trial, may decide not to convict based on the fact that it’s a stupid law, but I don’t know — also, breaking this was only a misdemeanor, not a felony), but by the time this one came to Alito, the question was whether or not the law was allowable by the Consitution. And nothing ever said that you can’t pass stupid laws or stupid amendments.

If the D’s don’t pull together and fight this, they are truly worthless. And I am not optimistic.

It means the Gubmint, federal and state, should keep its bleeping paws off people’s personal lives.

Then it’s a bad law. That opinion doesn’t automatically make it unconstitutional. It means you should elect a different legislature.

My solution: Assume the woman is an adult who can make her own decisions about her own body. I think most married couples would discuss this decision, but if a woman decides she can’t face another pregnancy and another baby, but knows her husband would pitch a fit over an abortion, she shouldn’t have to be put in a position to lie to someone to get an abortion.

Alito even says in his comment:
…this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions.