Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice points out an important Seventh Circuit decision (and horrifying dissent) regarding the question of immigration asylum for a woman fleeing China's forced abortion policy. Judge Diane Wood (who I don't think is particularly pro-life) wrote for the majority (its not too long and worth reading), reciting the testimony of required IUD implantation, required quarterly IUD check-ups, and forced abortions (with fines). The decision hinges on evidentiary matters and the standards for appellate courts to overturn lower court/administrative hearings - but the core horror comes through and is compelling. But the dissent (which is only on a minor point) is indeed another story - frightening for its tone more than its decision. Judge Evans states:
No doubt, Lin's story (if true) is quite compelling. Who would want the state to force a woman to have an abortion? On the other hand, China has a huge population problem, and there are people who applaud its efforts to fix it. But when Congress, in 1996, amended the law to add forced abortion as a ground for granting refugee status, it made a value judgment about China's population control policy.
Indeed, I was under the impression that making "value judgments" and policy decisions was the central task of the legislature, how bold. "On the other hand" "applaud" - there are those, I guess, but this equivocation almost sounds like a tacit endorsement of China's policy.
To make matters worse, Judge Evans then feels compelled to comment snarkily on the policy making progress - "That is interesting because it looks a bit like the congressional anti-abortion faction outmaneuvered its anti-immigration faction - which itself is ironic given that most members of Congress who belong to one of the factions belong to the other as well."
That's nice - unnuanced gotcha politics from a sitting circuit judge.*
For a little balance and fun (the hilarity) take a peak at Wood's decision in a copyright matter between the remants of the band - Survivor (think Eye of the Tiger - go ahead and hum it to yourself) and its claims against the TV show - Survivor.
*The assessment of the politics of Congress' decision strikes me not only as unnecessary in a judicial decision but intentionally overly simplistic. Might the two 'factions' have weighed their positions and decided that their anti-abortion concerns (or even basic human rights concerns) outweighed their anti-immigration concerns? Why find irony and inconsistency so easily?
Comments