The extra-smart Robert Miller weighs in at First Things on the growing trend to point out that 5 of the assenting judges in the Gonzales v. Carthart decision are practicing Catholics. Miller takes issue mainly with what he sees as the trend beneath the trend, the trend that is to entirely dismiss the opinions and decisions of others, rather than engaging them, on the mere basis that they do not agree with your own opinions and decisions.
There's a lot of that going on these days, and Miller is right on point when he calls this trend out as the real culprit, rather than anti-Catholicism, which by the way is a growing phenomenon in the West once again. Up here in the wild and wintery climes of Canada, we socially conservative and Christian folk are used to such dismissals-sans-debate. The perfect example of course is the non-debate which 'occurred' during the same-sex summer of 2005. Perfectly ordinary Canadians like myself were simply told that a debate had occurred and the issue was settled and closed. Where, who, how and when were not acceptible questions - the debate had happened and the issue was closed. Nothing to see here, folks.
And so it is with the PBA ban in the US. Pro-choice commentators have spent little energy actually discussing the procedure, probably because they spent all than enery in 2003 during Congressional discussion on the ban. Back then it was shown to the entire nation that no scientific or moral evidence exists which necessitates the availability of PBA. So perhaps that defeat is in the mind of pro-choicers when they voice their disgust to the Carthart decision, and hence the lack of discussion.
But anyway, I still think it's an interesting phenomenon. The pro-choice comments, with precious few exceptions, have instead run along these lines: The ban is wrong because it goes against the unlimited abortion license and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong. Why? Because abortion is sacrosanct and modern woman requires its availability. Paint me unconvinced.