Nitpicking today's Oregonian editorials

The O writes two editorials today that I take some issue with: the parental notification case at the Supreme Court yesterday, and legislation regarding Oregon's concealed handgun permit process.

On the parental notification issue, the O asks retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to "write fast" so that Samuel Alito (if confirmed) doesn't get a chance to participate in the ruling in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood:

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard its first major abortion case in five years. The issue at hand is the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring young women to notify at least one parent before getting an abortion. The law makes no exceptions to protect women's health -- not even to avert a severe health crisis.

Doctors could bypass the parent or judge only if the young woman would die without swift medical intervention. If this law sounds harsh, it was meant to be. The New Hampshire Legislature decided that the common exception to protect young women's health created too big of a "loophole."

There are a few assumptions that bug me here:

1. How do they know O'Connor would support Planned Parenthood in this case? Her rulings have been all over the map, and voiding a parental notification case is no sure thing.
2. How do they know Alito would support New Hampshire on this case? Yes, he wrote in a job application that he opposed Roe v. Wade. But his rulings and writings have been as an appeals court judge and as an advocate for the Reagan administration. I am no legal scholar (obviously), but interpreting the Constitution strikes me as a little bit different than interpreting Supreme Court precedent.
3. As the O acknowledges, a 5-4 decision will cause the case to be reargued with Alito (or whomever follows him) in O'Connor's seat. So again, what difference does it make if she "writes fast"? (Maybe if O'Connor and Alito differ, the Democrats can use the opinions as another rhetorical weapon against the president.)
4. Abortion supporters love to champion this "health exception" as a way to paint abortion opponents as thinking only of the child, not the mother. The trouble is that this "health exception" can be invoked simply by saying, "I'm pregnant and it's depressing" or "I'm pregnant and it's given me a headache." Those are not appropriate safeguards that should override a parent's right to guide his or her child.
   

Which leads me to my biggest gripe. The editorial concludes:

. . . the [Ayotte] case helps illustrate the most troubling difference between O'Connor and the man who may replace her.

One is a very smart conservative who tends to treat women as full citizens with privacy rights under the Constitution.

One is a very smart conservative who doesn't.

I'll leave aside the suggestion that O'Connor is a conservative...

Part of the O's editorial deals with Alito's 1992 ruling about spousal notification, but the meat of the column deals with Ayotte. That's why their comment about treating women "as full citizens with privacy rights under the Constitution" doesn't apply -- teenage girls don't have the privacy rights of adults, and it's dishonest and misleading to claim otherwise.

*********************
On the handgun issue, the editorial discusses what sounds like an inadvertent legislative language error that has made it more difficult for law enforcement to revoke the concealed handgun permit of "angry people."

That sounds like a somewhat arbitrary standard -- it refers to a permit holder who "left more than a dozen threatening messages in the voice mailboxes of state and telephone company employees," but doesn't further define the threats -- but I'm not a big Second Amendment guy and don't know the concealed weapon laws. (Maybe Gully could shed some light on this?)

As I understand it, very few crimes are committed by concealed permit holders; rather, they are a deterrent to criminals. So the thing that bugged me was the veiled insinuation that permit holders are a threat. The editorial concludes:

While sheriffs say they know of a few people who have concealed handgun permits they'd like to revoke, so far, thank goodness, none of them has hurt anybody. Assuming the 2007 Legislature fixes its apparent mistake, the sheriffs can improve the odds of continuing that record of safety.

In the meantime, it's in the community's interest to make sure the almost 93,000 holders of Oregon concealed weapons permits wake up each day with smiles on their faces. Don't cut in front of them at the mall, don't gesture angrily at them in traffic and above all, don't send them any fruitcakes this season.

Is there such as thing as a class-action libel lawsuit? Because I think the Oregonian just stepped up to the libel line by suggesting that one in every 40 state residents are a potential danger to society.

Don't send them any fruitcakes? Ha-frickin'-ha.