In the majority opinion, Judge Wilkinson wrote,
A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection… The fact is that we — civilized people — are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.
For full story see: http://www.lifenews.com/state4262.html
Now this is a good story but how can it be that 5 judges voted to overturn the ban decided by the government and therefore the people?
How can it be that un-elected judges can override the will of the people?
How can it be that in the face of such a condemnation (“…and they will shudder”) from a moral point of view, 5 judges can just vote on a point of what they consider to be good law and ignore murder?
And we in Australia are considering handing over powers via a Bill of Rights to an un-elected judiciary?