Well, here it is: Too much depends on arguments based on bad precedents. Given PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, I can’t see why repugnance of some kind can be used to deny a woman’s "liberty" or right to the most safe or healthy imaginable abortion given her circumstances at any time prior to "viability." Given PLANNED PARENTHOOD, I think Ginsburg is right and Kennedy is wrong. But I also think that PLANNED PARENTHOOD is a fairly bizarre, judicially arrogant, and borderline nihilistic interpretation of the Constitution that doesn’t deserve to stand--one, for example, based on the candid admission that even if the essential holding of ROE was a cosntitutional error it must be reaffirmed to sustain the Court’s self-appointed power to end decisively national controversies. Kennedy is open to the criticism that his repugnance/respecting-the-value-of-life is imposing some Catholic sensibility on the Constitution, and he is sincerely engaged in a mission impossible in trying to reconcile his moral sense with the liberty asserted in PLANNED PARENTHOOD. On the other hand, Scalia’s core position that the Constitution neither commands nor precludes the states’ protecting fetal life isn’t particularly Catholic at all, and that position is the foundation of the moral argument our country really needs to have over abortion, as unpleasant as it might be. The continuing controversy over abortion and the resulting politicization of everything surrounding our judiciary is evidence that the Court should get out of the abortion business. And when that finally happens and the properly moral/political argument comes, we would do well not to depend on visceral repugance but on sober and truthful reflection on what kind of being the fetus/baby is.