Unbiased Advocates

The 'Passion' of the ABA:
I will not write about this week's landmark abortion decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has been and will continue to be exhaustively covered by others more competent and knowledgeable than I am. Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

I WILL note the view taken by the American Bar Association's "E-report". If you have the patience to read through even a third of it, I would like to hear an argument that it is not patently biased in favor of the existing Roe/Abortion-industry regime. http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/a20abort.html.

As evidence, I note that it mentions two "anti-abortion" groups, that term being juxtaposed with "abortion-rights proponents". Get it? One hates all abortion, while the other stands up for mankind's right to have one performed. To beat a dead horse, why not "fetal-life-rights groups" and "abortion-rights proponents"? Why not "anti-abortion" groups and "abortion [without the 'rights'] proponents"?

Why is this troubling? It would be foolish of me to get upset that a particular writing seems displeased with the Court's recent ruling. But the American Bar Association (of which I am a member) represents our nation's advocates. And advocates are by training and vocation to be impartial. Our nation's advocates' collective organization, representing lawyers who personally fall on both sides of this issue, lacks the ability to handle such a debate without prejudice.