Join the Revolution!

Devil's In The Details

For law students, the law review comes as both a coveted achievement and an endless mayhem of editing, reading, cite-checking, and analyzing.  While regarded as a tremendous honor and responsibility, law review is, admittedly, a burden.  Senator Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review, undoubtedly agrees.

 

On the one hand, you work and slave on your "note" in attempts to make it to law review.  Once accepted, you work and slave on various "comments" for the review.  These unpublished comments by second year law students generally go unnoticed as drafts and precursors to formal writings to be included in the publication.  When asked if Senator Obama ever wrote anything for the Harvard Law Review, the answer was, "As the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them."  It seems odd that the esteemed Harvard would allow an inexperienced, unpublished student assume the responsibilities of president of the heralded Law Review.

 

In fact, the Politico thought so, too, and consequently unearthed a "case comment" written by Senator Obama called "Tort Law - Prenatal Injuries - Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries."

 

At first glance, one might understand why it is that Obama chose to hide this unusual comment.  Obviously a fetus cannot sue its own mother, as he/she is yet unborn.  In the case of Stallman v. Youngquist, however, such a situation did occur.  Stallman, a pregnant mother, was involved in a collision with Youngquist while driving.  This collision resulted in numerous injuries of the unborn child, Lindsay, and Stallman's husband, on behalf of the unborn Lindsay, sued both his wife and Youngquist for the negligent damages brought upon his unborn daughter.

The opinion handed down from the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that an unborn child, even through the action of a parent, cannot sue his/her mother because allowing this would enable an unborn child to be a legal adversary from the moment of conception.  In other words, the Court did not want to acknowledge the personhood of an unborn person. 

Interesting case choice for comment, Senator Obama.

 

Actually, didn't the aforementioned quote say that, as president, Senator Obama didn't write articles, only edit and review them?  Right, well... This piece of literary scholarship was published a month before Obama became president and has been tucked away in Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review since then.  Details, details.

 

Why would a law student want to hide their own achievements, especially within something as prestigious as the Harvard Law Review?  Obama and the radical left wants the obfuscate the issue of personhood in the matter of abortion and frame the issue in terms of equal rights for women.  That is the power behind their words: choice, change, and hope. 

 

Senator Obama concluded his case comment by saying, "Expanded access to prenatal education and health care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in lives of pain and despair."  That's right, in addition to denying unborn children personhood, Senator Obama also plays God by determining a death sentence on an estimated quality of life.  Could an unborn child born into a life of pain and despair rise above a painful and desperate situation and become, for example, a Senator or even President of the United States?  Not under his watch.

 

So much for choice.  So much for change.  So much for hope.