Stupid Legislation: Bloody STUPID Legislation

I'm not finding much happiness reading the news this AM. This article made me bang my head on the desk at least 3 times.

The woman terminated her pregnancy in 2002 after she learned that her fetus had no forebrain or cerebellum, a fatal condition known as anencephaly. Because her husband was in the Navy, the woman was covered under the military's health plan, the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services, or Tricare.

But Tricare administrators said they were barred from paying for the abortion. Federal law prohibits payment for abortions except "where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term." A regulation putting the law into effect specifically excludes payments for situations involving "fetal abnormalities" and mentions anencephaly.

I want to hear just one argument that supports this legislative limitation. Just one. Then I'll find the commenter and cut their eyes out with a spoon (make that a wooden spoon). Here is a perfect example of why the decision on whether the fetus was going to survive or not should be left to the doctor and not some bloody politician. Is there anything remotely reasonable about forcing the woman to carry to term a fetus that won't survive. And, don't we owe the servicemen and women of this country and their families at least a reasonable coverage for things like this?

Lisa M. Stone, who represents the woman, said she and her husband had an annual income of less than $20,000 and could not afford the charge of about $3,000 for the abortion. The couple sued, and in 2002 a judge ordered Tricare to cover the costs, allowing the abortion to go forward.

Over 10% of their annual income for the abortion. To preserve a "life" that wouldn't have lasted after birth? WTF!!!!!

The government appealed to get its money back from the couple. Though lawyers for the Justice Department did not dispute the diagnosis of anencephaly, they argued that the Congressional restriction furthered the government's interest in protecting human life and warned against a "slippery slope" if courts tried to determine which abnormalities warranted an abortion.

Ah, the infamous "slippery slope" argument. Of course, the legislature stepped on that slope in defining what couldn't be used to warrant an abortion.

Unfortunately, I think the court did the right thing. The law was just broken from initial creation. This is just another case which makes me wonder whether some judicial activism isn't, at times, correct. Especially when the law is flagrantly unjust.