Let’s see how that works out.

The WGA hearts the scruffy protesters, but the guild’s Eastern branch got into a snit after OWS members shut down the filming of a new “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” episode dealing with the hard-left movement.

So the guild took paper to pen, as it is wont to do, and asked that future protesters refrain from such activity in the future.

“The demonstrators’ actions were as misguided and inappropriate as the City of New York’s response – revoking ‘Law & Order’’s permit for the shoot and directing the dismantling of its set,” the union wrote. “Presumably the protesters and police did not set out to achieve a common end but together they prevented the scene from being filmed and the story from being told.”

The NBC legal drama — the last one standing from the once-thriving “Law & Order” franchise — was scheduled to film on the “Mockupy” Wall Street set early Friday. It was created in downtown Manhattan, near the State Supreme Court building where “L&O” shows have frequently filmed.

Protestors danced, waved flags, poked through the library and kitchen elements of the set and even crawled inside tents, despite objections from people guarding the “L&O” production. One protester carried a sign that said, “We are a movement, not a TV plot.”

You can read the rest of TheWrap.com story here.

NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” was shooting a new episode in New York City when those Occupy Wall Streeters swarmed the set and halted production. The story in question involved OWS, and the TV set was littered with faux OWS signage.

That didn’t sit well with the real OWS types:

More than 100 Occupy Wall Street demonstrators stormed the set for “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” across from the Manhattan State Supreme Courthouse, shutting down production of an OWS-themed episode.

“We made it so that they could not exploit us and that’s awesome,” said Tammy Schapiro, 29, of Brooklyn.

After midnight, a police officer on a bullhorn announced that the film permit had been rescinded by the city, which drew cheers from the crowd.

It could have worked out far worse for the “L&O” production, though.

A new survey conducted by Entertainment Weekly shows that Democrats prefer sarcastic comedies and morally entangled heroes, while Republicans gravitate toward workplace scenarios.

Yet both the Left and the Right adore “Modern Family,” a pro-gay comedy with plenty of Emmy appeal. Sounds like a media meme takes a hit with that news.

There’s some unintentional comedy packed into the intriguing report, too. Consider this description of why “The View” fares better with liberals:

Shows that skew female tend to do better among Dems, while male-friendly shows tend to do perform higher among Republicans.

How ’bout the panel’s hard left tilt? Might that have a smidge to do with it?

And why wouldn’t Republicans flock to “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” as the report indicates, since Leno doesn’t go out of his way to insult the Right like peers Jimmy Fallon and David Letterman do?

The survey also notes how shows like “Hawaii Five-O” appeal to righties, but cop procedurals like the left-wing “Law & Order” don’t. If the New Media didn’t exist, would the “left-wing” tag had been applied to that venerable franchise?

Highly recent testimony to Chicago’s immortally blackened reputation, however, is here.

God bless Ann Coulter!!

Furthermore, after having channel-hopped two of the United States’ greatest film noir classics – 1954’s “On The Waterfront” and 1957’s “Sweet Smell of Success” – there is something misleadingly American about the disease still infecting the United States.

Both Chicago’s Unionized Obama Nation and New York’s Bloomberg Occupation on Wall Street?

To coin a relevant movie title, they are “The Swampy Smell of a Waterfront Success!” A “triumph” born of the string-pulling games played by pecking orders in power. A Grand Revival of Political Malevolence in the American Bloodstream is erupting out of the possibly inner-party, Republican opposition to Herman Cain. It not only smells of racism, according to Donald Trump’s accusations, but also of a political desperation that will eventually solidify Cain’s integrity and endurance.

Newt Gingrich is the only one among Cain’s Republican opponents who came to the black candidate’s defense. Meanwhile some of Cain’s other major opponents, Rick Perry and Friends, were blaming Mitt Romney for the dirty tricks being pulled against the increasingly formidable Cain.

This Michael Ramirez cartoon leaves little left to be said about Progressive Racism.

“All Herman Cains, please step to the Right!”

The hypocrisy involved is as breathtaking as the Biden/Pelosi/Pro-abortion/Progressive Catholicism.

Who is running the show over their at the Democratic National Committee? And how often does Pope Benedict XVI have to lecture a former Speaker of the House about abortion?

Fifteen years ago, the minute I announced in Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety that I would leave America because of the Clinton administration’s unconstitutional assault on television’s freedom of speech, I envisioned the likes of Michael Bloomberg coming to my hometown of New York. Although I didn’t expect the next big villain after Clinton to be a black Chicago politician with an Ivy League
degree.

The racial insanities contained in that name alone are mind-boggling! A separate sink for conservative blacks in Washington’s politically correct outhouses?! If anything captures the truth about an American Communist toilet, it is Ramirez’ cartoon.

Veiled by the Democrat Party’s “Liberalism,” the Marxist heart of the DNC erupted when William Clinton described himself in his biography as not just a Baptist but a “Progressive” Baptist.

Senator William J. Fulbright was the most “Progressive” of “Progressive” Democrats, and Bill Clinton was nursed at Fulbright’s “well-connected” breast. Clinton’s Rhodes scholarship was cinched by the creator of the Fulbright Scholarship.

I was a Fulbright Scholar and soundly punished in a singularly “Progressive” manner for having publicly voiced my faith in God. A Fulbright Scholar doesn’t return to London from Catholic Italy, praising the power and works of God without being called insane and duly served up electro-shock treatments.

Ironically, the Leftist world might have been better off not giving me such an “electric” deferment from military service, or I could very well have died in Vietnam. There would be no Michael Moriarty of “Law and Order” setting the records straight at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood.

Not only was Sen. Fulbright a Marxist but a flaming racist as well.

Fulbright is a small glimpse of how far back racist Marxism has existed in the heavily “Southern” Democrat Party out of Arkansas. Scratch a Clinton deeply enough and you will find a racist Bill Fulbright.

An authentic but profoundly gifted Far Lefty, Joseph Papp, creator of the New York Shakespeare Festival, was a judge on the Fulbright committee which selected the 1963 Fulbright “Scholars.” Fulbright’s choice of Papp was hardly an accident. Papp’s tragedy was that he could not, try as he may and did, integrate Marxist polemics into William Shakespeare’s Judeo-Christian genius.

I recall my first falling out with Papp when he insisted that I, as The Chorus in Shakespeare’s “Henry V,” recite the opening incantation with a rabble-rousing, noisy crowd of Brechtian back-ups behind me, shouting and basically behaving like extras in a Larry Cohen horror film. I so declined the offer of “help” with my sacredly solo speech that I left the production during rehearsals.

Papp called me back, promising to take out his Marxist improvements of Shakespeare.

Years before that, however, he had advised me, “Don’t take the Fulbright Scholarship! Stay here in New York and build your acting career!”

I doubt if my life would have been altered one bit had I not gone to London. The Left in London was still the same as “Marxists in New York” – now there’s a song for you – but with a more high-toned and seemingly civilized delivery to hide behind.

The last Brit Marxist I’ve spoken with now disguises himself as an “Anarchic Syndicalist!” Now there’s a Communist AKA for you!!

My title for this editorial, Quintessentially American Evil, boils down to the singularly brilliant Community Organization for all of American corruption: the Soviet, decades-long campaign to turn American politicians, gangsters, dizzy-headed youth and shamelessly ambitious American families like the Clintons into “useful idiots.”

Some Brits, including a few in the BBC, have woken up to Soviet “creepiness” faster than Americans.

“Stalin’s useful idiots” have geometrically exploded since the Soviet monster’s death, despite the BBC’s best efforts.

The Obama Nation is hopefully the smelliest but also the last and most undeniably rotten fruit on The Expanding Tree of Useful Idiots.

America would never be able to survive anything worse than this. Four more years of such bipartisan corruption, and a United States without Cain as President will, like my character did in Report To The Commissioner, have hung itself. Cain, unlike the Yaphet Kotto character, is not ashamed of traditionally American Law and Order!

That I played my own character of Bo Lockley as a bit of a lost puppy from the beginning was why the film and I received such bad notices from the likes of far Left critic Pauline Kael.

The useful idiots of Hollywood film and Leftist criticism wanted the Report’s hero played throughout as a completely healthy, lovable puppy who offs himself because of American Evil, American Corruption, American Lies, American Insanity. That way America is the villain! Nothing could be further from the truth than that!

Only now has America approached the insanity of such seemingly irreversible evil as found in “Report To The Commissioner.” Even now, however, the healthiest of us, like Cain, won’t quit on authentic America.

Only Cain is strong enough to renew hope in the likes of “Report’s” Bo Lockley. I, thank God, am not Bo Lockley!

I am now a wizened, 70 year old Ben Stone of “Law and Order.” I prosecute in a courtroom called Big Hollyood.

You gotta problem?

Fast forward to today, with such shows dominating the TV viewing audience.  “CSI” (and its many incarnations), “Law & Order” (and its many incarnations), and a myriad of homicide and courtroom dramas have conditioned us all to a few extremely misleading and dangerous mandates regarding the quest for justice.   There is an ever-growing and alarming trend in this society.  With such an increase in daily TV viewing, coupled with more and more reality-TV afoot…it is becoming more and more difficult for people to discern reality from fiction.

Thanks to television, we now have the following rules for court justice:

1)    As in a TV drama, the first and most obvious suspect NEVER is ultimately the guilty party.

2)    It’s always the one you least suspect.

3)    Police, with their erroneous and suspicious motivations, are never on target with their investigation.

4)    The DEFENSE team is always the good guys and their motivations and impulses are pure and pristine as the wind-driven snow.

5)    The more obvious the case seems against the poor, hapless defendant, the more certain we are that he/she didn’t do it.

6)     Even with a preponderance of evidence of guilt, the defendant is almost always being framed, extorted, and otherwise the real victim (of the crime he/she perpetrated).

7)    Juries tend to see the defendant as the Little Guy — victimized by the huge, leviathan of the Establishment — that uncaring, unfeeling Machine that is our judicial system.

8)    Juries have come to see themselves as courageous Defenders of the Little Guy – the last vestige of hope for a poor, put-upon, flawed-but-innocent victim of police corruption and legal injustice.

9)    Prosecutors seek to put the puzzle pieces together, to connect the dots; defense attorneys seek to unravel the argument, mix it all up, plant seeds of doubt, throw mud on the wall hope something sticks.  Prosecutors seek to clarify; defense seeks to confound and confuse.

10) With the advent of high-tech CSI-style evidence gathering systems…you had better have DNA, carpet fiber, blood sample, residue forensics (as see on TV!)…all in order, establishing motive, opportunity, ability, plus video of the crime, plus a tearful breakdown on the stand of admission of guilt…and even then!… the jury may acquit.

I think we’ve all fallen for the famous words of Voltaire:  “Better to have a thousand guilty set free than have even one innocent imprisoned.”  (paraphrased)

Rubbish.  I’ll take my chances on the occasional miscarriage of justice over the prisons being opened in the name of We-Don’t-Wanna-Make-a-Mistake.

Gird your loins and man up, wussies!  If you’re on a jury, you’ve got a job to do.  Do it!  Don’t pussy-out because you miss your family, you’re worn out. and deliberations are really, really hard.  Whaaaa!  Man-up and do your duty.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond any doubt.  There will always be some doubt of guilt.  Martians could have come down in the night to commit the crime.  It’s a possibility, albeit an absurdly unlikely one.  But what is the reasonable probability?   This is what jurors are reminded to consider – and act upon.  The burden of proof must be met, yes.  But as we saw in the O.J. trial… “Beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t work if you’re dealing with unreasonable people.  That crime was proven thirty ways to Christmas.  But that jury couldn’t see it because Furman was a racist?!  And those on the jury who could see it were too wussy to fight for the truth.  It’s tough to fight prevailing unreasonableness in court deliberations.  I know, I’ve served on three trial juries.  It’s tough – you’re tired, you want to just arrive at a verdict, be done with it and go home.

But you have to get it right.

We, as a society, need you to get it right.  Because if you don’t, if you choose instead the easy path, the expedient solution – we as a society suffer.  We are a nation of laws – but if we may break them at will and suffer no consequence, then we are no longer a nation of laws.  Folding in a jury deliberation room is like going to Congress and voting “present.”  You either have some balls and take a stand…or put your tail between your legs, cower to the consensus, and take the easy way out.

Casey Anthony lied repeatedly to police about the disappearance of her daughter, then proceeded to party her little ass off.  A young mother who played at parenthood who just wanted to be carefree again and be done with it.   If she didn’t do it… why lie to the cops?   Why invent the stories of obfuscation about this phantom baby-sitter…etc, etc, etc.   Because she was embarrassed?  She was traumatized by some vaguely-alluded-to adolescent sexual abuse?

I think most of us can figure it out.  It’s obvious.  So obvious, in fact, that she’s going walk.  You see…if was too obvious.

Anyone who’s ever watched “Law & Order” knows that.

Law & Order devotees have subconsciously felt this moment coming for some time, but now that the axe has finally fallen, many of us are grappling with television-induced heartache.

NBC confirmed Friday that it had canceled the original “Law & Order,” bringing an end to a 20-year-old television drama that jump-started an era of television production in New York City.

“Law & Order” was on the verge of becoming the longest-running drama in prime-time television history, surpassing “Gunsmoke.” But it appears that the “Law & Order” executive producer, Dick Wolf, has settled for a tie. The final episode of the series will be shown on May 24, NBC confirmed in a news release Friday.

As I ponder the unwelcome reality that one of my favorite shows is, well, done-done,  I’m struggling to get past the unsatisfying fact that one of television’s longest running programs was unceremoniously dropped–with neither fanfare nor closure.   As the process shook out, the final episode ended up being shot before NBC decided to pull the plug.  The end result: What was initially written and produced as a season finale (which was excellent, especially S. Epatha Merkerson’s moving performance and Sam Waterson’s epic rant) became the de facto series finale.  Law & Order’s cast, crew, and fans deserve better.

On Sunday, LOST fans were treated to a two-and-a-half hour conclusion to their freaky-deaky science fiction saga.  ABC included a two-hour tribute show before the main event, and enlisted Jimmy Kimmel to host an extensive post game show.  Adopting a decidedly minimalist approach, Monday’s 24 series finale on Fox was preceded by a recorded thank you message to fans from star Kiefer Sutherland. By comparison, Law & Order’s swan song was utterly bereft of any special commentary or even a mere acknowledgment. It started with the show’s trademark “In the criminal justice system” voiceover, and ended with the familiar “Executive Producer – Dick Wolf” full-screen graphic.  For the casual viewer, NBC provided not even a clue that the decades-old series had just ended.  Unacceptable.

But hope springs eternal.  The New York Times reports that in addition to adding a new LA-based show to the L&O franchise (really, NBC?), the network might offer its flagship a “proper send-off,” perhaps in the fall:

NBC is also quietly exploring the possibility with Mr. Wolf that the show may be able to produce some kind of movie or extended retrospective next season to give the series a proper send-off.

An extended, thoughtful series finale is the very least NBC can do.  Being the generous type, I thought I’d offer a few suggestions for a compelling and fitting final show.

(Obligatory note to NBC suits and Dick Wolf: Feel free to steal the entire idea.  I won’t sue or demand compensation…just allow me to be an extra in the episode).

Basic Plot:

The show opens with District Attorney Jack McCoy receiving a phone call that beloved retired detective Lennie Briscoe has been murdered.  Briscoe is a fan favorite, and because actor Jerry Orbach has passed away, a show centered on securing justice for his character would hold enormous sentimental value and would inject a sense of urgency into the investigation.

Detectives Lupo, Bernard, and Lt. Anita Van Buren quickly surmise that Briscoe was almost certainly targeted in a revenge killing by an ex-con whom he had helped put away earlier in his illustrious career–but who? and when?  To gather a list of possible suspects, the current investigative team enlists the assistance of Briscoe’s ex-partners (Logan, Curtis, and Green) and Briscoe-era Assistant ADA’s (Ross, Carmichael, Southerlyn).  This gimmick would help advance the plot, remind viewers of blockbuster cases from seasons past, and allow star-studded parade of Law & Order royalty to make cameo appearances in the final episode.

When the investigation finally implicates a ruthless Columbian drug cartel,  lead prosecutor Michael Cutter becomes obsessive in his pursuit of the killers.  His overzealous posture puts the case–and his safety–in jeopardy, and the cartel murders him in cold blood.  A tragedy of this magnitude forces McCoy to exert executive control over the case, leading to his dramatic decision to return to the courtroom to sit first chair at trial.  Former ADA Paul Robinette and superstar lawyer Danielle Melnick act as co-defense counsel.  At the conclusion of an emotional trial (which would feature obligatory testimony from Medical Examiner and possible Briscoe fling Dr. Elizabeth Rodgers), McCoy delivers a classic stemwinder of a closing argument before a riveted courtroom, packed with luminaries such as Ben Stone, Adam Schiff, and Arthur Branch.

The verdict?  Guilty on all counts.

The series ends at a reception held in memory of Briscoe and Cutter–a grim celebration of the successful conviction and a time for old friends to catch up.  The camera pans the assembled crowd of current and former police (who investigate crime) and district attorneys (who prosecute the offenders).  Those were their stories.

Fade to black.  Executive Producer: Dick Wolf.

Before I get rolling, in the spirit of full disclosure I will admit to being a Law & Order junkie. My DVR is full of my favorite Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes, which is by far the strongest of the three series. I will also admit that in my mind Law & Order: SVU is to the Law & Order brand what Deep Space Nine was to the Star Trek brand. It is a weak cousin that may have been spreading the brand a little too thin.

I know I have said this before, as a conservative if you start watching and listening only to things you agree with politically then we are stuck with Magnum P.I. reruns, Ben Stein movies, The 700 Club and Toby Keith CDs. I was just about to type the word “records” but I remembered this is the 21st century. Not that there is anything wrong with any of those choices, I just want a wider selection.

So, back to Law & Order, a lot of the chatter I have been hearing is true. Yes, Dick Wolf and a lot of other Hollywood types are far left politically. Yes, they often put their politics into their work, many times without balance. Yes, it is unfair that they verbally smack Bill O’Reilly and others around and misrepresents their positions.

This week’s episode of the original Law & Order had some material that I found more offensive than a little name calling. The show which was a riff on the Big Government expose of ACORN.  First the police use an unlawful search and seizure against a “conservative” guy because he doesn’t bow to their demands to be questioned. Later in the episode, every time Detective Lupo, played by Jeremy Sisto, asks him a question he mocks his political beliefs by pretending he is talking to “the government” on his cell phone. There is also a mocking reference to the “Tea Parties last summer.” When the “conservative’s” friends  show up to protest his wrongful arrest they are depicted as a group of gun toting, flannel shirt wearing, poorly educated, rednecks. Yep, that’s me alright.  

The question is this; how should conservatives react to this? I think we should take a page from the playbook of the far left and try to bring some economic pressure to bear on the advertisers of NBC. The left has started strong campaigns against both Dr. Michael Savage and Glenn Beck trying to silence them by hurting them economically. There was even the recent laughable “revelation” that Glenn Beck gets paid by his sponsor Goldline. So let’s try to do the same. Here are two big ad buyers on NBC; McDonald’s and American Express. Let’s start by dropping an e-mail to both companies politely asking them to stop buying ads on NBC and see what kind of response we get.

Recently I was sent an email complaining about the season premier of the TV Show, “Law & Order.” My correspondent asked what I thought about the plot in which the local Manhattan district attorney Jack McCoy prosecuted a former Justice Department lawyer for “depraved indifference murder” following the lawyer’s memo on the techniques which could be used on terrorists. An astonished “Executive Assistant DA Michael Cutter says, “Jack, you want to prosecute a member of the Bush administration for assaulting suspected terrorists?” To which, a cocksure “McCoy” declares: “The word is torturing. And, yes, it’s about time somebody did.”

The increasingly leftwing comments injected into the plots of this once fine show had turned me off many seasons ago and I answered my reader, “I haven’t watched that show much since they replaced Michael Moriarty as the lead in 1994.

Mr. Moriarty has always been one of my favorite actors and given that he is an Irish American, I thought he’d be the perfect lead off to a series of interviews with notable Americans of Irish ancestry. I was thrilled to be able to connect with Mr. Moriarty, who now lives in Canada, and he graciously agreed to this Q&A interview.

Alicia Colon (AC): If you were still with L&O would you have objected to the season opener trashing the Bush administration over torture? What is your opinion on Gitmo?

Michael Moriarty (MM): From your description of the L & O program which I DIDN’T see, it sounds typically classic NBC. A Variety magazine article years ago described NBC as the most obedient network to governmental demands. It is now embarrassingly sycophantic. I’m not a fan of either of the Bush Presidents … but this judicial assault upon Guantanamo in a time of war that is still going on is approaching treason. Leave the suspects in Gitmo until the Islamic extremists cease and desist. Welcoming them into our country is suicidal … but then so is the entire Progressive Program for a New World Order. …

AC: Do you think that your pro-life position on abortion makes it more difficult to find work in Hollywood?

MM: Obviously yes … so I’m completely retired.

AC: What made you want to run for president last year? What made you drop out?

MM: The same passionately common sense that drives Glenn Beck is what drove me to run for President. To inject a little OBVIOUS common sense into a profoundly corrupted, two-party system. If you knew how hard that is you would admire Beck’s strength even more than you might now. The title of his new book, ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, is immensely exhausting, particularly for an old man like me. I dropped out of the 2008 election in order to recommend another candidate, Mr. Fred Thompson, also an alumnus of Law and Order. Sarah Palin was then barely a political reality. However, when she hooked up with McCain I supported the Republican ticket entirely because of her.

AC: What is your assessment of the Obama administration?

MM: Beyond a disaster!! In light of what Obama swore to at the inauguration – “to uphold the Constitution of the United States” – it’s a grotesque charade, a lie, a black comedy of immensely ominous implications for individual freedom in the world. Obviously Obama will be obliged to claim that at the inauguration the Chief Justice was putting words in his mouth! He never had any real obligation to uphold the silly principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! All the President’s so-called plans and achievements are as forbidding as Chamberlain’s concessions at Munich. But, as we “Drunks” say, “Let go, let God!”

AC: What do you think of Glenn Beck? Have you seen RedEye? What do you think of the grassroots tea parties?

MM: Glenn Beck? A Godsend to America!! The Tea Parties? Long overdue! Red Eye? Very New York! Very Manhattan “Chic”! Very welcome because of its point of view: looking down on those East Coast Progressives who look down on us!!

That being said, this season has been refreshingly solid.  Aside from the atrocious “Let’s prosecute Cheney!” season premiere, each successive episode has been vintage “Law & Order.”  The most recent episode (“Dignity,” October 23) bordered on spectacular.  *Spoiler alert*

It did not begin auspiciously.  The opening sequence set the stage for yet another warmed-over episode wherein an abortionist is murdered, and the rest of the program consists of detectives trying to determine which anti-abortion nutter did the deed.  The show’s writers usually permit one character to utter a single token pro-life line (“Just because you might disagree with abortion doesn’t justify this violence!”), while the oh-so-reasonable pro-choice characters get the last word.  Having seen this template before, I almost flipped channels.  It seems as though at least one of the L&O spinoff series airs a “new” abortion-doctor-murder episode every year.  One wonders if more abortionists have been slain on this fictional television franchise over the past 20 years than in real life.

But last week’s episode marked a dramatic departure from the familiar, biased trope.  After detective Bernard makes a few forceful pro-life points in an impromptu squad car debate with his partner, ADA Cutter jumps into the fray. He professes his pro-life views and refutes a condescending response from his pro-choice colleague (Rubirosa) by citing the “turning tide” of public opinion and mentioning that most Americans now consider themselves pro-life.  Apparently Mr. Cutter’s been checking the latest Gallup stats. Rubirosa replies by pointedly referring to those who share Cutter’s views as “anti-choice,” at which point the reliably liberal District Attorney, Jack McCoy, mentions his own daughter’s change of heart on the issue.  She was staunchly pro-choice, he explains, prior to seeing the image of her unborn child in an ultrasound.   End of scene.

Jaw-dropping stuff.

Later in the episode, it’s revealed that the victim was performing illegal, post-birth abortions–more commonly known as murder–at his clinic.  A whistle-blower nurse informs the DA office that she left the deceased doctor’s practice after witnessing a failed abortion result in a live birth, and then a callous killing.  (For those who follow the abortion issue closely, this story may sound familiar.  It also raises an issue that was used to highlight the radical pro-abortion record of a certain post-partisan Messiah during the 2008 campaign). On the stand, the nurse testifies about the repugnant practice, explaining that the baby’s corpse was discarded as “medical waste.” This revelation horrifies both Rubirosa and the jury.

Later in the trial, another witness describes her decision not to abort her severely disabled child.  Her story moves the jury to tears.

The prosecution then calls an expert witness–a doctor–who testifies that his murdered colleague was doing good, medically necessary work.  Upon cross-examination, he’s exposed as a pro-abortion zealot; willing to perform third trimester abortions for any reason, no matter what the law says.  His contempt for Christians and pro-lifers is palpable, and turns off the jury.  The prosecutors are left wringing their hands about how poorly he performed on the stand.

Again, stunning.  I kept checking the channel guide–this really was “Law & Order.”

As the episode drew to a close, ADA Rubirosa offers the following admission:

“I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel.  That a woman’s privacy was inviolate.  But after hearing that woman on the stand talk about her baby dying in her arms, I don’t know.   I don’t know where my privacy ends and another being’s dignity begins.”

Cutter (the pro-life one, remember) tells her that in the current case, the distinctions are pretty black and white, and that it’s their job to put away the bad guys.  To which Rubirosa replies,

“I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you, Mike.  Unfortunately, I can’t leave my soul in the umbrella stand when I come into work in the morning.”

You can watch the scene described above here.  In case you were curious, the trial ends with the abortionist’s killer being convicted.  (A verdict that all true pro-lifers would applaud).  ”Dignity” provided viewers with a nuanced, layered depiction of a hot-button social issue that did justice–and then some–to the conservative position.

To the writers and producers of “Law & Order,” Bravo.