Referring to this case, The New York Times described how "Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.?
Citing the record of a fetal heartbeat monitor as evidence, Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, ?I'm fine.' She said at 4, ?I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK' Five, she said, ?I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, ?I need out.'?
"She speaks to you through me,? Edwards said. "And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.?
According to The New York Times, "The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.?
There's no need to second-guess a jury's 19-year-old verdict in favor of little girl touched by tragedy. But looking back across Edwards' subsequent political career, his closing argument in the Jennifer Campbell case now reads as a sharp indictment of his own claim to be a defender of the weak against the powerful.
Were they able to secure the services of a lawyer like Edwards, what message might all the babies killed in partial-birth abortions since 1999 -- when Edwards voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban -- send to the man who now seeks to be vice president of the United States?
"Senator, the doctor is trying to kill me!?
That is something Edwards could not say in any malpractice suit he brought against any doctor trying to deliver a baby. Whatever else Edwards might have said about those physicians, they wanted the babies in their care to live.
What is the difference between the babies Edwards the Lawyer defended and the babies Edwards the Politician would not defend when he voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal? Just this: Edwards' interest.
At least he is consistent about one thing.