►
Partial-birth abortion ruling: Where is the victory?
by Judie Brown
Released April 27, 2007
Commentary by
Judie Brown
The
Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold restrictions on partial-birth
abortion (actually, it's infanticide) in most cases has stirred up the folks
who support the act of abortion in ways that boggle my simple mind. Goodness! If
we believe their rhetoric, we would have to admit that indeed, the sky is
falling and all people of good will should run for the hills.
I'm
so sorry to have to burst this bubble of fear and hysteria, but it is perhaps
time to be realistic rather than emotionally blathering about what five Catholic
men on the Supreme Court actually did-and more importantly, what they did not
do.
In
the pro-abortion world, the Gonzales v.
Carhart decision is described in headlines that at best create false
impressions and at worst generate total deceit. I have seen each of these
statements over the past few days, and realize that this is why the vast
majority of Americans are so sadly ill-informed. Here but a few of these illogical
statements:
- Gonzales v. Carhart creates the perfect
storm
-
The decision is taking aim at all abortion rights
- Our worst fears realized
-
Abortion vote splits the country
- Abortion is unsavory but it is still a woman’s choice
- New abortion ruling endangers women
- Gonzales v. Carhart decision a medical
mistake
- Five men have dramatically shifted the abortion debate
One
can only wonder if anybody actually read the decision.
Or perhaps they all feel it best to ignore what the decision said and raise
money for their cause through deception. Or even worse, they're totally misrepresenting
what is at stake-just energizing their supporters to quickly write a check and to
not even think about asking any questions.
To
be honest, however, far too many leaders within the pro-life movement have been
doing the same thing for 10 years. As Denver’s Rev. Bob Enyart recently pointed
out, tens of millions of dollars have been raised to defend this faulty law and
during those 10 years, millions of preborn children have been killed by acts of
abortion. Even now, with the Supreme Court having ruled the partial birth
abortion law constitutional, the hard truth is that not a single abortion will
be stopped. Rev. Enyart accurately points out that law enforcement cannot use
this law to protect a single preborn child from death by abortion.
The
10-year debate over this particularly gruesome form of infanticide has
certainly raised public awareness about the procedure’s ghastly nature. Thank
God such practices will no longer be allowed-unless a doctor can show that he inadvertently delivered a living
fetus, 90 percent of the way, because he claims he had to do so to save a
woman’s life.
The
sad fact is that even though the pundits are now telling us that abortion will
be a key issue in the 2008 political campaigns, the reality is that there is a
critical aspect missing from this discussion: the exposition of the scientific
fact that every single time a surgical or medical abortion is performed, a
human being is killed. One type of abortion is not worse than another. Every
abortion, regardless of how it is carried out, is evil. Every abortion is a crime.
The
human being who is the victim of abortion is rarely the focus of the public
discussion. Take another look at those headlines. We seem to be concentrating
on “rights,” “political reality” and semantics designed to raise money, get
votes and keep everybody in line in the process. Why has the agenda deleted the
facts? Why are we more interested in the hype than we are in the actual facts?
Even
as abortion proponents, as I have indicated above, are well on their way to
frightening all of us to death, some of the better known pro-life groups have
showered us with glowing news statements celebrating a major victory. But why? Where’s
the beef?
Justice
Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion states that “a fetus is a living organism
within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Kennedy then
writes that “an abortion not involving such partial delivery is permitted.” In
other words, tearing the baby’s body limb from limb inside the womb-which is
called a standard D&E abortion-is acceptable; delivering 90 percent of the
baby before killing him is not acceptable. Kennedy goes on to state that it
“was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than
standard D&E, undermines the public’s perception of the doctor’s appropriate
role during delivery and perverts the birth process.”
Note,
please, that Kennedy uses politically correct language. No passion need be part
of a scholarly decision. But he also makes it excruciatingly clear that those
very same heinous abortion procedures are OK as long as the baby dies in his
mother’s womb rather than after he is 90 percent delivered.
There
is no doubt in my mind that the five Catholic justices who concurred in the
opinion agree that partial-birth infanticide is cruel and inhumane. What is not
clear is whether this decision is really a step toward re-criminalizing
surgical abortion and defining it as an act that kills a human person.
For
example, the decision explains, “If intact D&E is truly necessary in some
circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an
alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.”
Additionally, the justices tell opponents of the law that if they believe the
act should have contained a health of the mother exception, they must bring
those arguments before the court in an appropriate case, which thus far they
have not done.
To
my mind, this decision is fraught with deliberately crafted language that not
only accommodates Roe v. Wade and its
progeny, but does little to suggest that the justices are even concerned about
setting forth adequate protections for a single preborn baby whose body is not
90 percent outside the womb.
So
while so many on the pro-abortion side are screaming, and too many on the
pro-life side are cracking open the champagne, nearly everyone is being left in
the dark; and I am left with a real dilemma.
Not
once in that decision did the justices even remotely suggest that the preborn
child is a human being. Not once did they stipulate that the act of abortion is
direct killing. So while the Houston
Chronicle opines that “The court's ruling assaults the autonomy not only of
women’s physicians, but of women, themselves,” I get this sinking feeling that
public relations, politics and polemics have completely taken over and nobody
is any longer interested in pointing out that if those five justices were truly
attempting to do something historic, they would have at least mentioned the
four-letter word b-a-b-y. Or is that
word now too pejorative to be considered part of the legal lexicon?
Victory?
Perfect Storm? How about extraordinary
disappointment.
Release issued: 26 Apr 07
|
