By Judie Brown
Just when you thought we had seen it all, Idaho is now witnessing an exodus from its borders. No, the potatoes are not moving, but the baby killers are. They do not like the state law that they argue bans abortion. But there is something in these news reports that troubles us a great deal. The law in question does not stop every abortion; it’s therefore not a ban.
The courts have upheld the state’s Defense of Life Act, which is riddled with exceptions. In fact, the law specifically permits abortion for any number of reasons based on the doctor’s opinion. And so once again the media and the abortion practitioners have got something totally wrong.
But we have a fundamental problem that has nothing to do with exceptions. It is the question of how a doctor who has taken the Hippocratic Oath could align the words of that oath with his practice of killing babies, maiming women, and literally contradicting the very oath on which his medical practice stands. If his practice is based on the tenet “first do no harm,” how could he ever reconcile killing babies with the practice of medicine?
Doctors are leaving Idaho because they have apparently convinced themselves that their abortion practice is more important than the ethics of their once-proud profession. In fact, Idaho attorney general Raul Labrador has said that he will not prosecute doctors who refer their patients out of state for abortion.
This is so because he has arrived at an agreement with Planned Parenthood regarding out-of-state abortion. What this tells us is that the rooster in the hen house is hell bent on child killing, even if he has to make a deal with the devil.
While Idaho is not alone in this sketchy category of abortion ban states, it is certainly a prime example of why, as we have declared repeatedly, nothing short of a human personhood law that protects every human being from his or her beginning will suffice. This is so because people cheat, deceive, and obscure the truth.
This is not universally so, but a heroic judge is really a rare commodity in this age of death-speak. In April, Idaho judge Jason Scott ruled that there is no right to abortion, yet at the same time he acknowledged the state’s abortion exceptions as valid. The conundrum of being for and against aborting a child might befuddle us if we did not realize that when the truth about what abortion does is replaced by politic gibberish, anything can and usually does happen.
Sadly, public discourse has moved far beyond debating the truth. This has opened the door to accomplishing what Christ Himself said was impossible. For just as the rich man would have problems entering heaven because of his love affair with worldly things, so too with regard to the abortionist and his journey.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. We maintain that it is equally difficult for a purveyor of abortion to argue in defense of murder while suggesting he is merely providing a legal choice to his customers. Like the rich man, the abortionist denies that he is taking an innocent human life.
While we understand that honest people in Idaho embrace the truth about the value and dignity of the human person, we wonder why their elected officials are so befuddled. But then again, politics starts with propagandizing, and for some, it is easier to believe a lie than to fight for the truth.