PRO-LIFE SUCCESSES AND THE NEED FOR REALISM
During the last two years the following three important bills were passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
The first of these bills signed into law by President Bush was the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Its purpose is not only to protect a child surviving an abortion attempt but any child after birth who is in danger of becoming the victim of what might be called a "retroactive abortion."
The second bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, had been passed several times by Congress before and was twice vetoed by President Clinton. President Bush has corrected these inexcusable actions of his predecessor.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has been challenged in three different federal courts: in Lincoln, Nebraska, in New York, and in San Francisco. Some of the testimony in these cases has been quite revealing.
In the San Francisco trial, the government lawyer asked Dr. Maureen Paul, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, whether the unborn child experiences pain during the abortion procedures. Dr. Paul replied, "I have no idea what you mean." No idea!
In the New York trial, Judge Richard C. Casey questioned Dr. Timothy Johnson, a professor at the University of Michigan and a research scientist at the Center for Human Growth and Development.
"Does the fetus feel pain?" asked Judge Casey. Dr. Johnson replied that he did not know and was not aware of any research about that. Judge Casey then asked Dr. Johnson about fetal pain during abortions involving fetal dismemberment. According to an Associated Press report, the questioning continued like this:
"Simple question, doctor. Does it cross your mind?" Casey pressed.
Johnson said it did not.
"Never crossed your mind?" the judge asked again.
"No," Johnson answered.
Here is a professor of human growth and development doing abortions, and the question of fetal pain never crosses his mind. Would a specialist in the field of human growth and development seriously believe that fetal pain perception starts magically after birth?
In the Lincoln, Nebraska, trial, Dr. LeRoy Carhart testified that "there are terms in this act that I do not understand." This lack of understanding did not keep Dr. Carhart from asserting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban covers "at least 21 different procedures." The Associated Press report on the proceedings then contains this statement:
Carhart said at least once a month, an entire fetus is expelled from the mother during a D&E he is performing. "The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery," he said. There is a heartbeat "very frequently."
The AP report doesn't say what Dr. Carhart does in such cases. Someone should enlighten him about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Or does that law, too, contain terms he doesn't understand?
The third law was signed by President Bush just earlier this month. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes it a crime within federal jurisdictions to harm or kill an unborn child as a consequence of an attack on the mother.
The pro-abortionists' stubborn insistence that there is only one victim and not two in these cases is completely at odds with public opinion. Dramatic cases of violence against pregnant women and our persistent educational efforts have persuaded a large majority of the public that this legislation is needed. For people endowed with common sense and the ability to count, it is obvious that a violent assault on a pregnant woman injures or kills two victims: the mother and the child in the womb.
It is worth reflecting on why these pro-life laws could be enacted. There are several reasons.
Ultrasound images of the child in the womb increasingly adorn the refrigerator doors and photo albums of parents and grandparents. The tireless educational efforts of the right-to-life movement are affecting more and more people. Many women who have had abortions are publicly condemning the practice. These laws had broad appeal because most people reject infanticide, cruelty (made vivid by the description of partial-birth abortion), and giving criminals a free pass on injuring or killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman.
And, finally, we could work with a pro-life president, the pro-life leadership in Congress, the pro-life majority in the House of Representatives, and a significant contingent of pro-life senators. (In the Senate there was a close call. A crippling amendment to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was defeated by one vote, 49-50. "Presumptive" Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry rushed from the campaign trail to cast an anti-life vote.)
Given these successes, one might be inclined to go for a much more decisive pro-life victory, such as challenging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. (The latter must be overturned, too, because it defines the "mother's health" loophole in a way that renders ineffectual all proposed laws that prohibit abortion except for reasons of health.)
What would it take to succeed in this endeavor?
* At least five Supreme Court justices must be committed to sound constitutional principles and thus ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Currently, there are only three justices inclined to do so (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). For a 5-4 anti-Roe majority in the future, the next two or three appointments to the Supreme Court must fit this mold, depending on who retires from the Court.
* President Bush would have to be re-elected. If John Kerry is elected president, he will, as he promised, only appoint judges and justices committed to preserving Roe.
* In addition to President Bush being re-elected, the number of senators committed to approving only pro-abortion justices would have to drop below 41 to avoid a filibuster against anti-Roe judges.
* A strong majority of the public must be convinced that "Roe and Doe must go."
The pro-abortionists know this, too. That's why they are working like crazy to prevent any of these conditions from materializing.