|
NRL News
LET
COMMON SENSE PREVAIL It is now 35 years since the U.S. Supreme Court acted as an extra-constitutional super-legislature and invented a new “constitutional” right to abortion in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Both decisions are poorly reasoned, lack a constitutional justification, and are gratingly pompous—yet they are “landmark decisions.” They are landmark decisions because of their damage to our constitutional and social order: the “unalienable Right” to life is no longer “endowed by the Creator,” but dependent on someone else’s moods and feelings. As pro-abortion columnist Ellen Goodman put it: “Over the years, I’ve rejoiced at sonograms and picked names for what we call a baby when it’s wanted and a fetus when it isn’t.” Under this peculiar principle, one and the same unborn child could be a “baby” in the eyes of one parent and a “fetus” (to be aborted) in the eyes of the other. Or the mother could, under the varying moods of a stressful pregnancy, pick a name for the “baby” on one day and make arrangements to abort the “fetus” on another. In such a scheme, the notion of the inherent and permanent dignity of a human being evaporates. Roe “constitutionalized” the new abortion right, thus making its ruling immune to ordinary legislative correction. Therefore, nullifying the fictitious abortion right requires either a constitutional amendment or, more practically, a judicial reversal of Roe and Doe by the Supreme Court itself. Hence, the pro-life movement must focus on getting Supreme Court justices appointed who are guided by the Constitution and amenable to undoing the extra-constitutional actions of previous justices. Doe, often overlooked, was the Court majority’s gift to the abortionist. First, the abortionist is given professional stature. Previously considered a despicable criminal, the abortionist is now—in the obsequious language of Justice Blackmun—“the conscientious physician, particularly the obstetrician, whose professional activity is concerned with the physical and mental welfare, the woes, the emotions, and the concern of his female patients.” In the grim reality of the abortion clinic, however, the woman typically sees the abortionist for the first and last time when the abortion is taking place. Second, the Court created a right to abortion for any reason through a broad “health” exception because the abortionist may exercise his “medical judgment … in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. … This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” Third, by striking down Georgia’s consulting committee and hospital requirements for abortions, the Court provided the legal basis for a new industry: the freestanding abortion clinic, operating singly or in large chains, such as Planned Parenthood’s. Unfortunately, the abortion industry has been devastatingly “productive”: at least 50 million unborn babies have been killed on the altar of “choice” since 1973. This deeply distressing number would have been much higher, had it not been for the determined efforts of pro-lifers. In an election year, these efforts must be guided by plain common sense, as summarized in the following principles. First, “elections have consequences.” Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how he unleashed the abortion drug RU-486 on this country, how he pushed the pro-abortion agenda at the UN, and how he wanted to make abortion a routine procedure within a federally mandated healthcare system. Just recall how the Democratic pro-abortion leadership in the Senate is absolutely opposed to appointing constitution-oriented judges to the federal bench. Thus your vote matters. Second, “there are no ideal candidates for political office”—or, at best, very few of them. Anyone who thinks that one day there will be a majority of saints running Capitol Hill is foolish. And those who refuse to vote because the pro-life candidate is not “ideal” should look in the mirror. Most of the time, they won’t see an “ideal” pro-life voter. Third, “the point is not to make a statement but a difference”—more accurately, a positive difference. When a “statement” (e.g., actively opposing a pro-life candidate facing a pro-abortionist) has the effect of defeating the pro-life candidate and letting the pro-abortionist win, the pro-life cause has been betrayed. Simply staying above the fray and not voting in such a case has the same effect. Such non-voters allow the pro-abortionist to win. What true adherence to the pro-life cause compels pro-lifers to do is to make a positive difference: actively working for the pro-life candidate, ensuring the loss of the pro-abortionist. Fourth, “don’t fall in love with your candidate.” We all know candidates who are 100% pro-lifers, but have no chance of getting elected. Sometimes, there is the temptation—especially in a primary fight—to fight so tenaciously for the hopeless candidate that the eventual winner becomes tarred as “not sufficiently pro-life,” weakening him for the confrontation with the pro-abortionist in the general election. So don’t demonize the other pro-life candidates during a primary race, and close ranks behind the pro-life winner and support him in the general election. Fifth, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” By insisting on the unattainable we may lose the attainable. And when we lose as pro-lifers, babies die. Think about that. Beyond elections, this principle is brought home to us again and again when we pursue legislation. Many of us in the trenches have suffered the arrogant criticism of “principled” pro-lifers who dismiss our legislative efforts because “they do not outlaw abortion.” First of all, these critics don’t understand what laws realistically can be passed, given the current political situation and state of public opinion. Second, they don’t grasp what role even limited legislation can play in moving public opinion in our direction. Third, they fail to understand that such laws refocus the debate on the plight of the babies and the abuses of the abortion industry—away from the empty rhetoric of “choice,” the hard cases, and invented “constitutional” rights. And fourth, such “imperfect” laws save lives. Just look at South Carolina, where pro-lifers got several laws on the books. Abortions in South Carolina peaked at 14,133 in 1988. In 2004, the number of abortions had dropped to 6,565—a 53% reduction that far exceeds the national decline. The thing about pro-life common sense is that it compels you to act, instead of pontificating about your “principles.” Act! |