Supreme Court Finally Gets One Right on Abortion
- 6 May 2007 by Author 0 Comments
Supreme Court Finally Gets One Right on Abortion
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/06/07
Two weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Congress’ 2003 ban of Partial Birth Abortions. This was a very small step in the right direction to reestablish our national recognition of the value of life. Our Declaration of Independence explicitly states that “life” is a God-given, inalienable right that we hold sacrosanct. We have many laws in our legal code that protect life of adults and children, but for some reason we have abandoned our constitutional requirement when it comes to the protection of innocent, unborn life.
Partial birth abortions are absolute grisly procedures that should make even the most hardened producer of horror movies cringe. Justice Anthony Kennedy, traditionally a pro-abortion jurist, included the following description of the process in his majority decision. “The abortionist (his assistant reported) delivered the baby’s body and arms — everything but the head. At that point, the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out. … The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out.” The law prohibits this particularly brutal kind of abortion when the abortionist’s rationale is clearly to deliver the infant partially with the intent to make sure the child will not be alive when fully delivered.
Anyone with even a semblance of moral normalcy should be absolutely repulsed by the fact that this could be done legally in our country. I find it nearly as abhorrent that four Supreme Court Justices would not concur with the majority at the reprehensibility of such a procedure.
This same procedure if performed with the child completely outside of the birth canal would be murder, and the perpetrator would be charged with a capital crime. What difference is there between the two scenarios? Only someone who is completely amoral could possibly contend that it makes any difference if a portion of the baby’s body is still inside the mother.
What’s even more shameful is the fact that not all partial birth abortions are averted by the 2003 law. Congress only voted to forbid the intact D&E (Dilation and Evacuation) procedure as described above. If the abortionist does not deliver a certain minimum extent of the baby’s body before killing it, the ban does not even apply. For anyone with a sense of propriety, the law did not go far enough to restrict this ghastly practice.
Many in our society are perfectly fine committing murder on innocent, partially born infants as described above. Yet surprisingly, many of those same infanticide advocates have a problem with a murderer paying his life as the price for taking the life of another human being. Not only is there no viable logic in such a position, but it is devoid of any semblance of morality. A wise man once said, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.” That’s exactly what such abortion advocates and capital punishment deniers do. It should be truly alarming to our collective consciences that much of the country seems to think it’s acceptable to kill innocent life, yet spare the guilty life of a capital crime perpetrator.
Justice Kennedy in his majority position further stated, “Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” The respect for life should be such a core issue for us and it is encouraging to finally see some logic verbalized from the Supreme Court relating to the valuation of life. When respect for life is reduced, the value of life itself can’t help but be curtailed.
As the time when a “tissue mass” can be classified as a “viable tissue mass” moves closer and closer to the point of conception, the pro-abortionists are going to have a more difficult time defending the practice. When a baby is born, it is more like a change of address, than it is a change of status as a viable human being subject to the same protection of law as an infant outside of the womb.
On the constitutionality issue, does anyone else find it disturbing that the same people who think it’s their constitutional right to kill unborn infants think its okay to extirpate gun rights? Granted, I’ve a simple mind, but as many times as I’ve read the Constitution, I still can’t find anything in there about the right to commit infanticide based on some other notion, conspicuously absent from the Constitution, of a right to choose elimination of the unborn. Compared to the explicit right of Americans to own guns, which is right there in black and white in the 2nd Amendment, the abortion “right” is downright hallucinatory.
There is one other positive element to this decision that deserves reference. The ink on the ruling had hardly dried when the leading Democrat Presidential Candidates all denounced it. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were all critical of the ruling. That should provide some moral clarity for those in quest of a Presidential candidate to support.
This may be, and it should be, the precursor to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. That was a characteristic mistake of the Warren Court. For those who argue for precedent in upholding Roe vs. Wade and the infallibility of the Supreme Court, consider where we would be if Dred Scott vs. Sanford hadn’t been overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The protection of life is fundamental to our republic. The innocent, who have no voice in their protection, deserve the complete safeguarding of unborn infants as is afforded born infants. Neither have voices, mandating that we adults provide that protection. At the very least, Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the issue referred to the states to handle at that level. Hopefully this is one small incremental step toward that end.
Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.