|
Using
Roe as a 'litmus test'
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
The infamous Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973 was not based on
anything in the U.S. Constitution. Even the man who wrote the majority
opinion, the late Justice Harry Blackmun, said that the ruling was based
on “penumbras and emanations” from the Constitution. The dictionary
defines “penumbra” as “vague, indefinite or borderline area.” In his
dissenting opinion, Justice Byron White called the decision “an exercise
of raw judicial power.” At least four Supreme Court justices and many
legal scholars have called the “right to abortion” an invention not
found in the Constitution. In simple point of fact, there is nothing in
the Constitution that bestows a right to terminate the life of an unborn
human being. Yet, 40 million deaths later — deaths of a type often
referred to before Roe as “unspeakable crimes” — the killing
continues unabated. However morally depraved it is, it’s legal.
If, despite common sense, logic and whatever else it takes to see what
isn’t there, judges continue to insist that abortion is a right granted
by the document, then the Constitution needs to be amended.
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is working very
diligently toward this goal. The latest effort of the committee is a
postcard campaign encouraging U.S. senators not to employ a Roe
litmus test in their evaluation of nominees for the court posts sent to
the Senate by the president. While I respect this enthusiasm, and I
support the aims of the NCHLA, I have my doubts about the effectiveness
of postcard campaigns. On the other hand, I have a great deal of
confidence in the effectiveness of letters to lawmakers. Letters make a
difference. A thousand postcards, all the same size, all saying the same
thing, don’t have the impact of a letter. A thousand personally written
letters will make a big impact. I ask you to consider writing a letter
to U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh asking him not to require a litmus test of
support for Roe vs. Wade for judicial nominees.
The NCHLA notes most appropriately that government has a responsibility
for protecting human dignity and caring for the needs of the poor and
vulnerable. I find it difficult to believe that a United States senator
does not see the moral / ethical importance of protecting defenseless
human beings. Yet, today, some insist that if a person stands in favor
of protecting an innocent unborn child, that person is not fit to serve
in the judiciary. Roe vs. Wade is a violation of basic human
dignity. It denies the protection of law for an entire class of human
beings — those waiting to be born. It is not only bad civil law; it is
an unjust, inhumane, immoral threat to human life.
Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton created a “right” to
abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy. It is “legal” in this
country to kill a child moments before it is born. Many don’t believe it
— even after all these years and even after being told time and again.
It is a fact. Many have gone to the mat defending the heinous, barbaric
act of partial-birth abortion. It is horrifying even to describe the
procedure. Thank God both our senators voted to ban partial- birth
abortion; although the law has been challenged based on, of course,
constitutionality.
This most grievous act notwithstanding, abortion advocates and some U.S.
senators believe that one must embrace a woman’s right to kill her
unborn child or that person is not fit to serve as a judge. Every single
person making such a claim was at one time an unborn child, but that
point is hardly persuasive for these advocates.
There is no calculating the damage abortion has had on our hearts and
minds as a society.
Women have suffered, and families; there is no telling the impact on the
tender consciences of the young growing up in a world where life itself
is not valued. The great dignity of the medical profession is degraded
by those who participate in destroying life. Roe vs. Wade has
poisoned all it has touched. It has coarsened and harmed us
immeasurably. And, even though few mention it, it is part of the Social
Security “crisis.” Having allowed the termination of millions of
productive citizens, we are becoming a nation of senior citizens.
Few argue the legal merits of Roe anymore. Edward Lazarus, former
clerk to Justice Blackmun himself, said, “Roe borders on the
indefensible.” When senators “oppose a judicial appointment because of
the nominee’s opposition to Roe,” he said, “they not only
endorse, but make a litmus test out of one of the most intellectually
suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era.”
Roe vs. Wade is bad law resulting in bad medicine and bad social
policy. The vast majority of Americans believe that the unlimited right
to abortion is wrong (Zogby International April 2004). The U.S. Senate
votes to confirm nominees for the federal judiciary. Let them know that
support for Roe vs. Wade should not be used as a litmus test for
judicial nominees. Please do something. Write a letter. Call the
senator. Write a letter to your local newspaper. E-mail is becoming an
increasingly valuable tool. Send an e-mail.
Sen. Evan Bayh is one senator who needs to hear this message because 1)
he is one of our elected officials in the U.S. Senate, and 2) he is the
only Indiana U.S. senator who has voted to support Roe vs. Wade.
Here is his access information:
Sen. Evan Bayh, 1650 Market Tower, 10 W. Market St., Indianapolis, IN
46204
Phone: 317-554-0750
http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm
Information for this column was derived from an NCHLA pamphlet titled
“No Roe Litmus Test.” This pamphlet is inserted in this week’s edition.
|
