|
Praise God
partial-birth abortion is gone
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
Back in April in Gonzales vs. Carhart, the United States Supreme
Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban act by a 5-4 vote. Also
referred to as “intact dilation and extraction,” in partial-birth
abortion a live baby is partially delivered and an incision is made at
the base of the skull through which the brain is removed and the skull
crushed, and then the dead body is delivered the rest of the way. Lower
courts had ruled that the partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutionally
restricted a woman’s legal right to an abortion. The act as presented to
the court would not have punished a woman for having such an abortion.
Rather, it would have punished doctors who performed the procedure.
Abortion supporters denounced the court’s decision.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she was disappointed. The
court’s decision, she proclaimed, is a significant step backward.
Senator Barack Obama announced he strongly disagreed with the Supreme
Court ruling. It, he said, dramatically departs from previous precedents
safeguarding the health of pregnant women. Said the senator: “I am
extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to
enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose.”
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton tiptoed a bit, but left no doubt she too
regretted the Supreme Court decision: “Today’s decision blatantly defies
the court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth
abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the
health of the mother.”
The “health exception” is a favorite of those who support a woman’s
right to choose or, as the politically correct folks prefer to portray
themselves, who are defenders of “reproductive rights.” They mean
abortion.
Doe vs. Bolton, handed down by the Supreme Court on the same date
as Roe vs. Wade, defined health to include physical, emotional,
psychological, familial, even a woman’s age as relevant to the
well-being of a woman. The “health exception” in effect nullifies
efforts to restrict abortion because every abortion-minded woman can
present some health factor. Later court decisions expanded the use of
the “health exception” explicated in Doe vs. Bolton by demanding
its inclusion in statutes that merely regulate some aspect of abortion,
such as laws requiring parental notice. In Steinberg vs. Carhart,
the court even claimed that an abortion method some doctors think
might have a marginal health benefit over other methods cannot be
prohibited.
Supreme Court opinions have not been candid about abortion. For example,
they refuse to concede that abortion kills a living human being.
Unwilling to state when life begins, some justices refer to children
before birth only as “potential life” and have termed abortion
“termination of pregnancy.” In Gonzales vs. Carhart, the court
lifts the veil, repeatedly acknowledging the humanity of the unborn
child. The ruling refers to the prenatal human as a “child” and
“infant,” and calls abortion “killing.” It brings us face to face with
what abortion involves.
Gonzales vs. Carhart represents a significant course correction
in the very erratic path of abortion law. For the first time since
Roe vs. Wade, the court has upheld a law banning a specific (and
particularly heinous) abortion method.
At the same time, abortion remains legal throughout pregnancy. A doctor
performing late-term abortion still can kill the child by tearing off
his or her limbs piecemeal and injecting dioxin to cause a fatal heart
attack while the child is still in the womb. Nonetheless, doctors now
are foreclosed from intentionally delivering a living child partly
outside the mother’s body before committing an act which kills the baby.
The thing Gonzales vs. Carhart establishes is a line between
abortion and infanticide. It will no longer be illegal for lawmakers to
ban the killing of a mostly born child. And, it does much more. In the
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey court decision in 1992, the court
said that states have a “legitimate and substantial interest in
preserving and promoting fetal life,” and even admitted the court had
gone too far in denying to states leeway in regulating abortion. This
seems to have been forgotten in a decision in 2000 (Steinberg vs.
Carhart). Now, however, by upholding the federal ban on
partial-birth abortion, the court demonstrates that its promising
Casey decision might actually mean something.
The Church has great empathy for anyone who has been victimized by
abortion. Few are able to experience that procedure and walk away as if
nothing took place. The pressure exerted upon women to have abortions
often is crushing. At the same time, recent research documents that in
most instances abortion leaves deep scars. That is why outreach programs
such as Project Rachel are so important. The famous parable of Jesus and
the woman caught in adultery should guide how we react to knowledge that
a member of our family, a friend or an acquaintance has had an abortion.
While our “sin” may not be abortion, none of us is entitled to cast
stones. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Church to cut
through the hype that has so successfully sanitized abortion and to
focus the attention of one and all on the sanctity of life from
conception to natural death.
What does Gonzales vs. Carhart mean for the future? If the court
means what it said, we can expect it to uphold more state and federal
laws regulating abortion. The court, for example, may now uphold laws on
parental involvement without health exceptions or on informed consent.
The court may give truthful information about fetal pain, the
abortion-breast cancer link, the risk of subsequent pre-term birth, etc.
The court’s new candor about unborn life and abortion and its apparent
increased willingness to uphold reasonable regulations may open up
opportunities to foster greater respect for life and limit abortion.
I rejoice in the statement issued by Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of
the United States bishops’ Committee on Pro Life Activities, after the
Gonzales vs. Carhart decision. The cardinal said: “We hope
today’s decision marks the beginning of a new dialogue on abortion, in
which fair-minded consideration will be given to the genuine interest of
unborn children and their mothers, to the need for an ethically sound
medical profession, and to society’s desperate need for a foundation of
respect for all human life.”
Do Supreme Court nominations make a difference? People on both sides of
the abortion dispute have known for a long time that they definitely do. |
