|
Don't tell
me being pro-life is un-American!
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
The morning after President Bush announced that he was nominating John
Roberts to serve as associate judge of the United States Supreme Court,
USA TODAY quoted Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights as saying that in making the nomination President Bush
“chose the politics of conflict and division over bipartisan consensus.”
The Henderson theme will be repeated many times over. Granted that the
abortion debate ignites passionate disagreement, such demagogy is an
insult to those among us who are horrified by unrestricted abortion on
demand. And, there are more of “us” than Mr. Henderson may want to
admit.
A March 3, 2005, Harris Poll announced: “Only a small majority still
supports Roe vs. Wade and opposition is at its highest in 20
years.” Harris reported that support for Roe dropped to 52
percent from 57 percent. Opposition has grown from 41 percent to 47
percent. That’s an 11-point shift in six years. But, even these figures
are deceiving. When analyzed, the pollster mischaracterized the abortion
decisions of 1973 (Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton).
Take a close look at the question presented by the pollster: “In 1973,
the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws which made it illegal for
a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were
unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have
an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the
woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this
part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three
months of pregnancy legal?” (emphasis added) Note, too, that this
was a telephone poll conducted among a cross section of 1,022 adults, of
whom 442 identified themselves as pro-life while 512 identified
themselves as pro-choice. There was also a sampling error of plus or
minus three percentage points.
Now look at the wording of another question in the poll: “In general, do
you think that abortion should be legal or illegal during the following
stages of pregnancy?” The choices offered were “the first three months,”
“the second three months” and “the third three months.” Seventy-two
percent of the respondents thought abortion should be illegal in the
second trimester and 86 percent stated abortion should be illegal in the
third trimester.
Even claims of majority support for abortion in the first trimester are
open to question. In April 2004, a Zogby International poll asked if
abortion should be permitted after the unborn child’s heart has begun to
beat. Sixty-one percent answered “no.” A baby’s heartbeat can be
detected at 21 to 22 days after conception. And 65 percent said abortion
should not occur after fetal brain waves have been detected. They are
recordable at 40 days (less than halfway through the first trimester).
Here’s the point. The way questions are asked can and do determine the
outcome of polls. The more people come to understand that abortion is
available on demand through all three trimesters of pregnancy, the more
they back away from the “strong public support” some would have us
believe pervades the land.
Factors leading to an erosion of support for abortion are rather clear:
(1) the wide-spread use of ultrasound imaging has brought to light the
humanity of unborn children; (2) partial-birth abortion has horrified
the public and demonstrated how extreme the U.S. abortion law is; (3)
the inability to stop partial-birth abortion has frustrated the public
and legislators, and turned opinion against the judicial system
unwilling to end this barbarous violence.
Edward Lazarus, a legal commentator, who supports abortion and is a
former law clerk to Justice Blackmun, Roe’s author, has described
Roe vs. Wade as “one of the most intellectually suspect
constitutional decisions of the modern era,” adding that as “a matter of
constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on
the indefensible.”
The chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities,
Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, wrote to each senator in January:
“We (the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities) are troubled
by reports that national abortion advocacy groups and even some U.S.
senators view nominees who oppose the purposeful taking of innocent
human life as somehow unfit for judicial office in the United States. It
is further reported that attempts would be made to deny them a vote on
confirmation by the full Senate.
“Insisting that judicial nominees support abortion throughout pregnancy
is wrong. By any measure, support for the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe
vs. Wade decision is an impoverished standard for assessing judicial
ability. For over three decades, Roe has sparked more informed
criticism and public resistance than any other court decision of the
20th century. Even legal scholars who support abortion have criticized
Roe for not being grounded in the U.S. Constitution. Further, in
2000, the Supreme Court relied on Roe to rule that the gruesome
and inhumane practice of partial-birth abortion must be constitutionally
protected.
“When considering nominees the Senate should not allow itself to be held
captive to such an unfair and unreasonable standard.”
A ton of money will be spent between now and the Senate hearings for the
confirmation of John Roberts as associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Abortion is a huge industry in the United States. Vested interests are
numerous. I know nothing about Mr. Roberts. If confirmed, he may prove
to be a disappointment. The issue on the table is whether Roe vs.
Wade should be a litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court.
It should not if we truly believe all people have an inalienable right
to life.
You may wish to write to Senator Lugar (senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov)
and/or Senator Bayh (bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm) in these or similar
words: “All human beings deserve respect and protection from harm,
especially those who are most defenseless. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court,
Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, violated these principles
when it created a new ‘right’ to abortion throughout pregnancy. Because
of Roe and Bolton, the court rules that even children who
are partially born can be killed. As your constituent, I urge you not to
require support for Roe vs. Wade (and its companion case Doe
vs. Bolton) as a condition for determining a nominee’s fitness for
judicial office.”
Hearts are hardened on this issue, but it must be believed that we as
individuals can make a difference. Perhaps things will not change if
Judge Roberts is confirmed, but Roe should not be a litmus test
for people nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Belief in the
sanctity of life is not un-American. |
