On Wednesday, June 28th, just days after banning student-led prayer at high school football games, the Supreme Court further disgraced itself by opening the door to infanticide in its 5-4 decision, which struck down a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions–laws which 28 other states also have. It was bad enough that our inglorious president had vetoed similar legislation passed by Congress, but the Court wields much greater power than he does.
Some say that this latest ruling supports the original Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which is an understatement: it establishes it with a vengeance! Roe was a legal blunder which read into the Constitution an intent that simply was not there. To even suggest that women have a Constitutional right to abortion is absurd. It was based on the rising sentiment of moral looseness and a few loudmouthed feminists who allegedly represented all American women (a now-debunked myth).
Citizens might pardon the Court for one really bad “interpretation” (although God will not, considering the resulting carnage), but this Stenberg v. Carhart decision is inexcusable. During the past 27 years everyone has had plenty of time to explore the subject of abortion thoroughly. Spiritually and medically (in other words, factually), the baby is a living entity in the womb, and abortion kills that innocent human life. Legally, the land’s highest court has had more than sufficient time to have discerned upon what a flimsy basis Roe rests. An honorable review would have opened the door to greater restrictions on abortion instead of slamming the door shut. There can be no justification for this decision.
One wonders how many Americans (including justices) even know what partial-birth abortion is. Even the thought of the barbarous practice evokes strong emotions. For years pro-life people argued that Roe caused abortion to be available up to the point of birth; enemies said that was not the case. But just as the woman dubbed “Roe” lied about being pregnant due to rape, “pro-choice” advocates lied about the fact that Roe allowed abortions through the third trimester. Partial-birth abortion makes that discussion irrelevant.
Now five members of the Extreme Court have no problem with “sucking out the brains of a nearly delivered baby” (Cal Thomas’ words in an article from the Denton Record-Chronicle, published on July 3rd, page 10A). For those who do not find such an action grotesque, first, think about it, and, second, find a technical description; the details are even more gruesome.
In Justice Stephen Breyer stated: “The question before us is whether Nebraska’s statute, making criminal performance of a ‘partial-birth abortion,’ violates the federal Constitution. We conclude that it does.” One wonders how many years of law school one must have in order to conclude such nonsense. How can it not be a criminal offense to do to a child what is done in a partial-birth abortion? Undoubtedly, Breyer would object vociferously if a convicted murderer were put to death by removing his brains from him while he was still alive. How can anyone be so blind? What kind of law allows an innocent child to be brutalized and killed but insists that hardened felons be treated civilly? It would be difficult to imagine a more cruel or unusual punishment than that rendered by partial-birth abortion.
Once again, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the minority. Surprisingly they were joined by the usually pro-choice Anthony Kennedy (he was appointed in place of the brilliant Robert Bork, who was vilified by many just because he is conservative). Kennedy argued: “The political processes of the State are not to be foreclosed from enacting laws to promote the life of the unborn and to ensure respect for all human life and its potential” (10A). He would probably not be in favor of reversing Roe, but at least he is willing for states to pass appropriate legislation in this instance.
Ironically, Sandra Day O’Connor proved to be the deciding vote (joining liberals Stevens and Ginsburg). When she was appointed by Reagan, pro-life people opposed her. Reagan genuinely thought that she would “not disappoint” them, but she has proved to be a disappointment on a number of matters–particularly on abortion. Her opponents were correct; she has demonstrated her hostility toward unborn children and apparently lacks the natural affection a mother should have for her children (Rom. 1:31, KJV).
She is also out of touch with current conditions. She said the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not provide a “health-of-the-mother” exception. Thomas asks: “Besides, how can a woman be a mother unless the child she has chosen to kill is a baby before it is born?” (10A). The irony is that “the officially pro-choice American Medical Association” has said that partial-birth abortion “is never medically necessary” (10A). O’Connor is using the antiquated washboard in an age of electric washing machines.
Justice Scalia was in favor of letting the people in each state decide this issue, and Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the court applies “a totally different set of standards to abortion than it applies to all other questions that come before it” (10A).
Cal Thomas may be correct when he avers that this court will be “regarded by future generations on the level of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s court, which ruled in Dred Scott that black people were not fully human, and therefore, their lives did not warrant the full protection of the law” (10A). Unborn children–even at the very moment of birth–now have no protection.
Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, and the others who have assented to these abysmal decisions will one day face the Judge of all mankind. There will be no appeals; His decision will be just and once-for-all. They will appear before him with bloodstains on their hands–not the bloodstains of the enemy received as a result of fighting for freedom–nor the blood of the guilty as they are put to death for their crimes. Their hands will be blood-soaked from the deaths of multiplied millions of innocent children, which they had the power to prevent. Attempting to wash them would prove as futile a gesture as that of Pilate. The Lord will exercise as much compassion on them as they gave to infants. Blackmun is already reaping what he has sown; the others would be truly wise to repent of having such a callous view of human life while they have the opportunity. Obtaining forgiveness is only possible in this life.
As for the segment of the Court and society that still retains its sanity, we can only look to the future and hope for a better Court composition and a society that will can look upon an innocent child with compassion. As William Murchison wrote in The Dallas Morning News on July 5th:
The justices leave a riven and angry society no possibility of reconciliation via democratic processes. In essence, the court says to pro-life Americans: Get over it!
Get over what? The conviction that life–a wonderful, not to say a heavenly gift–is a negotiable commodity, maybe good, maybe bad; that the mother’s choice trumps competing considerations?
…pro-life Americans never are going to get over it. They’ll suit up again and again, as often as it requires, and hit that line. A decision like Stenberg invites just such a result (13A).
AMEN!
The confusion that people seem to have regarding abortion defies description. C. S. Hunter responds to those who (correctly) call abortion murder by writing the following in The Dallas Morning News of July 9th: “Maybe so, but we live in a democracy, and the vast majority disagree” (4J). What kind of logic this?
In the first place, research indicates that the majority of people think that partial-birth abortion is wrong. One president vetoed a majority of Congressional representatives. The Court was split and might have gone the other direction.
But even if the issue were one-sided, should that settle any matter? Did not the majority of people in the South think slavery was acceptable (which sometimes resulted in the deaths of black people)? Should Rosa Parks have continued to sit in the back of the bus because the “majority” felt more comfortable with that system? Was Martin Luther King wrong to protest the injustices of his day? Truth is still Truth regardless of how many people agree or disagree.
As has been asked before: “is it prudent to kill living beings if one is unsure whether or not it is murder?” Hunter says maybe it is murder. What kind of heartless individual advises, “Abort first, and ask questions later”? It is not that people do not have access to adequate information to decide; they relish ignorance.