by Andrew P. Napolitano
Last week marked the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade,
the U.S. Supreme Court decision that permitted abortions. Prior to that case,
abortion was regulated by each state, and most of them prohibited it unless two
physicians could certify that the baby growing in the mother's womb would
likely result in the death of the mother. Even the states that permitted
abortions when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, an extremely rare
occurrence, did not permit it after the sixth month of pregnancy.
Roe vs. Wade changed all that. It permits abortions in
all 50 states during the first three months of pregnancy for any reason or for
no reason. It permits abortions during the second three months of pregnancy for
the health of the mother. "Health of the mother" can mean mental
health; thus, most states have taken the liberal position that if a continued
pregnancy would make the mom sad or challenge her psychologically, or if she
has second thoughts about the pregnancy, the baby may be aborted.
Roe vs. Wade also permits the states to prohibit or to
allow abortions during the last three months of pregnancy. Most states prohibit
all abortions during the final three months, as this is the period of
viability; when the baby can live – assisted, of course – outside the mother's
womb. New Jersey, my home state, is the exception, as it permits abortions up
to the moment of birth.
In the past 39 years, American physicians have performed more than 50 million abortions. Abortion is the most frequent medical procedure performed in the U.S. The linchpin to Roe vs. Wade is the Court's rationale that because the decision to undergo an abortion ordinarily occurs between patient and physician, and because that interaction ordinarily takes place in private, the right to privacy insulates abortion from the reach of the State. Roe vs. Wade itself does not define the right to an abortion, but it does unambiguously declare that the baby in the womb is not a person, and that the right to privacy protects the mother's decision to kill the baby.
Did you catch that? The Supreme Court declared that
the baby in the womb is not a person. When it made that
declaration, it rejected dozens of decisions of other courts, in America and in
Great Britain, holding that the baby in the womb is a person.
This is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857
in which it ruled that blacks were not persons. In both cases, it cited no
precedent, it gave no rational basis, and in Roe vs. Wade, it merely said that
because philosophers, physicians and lawyers could not agree on whether babies
in wombs are persons, it would declare them not to be persons.
If the baby in the womb is a person, then all abortion
is unlawful. That's because of the constitutional protection for all persons.
The Constitution unambiguously prohibits the government from impairing or
permitting others to impair the life, liberty and property of persons without
due process. Here's my political beef with so-called pro-life politicians in
both parties. In the years in which the pro-life Ronald Reagan and both
Presidents Bush were in the White House, from time to time, both chambers of Congress
had pro-life majorities. Did you see any legislation passed that declared a
baby in the womb to be a person? No. This could have been done by a simple
majority vote and presidential signature, and Roe vs. Wade, and all the killing
it spawned, would have ended.
How scary is this? The Supreme Court declares a class
of humanity not to be persons, and then permits people to destroy the members
of the class. That's what happened to blacks during slavery; that was the
philosophical argument underlying the Holocaust; that's what is happening to
babies in the womb today; and that might become the basis for the government
killing persons it hates or fears in the future. It will declare them to be
non-persons.
Is the baby in the womb a person? Of course babies in
wombs are persons. From the moment of the union of egg and sperm, there is
present a fully actualizable human genome; meaning all the genetic material
necessary for post-birth existence is there. And the parents of that union are
human beings. With human parents and a human genome, what else could a baby in
a womb be but a person? If you have any doubt, why not give the benefit of that
doubt to life, rather than to death? Unless you prefer death to life and
killing to nurturing and misery to joy, I expect you agree.
Since you have been reading this essay, 10 babies have
lost their lives, as abortions occur in the U.S. about two and a half times a
minute. How long can a society last when we cannot protect the weakest among
us, and when we destroy them out of convenience, and when we make that
destruction legal? Who will be destroyed next?
No comments:
Post a Comment