Abortion.
I realize that the vast majority of you who read that word already have firmly held opinions on the subject. My aim is not to persuade anyone that they are wrong or validate those who are certain they are right. In fact, as a rule, I avoid discussing this issue altogether. It’s so emotionally charged for everyone that frank discussion is usually impossible. So why do it now? Because in the face of distorted facts, I have with difficulty been sitting idly on the sidelines.
Most know by now that there is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that prohibits so-called “partial-birth” abortions. For many who are anti-abortion, this is being hailed as a victory.
But is it?
The bill does not prohibit abortions; it prohibits a particular type of abortion. Last time I checked, the argument of those who believe that abortion should not be legal is that the fetus has a right to life. This new bill does absolutely nothing to forward their cause.
In the wake of this bill, if a woman needs (or chooses) to have an abortion, there is nothing in the bill that would prohibit the doctor from performing a more invasive surgical procedure. There is nothing that would prohibit a doctor from administering chemicals that would cause her body to abort the fetus.
Now, whether it be by “partial-birth” or some other surgical or chemical procedure, the pregnancy will still be terminated. The fetus will be aborted. If you believe that the fetus had life, I assure you that it will now be equally dead in all three circumstances.
So, why the ban?
Well, why not? Actually, it was rather easy. It’s hard to muster much support to fight a law like this when the opposition can trot out grotesque images from surgical procedures that involve lots of blood, gore and fetus-shaped body parts and say, “We’re gonna stop that.” Sadly, powerful propaganda tends to shut down the critical-thinking centers of the brain at a time when they should be most vigilant. If you believe they’ve saved fetal lives, color yourself duped.
On the other hand, they may well have endangered female lives. Last time I checked, very few of our esteemed legislators had medical degrees. Even fewer were gynecologists, and I don’t know of a single one who freely admits to performing abortions on a regular basis. So, faced with the choice of leaving the procedure in the hands of qualified medical professionals or taking it upon themselves, our fearless leaders decided that Congress knows best.
But do they?
The text of the newly passed bill begins with two misstatements of fact.
“The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion … is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.”
First, according to my trusty dictionary, a consensus is a general agreement or unanimity, and I can assure you that there is no such thing on this topic. Even the National Right to Life Web site — hardly an unbiased source — will tell you that at least 25 percent of the American population does not support a ban on this procedure. The bill goes on to state that at least 27 states have attempted to ban this procedure. Who, other than a politician, would define 54 percent as a consensus?
Second, just three short years ago, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, (partial birth abortion) would be the safest procedure.”
Think I’m nitpicking? Ladies and gentlemen, these misstatements are about to become the law! Is it so unreasonable to ask our lawmakers to refrain from creating reality by decree?
Let me draw a wee comparison for you. In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that decreed the mathematical constant pi to be equal to several values — none of which began with 3.14. It then went on to the Senate where, to the relief of all architects and civil engineers, it died a quiet death.
A local newspaper, however, reported the following, “Although the bill was not acted on favorably, no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation.”
Pity their modern federal leaders haven’t the same perspicacity or self-restraint.