Debate about abortion takes center stage in Illinois race, and rightly so

"[My opponent] is not only somebody who embraces the pro-choice position on abortion, for instance, which is already at odds with the Declaration principle that we are all created equal, and endowed with the right to life. He is somebody who has carried it to such an extreme that he actually stood by and would allow infants who are born alive — as a result of a botched abortion procedure — he would allow them to be put aside like garbage, and let them die."

—Ambassador Alan Keyes, August 9, 2004, speaking about his Senate race in Illinois

Left-wing talking heads are running for cover, running from the issues, because they know Ambassador Alan Keyes is coming. They fear the eloquence of Alan Keyes and they fear his leadership, but they mostly fear that he will place issues of utmost moral importance, such an abortion, squarely before the American people. Scurrying for cover, they are desperate to deflect this issue, arguing that cherishing life is just not important to the Illinois race.

I have news. This issue should be debated everywhere, in every election. Life is important in Illinois. Life is important everywhere. Go get 'em, Alan Keyes!

In 1973, with the infamous Roe v. Wade[1] decision, the judiciary took from the American people their natural right to protect life. In our land of liberty, probably the most important moral and social issue of our time — abortion — was dictated in 1973 not by any democratic process. We did not decide this issue by sitting down with calm heads, working through this issue together, among families, communities, neighbors and churches.

Instead, a handful of judges eclipsed judicial bounds, wandered into the jurisdiction of the legislature, and took from us the right to protect life.

The Roe v. Wade Court found a way to reach its desired conclusion by creating a right of privacy that is absent from the text of the Constitution. The Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly includes this right. Of course, to our left-leaning judiciary, this mysterious privacy right does not apply in all situations, but only when it is convenient — only when the right fits the desired political end.

To activist judges, molding a judicially created formless right of privacy to comport with their personal views is acceptable. The founding fathers would have rejected it.

In his well-reasoned dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Rehnquist said that for the majority of the Court to reach its result, it had "to find within the Scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." He observed that at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were "at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion." Rehnquist stated that there was no question of the validity of these 36 statutes in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Rehnquist wisely concluded, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The majority opinion of Roe v. Wade is a classic legal exercise of finding support to meet a desired end, rather than drawing a conclusion from facts and established legal maxims. Today, while we often talk of the holding of Roe v. Wade, the underpinnings of this opinion rarely are discussed.

In fact, the Court's rationale was remarkably weak. With even many liberal legal scholars sharing this view, I am surprised the foundation for the ruling is not criticized more often.

While the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade purported to examine the interests behind criminal abortion laws and the history of abortion, the Court conducted only a cursory review of English common law. The Court opined that William Blackstone, an influential eighteenth century English common law scholar, viewed abortion after a woman who is quick with child (after the fetus begins to move in the mother's womb) as mere manslaughter, rather than murder. The Court also opined that Blackstone believed laws on abortion were becoming more liberal.

The Court's selective citation to English common law is unfortunate. Blackstone wrote that "[a]n infant . . . in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes."[2] Moreover, in Blackstone's time, there were not countless methods of abortion, from pills to medical procedures, and abortion was not as widespread then as it is today. According to a 1999 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., there are 256 abortions for every 1,000 live births.[3] Think about this. One child is aborted for every four children born. How shocking, and yet how sad.

In addition, today, abortion is rarely the result of medical necessity to save the mother's life or performed because of rape. One study from 1988 revealed that only 1% of women who have abortions do so because of rape (although even this number is disturbing, because even one rape is one too many).[4] Only 3% have abortions for medical reasons related to the mother.[5]

The Roe v. Wade Court's invocation of theology is equally as perplexing as its selective citation to Blackstone. In discussing theology, the Court argued that many Christians and Jews believe that life begins only at birth.

I can only speak of my understanding of the scripture, but my understanding is otherwise. Psalm 139 of the Christian Bible,[6] which was not cited in Roe v. Wade, states that God "knit me together in my mother's womb," "saw my unformed body" and wrote my ordained days in His book "before one of them came to be." This passage shows that God has known us from the beginning (He knit us together in our mother's womb), and He has a purpose for each of us (He wrote our days before they came to be). Likewise, in the first Chapter of Jeremiah, the Lord told Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."[7] Finally, in Romans, it is written that "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things."[8] The syntax of these passages does not support the idea that a mother's womb has an inanimate something inside it, which eventually becomes us. Instead, the passages show that every mother is part of God's plan and that God had a design for each of us even when we were in the womb.

Not only did the Court apparently fail to understand the scripture, but oddly, it also cited to "ancient religion" — Greek and Roman mythology. Further, it quoted the opinion of the American Bar Association, a club for liberal lawyers. Notably, it did not cite to the opinions of conservative associations.

For sure, a Court that abandons politically neutral Constitutional law in favor of personal opinion can always find something to support its view.

The Declaration of Independence states in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Without a doubt, this is the most important sentence in our Declaration of Independence. It is the sentence to which Alan Keyes refers in the quotation above. If this concept of life and liberty is the centerpiece of our nation, should we not as a nation embrace a culture of life?

Abraham Lincoln called the Declaration the "hope to the world for all future time," and certainly, the Declaration reflects important American values. I believe the vast majority of Americans, regardless of the strength of their religious conviction, share a belief that we are here on this earth for some purpose. It is only natural to understand that we are part of a greater plan and that we are each here to accomplish something, whether great or small, that will make a difference in a universal plan.

If this is true, then how can we say that purpose is bestowed only at birth? If a right to life is "unalienable" and inherent, who are we to decide the point that an unborn child is alive enough to receive this unalienable right to live?

---Now that the Court has taken from us the Ability to Protect Life, How Does Widespread Abortion impact our Society?---

Recently, a friend wrote to me about a stirring personal experience, explaining how he came to understand that abortion touches — and hurts — so many. He wrote:

"In the church I formerly attended they had a day every year where anyone involved in an abortion including boyfriends and husbands, would come forward and be embraced by forgiveness. Then the babies would be given names and seen as the gifts from God they are, and the healing that took place for those people is indescribable as they began to not only receive forgiveness, but began to envision their children with the Lord. Their suffering turned to joy . . . The altar was filled with people and pews were half empty."

My heart goes out to the countless people in our nation and around the world who have been impacted by abortion. Some of them have bravely stepped forward to tell their stories. Mae of California writes, "I was told that I would be out for eight minutes and I would feel only a little discomfort afterwards. They lied. It ruined 10 years of my life." Stephanie writes, "I was deceived because I was not told the truth about what an abortion means to the life of an unborn baby. I was not told that at 10 weeks (which is when I had my abortion) my child was already fully formed. I was made to believe that I was doing something that was as natural as going to the dentist for a teeth cleaning." Lori writes, "Two weeks after the abortion, I went into labor. I staggered into the bathroom. And there, with my husband beside me, I delivered a part of my baby the doctor had missed. It was the head of my baby . . . I'll wake up in the middle of the night, thinking I hear a baby crying. And I still have nightmares in which I am forced to watch my baby being ripped apart in front of me. I simply miss my baby. I constantly wake up wanting to nurse my child, wanting to hold my child. And that's something the doctor never told me I would experience."

Star writes, "Abortion destroys self-worth and dignity. I bought into the idea that abortion was simply a matter of choice. I used abortion as birth control until after my fourth abortion. I felt inside that this action has to be wrong. I wish I had given more thought to the abortions. If just one person had said 'what you're doing is wrong,' it might have changed the destiny of my life." Susan writes, "I know many millions of women across this country feel as I do about abortion. We all know deep down inside that we alone made a horrible decision and no coined phrase about choice and rights or the denial of biological and fetal facts can ever erase the truth. For we as mothers instinctively know during those still moments of aloneness, that we ended the life of a separate human being growing inside each and every one of us."

Reading heart-wrenching testimony like this, I am bound by faith and my heart to level my trumpet at our highest court and say this — give us back our liberty; give us back our democracy.

I can only hope for many more courageous leaders like Alan Keyes who will step forward and speak from their hearts on this issue, regardless of the consequences or the criticisms for taking this stand.

3. Morbidity and mortality Weekly Report, Abortion Surveillance, United States 1999 (Nov. 29, 2002).

4. Aida Torres & Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, Why Do Women Have Abortions?, Family Planning Perspectives (July/August 1988).

6. Psalm 139:13-16 (NIV). I quote from the NIV Bible, but the translations of the Good News Bible, Good Shepherd Edition, and the King James Bible are essentially the same.

Steven T. Voigt is a lawyer with an international law firm, with a practice based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After receiving his juris doctorate in 1999, he served as a judicial clerk to the Pennsylvania appellate court for one year before entering private practice. He is the author of numerous publications on national public policy and law, most recently the book TYRANNY: The Collapse of Traditional Law in America and the law review The United States Must Remain Steadfastly Opposed to The Rome Treaty International Criminal Court (published by Widener Law Review 2003).

Among other community involvement, Steven Voigt is a Member of the Board of Advisors for Americandestiny.com. He also authors a free monthly e-newsletter on issues of policy and law, entitled "Voigt on America." To receive this free newsletter, simply send your name and e-mail address to Voigt2006@aol.com.

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of Steven T. Voigt and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer, any organizations he is affiliated with, or any forum where this is published. Furthermore, the views are not intended to be construed as legal advice. If you need advice about anything in this article, please speak directly with an attorney.

But since the vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion

Your premise is false. The majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion, not the unrestricted "abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy" regime foisted on us by the unelected mandarins of the Supreme Court. If your premise were true, the pro-aborts would be willing to submit abortion to the democratic process. They aren't, which is why they are so intent on packing the Federal judiciary with pro-aborts so they can enforce their abortion policy by judicial fiat. The real "religious based intolerance" is John Kerry's upfront admission and brag that no pro-lifer, and therefore no orthodox Catholic or conservative Protestant, will be appointed to the Judiciary if he is elected.

The vast majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in some, but not all, cases. There is considerable variation in where they draw the line.

I would suggest, however, that pro-life people are going to need to shift tactics. Although people like Keyes can argue their position quite eloquently, I think they miss a very important point:

It is unwise to call a person, or one of that person's friends or loved ones, a murderer and still expect that person's vote.

I would expect that, for many people who have had abortions, it's easier for them to pretend that what they did was okay and vote "D", then for them to vote "R" because they know that it was wrong. Even if they know in their gut that what they did was horribly wrong, that won't help them vote for a someone that sees them as murderers.

The only way I can see a 'direct' attack on abortion as succeeding would be if pro-life people can help abortion's surviving victims to seek atonement. I don't know any way they can do so and come across as credible, since liberals will smear any efforts in that direction. But that's the only way the 'direct' approach can possibly work.

If it isn't possible to help people seek atonement, efforts at a direct attack on abortion would be better directed toward an incremental approach. Protection of late-term fetuses would not be nearly as likely to alienate those who have had abortions than would a complete abortion ban. Indeed, such efforts might help such people to find the Republican Party since it would help them start to atone for their past without having to acknowledge all at once what they really did.

check out "Silent No More.com"
Rachel Vineyard
Project NOEL
They are all groups that work with people who have been involved with abortion, helping to come to terms with what they have done. One of the great lies surrounding abortion is that there are no emotional, physical, mental or spiritual consequences. Talk to almost anyone involved in an abortion and they will tell you that is not true.

They are all groups that work with people who have been involved with abortion, helping to come to terms with what they have done. One of the great lies surrounding abortion is that there are no emotional, physical, mental or spiritual consequences. Talk to almost anyone involved in an abortion and they will tell you that is not true.

I am aware that such groups exist, but many people who hear Keyes speak probably won't be. I think part of the pro-life message needs to be that people who are pursuaded to do bad things are not necessarily bad people; sinners are welcome back to the fold iff they repent.

IMHO, this is a much more important message than the fact that abortion is wrong. Many people, even those who are pro-choice, already know that in their gut. But they think they have to believe that it's okay to believe that they or their loved ones are okay. Were it not for that 'need', I suspect abortion would be much more widely and openly despised.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.