Abortion Supporters Upset Over Fetal Rights Legislation

Seamax ^ | 6/2/2003 | Fr. Michael Reilly

[Hugenot]

Newsweek's cover story on Fetal Rights for the June 9 issue is already causing quite a stir among abortion supporters.

A Newsweek Poll shows that 46% of Americans believe that life begins at conception, while an additional 12% believes that it begins at implantation. Only 11% believe that life begins at birth, which means that 89% of Americans would acknowledge that the present abortion laws allow for at least some legalization of murder.

The Laci Peterson story has popularized the question of fetal rights, since Scott Peterson has been charged with two murders, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which has passed the House, is being referred to as the Laci and Conner Law.

The law would inflict penalties on those who harm "a child in utero" while committing a federal crime. While the bill is expected to pass the Senate, defenders argue that it will not impact abortion because the law protects children that are wanted by the mother.

Nevertheless, if we are acknowledging that the child in the womb is indeed a human being with rights, it's only a matter of time before the arbitrary distinction of wanted/unwanted crumbles.

Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt is quoted in Newsweek as complaining that, “If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot."

Meanwhile, Ken Connor, president of the antiabortion Family Research Council argues that, “It's not OK for the husband to kill his wife's child, but it's OK for the mother [to have an abortion]?”

National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League President Kate Michelman denounced the Laci and Conner Law as a "part of a larger strategy to establish the embryo with separate distinct rights equal to if not greater than the woman."

Try as they will, abortion supporters cannot get around a simple fact. Once society says that it's acceptable to take an innocent human life, all human life loses its sacredness.

[jwalsh07]

What do you call something that's not life?

Some use the term fetus which dehumanises the baby and allows them to kill it and not go crazy.

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[Dahlseide]

I would add from the DoI "...unalienable right to life ....."

[Dahlseide]

Roe vs Wade will eventually be overturned.

I think so too, just hope 1) in my life time & 2) it needs to be ridiculed at least as much as Taney's ruling 150 years ago.

Taney & Blackmum need to be linked forever.

[Dahlseide]

Yea, but how do they vote? Many are "against" abortion but other issues are more important

[Dahlseide]

Similar to "I know it when I see it".

[Dahlseide]

Yes!

[Salvation]

Pro-life bump!

The truth about life is starting to be heard!

[supercat]

The secret to successfully ending abortion "rights" is DUE PROCESS. An unborn child is a human just the same -- and entitled to due process under our constitution.

When a woman shoots a rapist does the rapist receive due process?

By any reasonable interpretation the "due process" requirements in the Constitution refer to state action.

That having been said, homicide is a matter of state jurisdiction, and there is thus no constitutional justification for Roe v. Wade.

[supercat]

One thing I think is important is for pro-life forces to use incrementalism to maximum advantage. A major key in this battle will be the exposure of pro-choice leaders' radicalism. If they can be put in the position of opposing something that 90% of the population would support, and for which no opposition is justifiable, they can then be marginalized.

[MHGinTN]

So true, my friend! The pro-abortion folks have been defending the indefensible partial birth infanticide for so long, they don't even see the hooro any longer! These people defending that heinous slaughter of even sentient babies waiting to be born have truly marginalized themselves, if we will but cite their history, publicly.

[DLfromthedesert]

Thanks for the great news ping.

[Imagine]

Oh puleeze, there is no difference to an aborted child whether the state performs the abortion or whether the abortion is performed under a state authorized environment. What other medical procedure results in the death of a human without compelling reason -- such as to save the life of another.

An unborn child is justifiably due legal process if its life is at stake. Morevoer, what about the father's rights. If he commits to raise the child (thereby reliving the mothger of that task) why shouldn't his interest be equal to that of the mother's?

[Imagine]

PS your woman / rapist comparison has no impact in this discussion.

[Sacajaweau]

You're absolutely right. The father has no rights until the child is born which means the mother is claiming "ownership" of the child to that point. But no person can "own" another.

Roe vs Wade was an error. It was based on "age" and age cannot be a factor. It was based on "ownership" by the mother. And murder of another, no matter the age, is wrong except in a protection situation.

Why do the same people who are shocked and enraged when a two year old is beaten to death by a parent, remain silent while "the most defenseless" are killed by the wishes of it's own mother.

[supercat]

PS your woman / rapist comparison has no impact in this discussion.

My point was that the "due process" requirement only applies to governmental entities. Nothing more, nothing less.

[rhema]

Taney & Blackmum need to be linked forever.

Speaking of forever. . .

from Hadley Arkes' Harry Blackmun, RIP . . . And May He Now Know Better: . . .Now, thanks to the genius of Justice Blackmun, a whole class of human beings was classified as something less than human — and placed then outside the protections of the law. Their lives could be taken at any time without the need even to render a justification.

For his stroke of originality, Blackmun came to be celebrated in "progressive" circles for his "growth" and liberal humanism. For this achievement, he was heralded by Columbia University as one of the "premier jurists" of our age.

Blackmun's deeper genius, running beyond his wit as a judge, was that he knew just who had the power to pronounce him one of the premier jurists of the age. And when he died on Thursday, he went on to his reward with the angels of the media and the law schools praising his memory.

But as Evelyn Waugh would say, the question is whether he knows better now.

[Sonny M]

I've seen recent polling that indicates today's teens are les pro-abortion and more pro-life.

That is pretty right, in college, we used to go over polls alot (I was a government and politics major), and all through college it showed that the pro-life numbers were going up, but there are a few hitches in that.

Off the bat, depending on the poll, many of the pro-lifers fall into the category of regulating but not banning abortion, or "exceptions for" crowd. Its hard to gauge exactley how many people are solid pro-life in terms of wanting it banned completely.

The strange hitch that we all noticed and it caught some of my lefty teachers for a loop, and even some conservatives was that in the same and equal proportion that there is a growing opposition to abortion, there is also growing opposition to the death penalty. I.E. your growing pro-life crowd also opposes the death penalty. Opposition to the death penalty's increasing in percentages and number correlates almost exactley with opposition to abortion.

Thats sad, if people can't tell the difference or care, about killing the innocent and killing the guilty.

[Sonny M]

That having been said, homicide is a matter of state jurisdiction, and there is thus no constitutional justification for Roe v. Wade.

Roe vs Wade actually violates more constitional provisions and amendments then the "magic" it claims to use as its justification for making abortion a right.

That said, this partial birth abortion ban, is probably going to be the case that will go before the supreme court next year on a challenge, and will be the one thats used to overturn this modernday version of dred scott.