Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:21:44 -0500
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      March for Life, etc.

Darren,

It was the pair of decisions issued on January 22, 1973 that legal-
ized abortion on demand for the full nine months of pregnancy.  Here
is the relevant portion of Roe v. Wade:

     "(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first
trimester, the  abortion decision and its effectuation must be left
to the medical judgement of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

     "(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the
first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health
of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in
ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

     "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promot-
ing its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it
chooses, regulate and even proscribe abortion except where it is
necessary, in appropriate medical judgement, for the preservation of
the life or health of the mother."  (Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, at
164)

Obviously (a) provides no authority for forbidding abortion, nor does
(b), which permits only restrictions such as requiring that abortions
after the first trimester be performed in hospitals or clinics with
emergency equipment rather than in a doctor's office.  We are left
with (c), which covers only approximately the last ten weeks of
pregnancy.  However, the exception clause makes (c) ineffective and
meaningless when it is read in conjunction with the companion deci-
sion Doe v. Bolton, as the Court said it must be.  In that decision
the Court gave the word "health" a meaninglessly broad definition:

     "We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that
the medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors -
physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -
relevant to the well-being of the patient.  All these factors relate
to health."  (410 U.S. 179, at 192)

The Court also struck down the requirement for a second medical
opinion:

     "The statute's emphasis, as has been repetitively noted, is on
the attending physician's 'best clinical judgement that an abortion
is necessary.'  That should be sufficient.  The reasons for the
presence of the confirmation step in the statute are perhaps appar-
ent, but they are insufficient to withstand constitutional chal-
lenge."  (410 U.S. 179, at 199)

Therefore, a woman who wants an abortion during the last trimester of
her pregnancy need find only one doctor, the abortionist himself, who
will say that the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, using the
meaninglessly broad definition of health quoted above.  The possible
restrictions permitted in (c) can be evaded easily and have no prac-
tical effect.  We are left with abortion on demand for the full nine
months of pregnancy.

It is possible that the speaker incorrectly reported Admiral Yamamo-
to's statement, and it is possible that I garbled what the speaker
said.  I may have assumed that the statement was made after the war
when the speaker did not mention when it was made.  I am glad you
cited the George Will column so I can look it up.  I suspect that's
where the speaker got the information.  However, while I believe
strongly in the value of factual accuracy, and regret having misstat-
ed some of the details, the details don't matter as far as the point
is concerned.  Some proponents of legalized abortion thought that the
election of Bill Clinton meant that the right to life movement had
been defeated and would no longer have any significant effect on the
political system.  Some pro-lifers were discouraged by the election.
The point is that although the cause of unborn children has suffered
a setback, the blow was not crushing.  The fact that the March for
Life this year had the largest turnout ever shows that most pro-
lifers are responding to the setback by resolving to work harder.
Much of the talk at the March for Life convention was about how to do
that, and various plans are being worked on.

Obviously the word "war" is not used in the same sense as it was in
World War II.  Armies will not clash over abortion as they did over
slavery in the Civil War.  However, when the Civil War was won and
slavery was abolished, mistreatment of black Americans by white
Americans did not stop.  There was legally enforced racial segrega-
tion and a lot of private discrimination and mistreatment.  The civil
rights struggle of the late 50s and early 60s ended legally enforced
segregation, and outlawed racial discrimination in hiring, housing,
etc., but some wrongful discrimination still exists.  Outlawing
abortion will not eliminate abortion any more than outlawing the
murder of adults eliminated murdering adults or outlawing robbery
eliminated robbery.  However, it will cut down on the number of
babies killed by abortionists.  It also will give official recogni-
tion to the sanctity of innocent human life. If it is okay to kill
people before they are born, it's okay to kill them after they are
born, and at least one prominent author used the acceptability of
abortion -- acceptable to his readers -- as an argument for the ac-
ceptability of killing babies born with Down's Syndrome, and presuma-
bly with other defects.  (For a detailed discussion of the parallels
between slavery and abortion see essay 4 in the book _ Rachel Weep-
ing: and Other Essays on Abortion _ by James Tunstead Burtchaell,
C.S.C. (Andrews and McMeel, 1982.)

However, the word "war" has more than one meaning.  Here is the first
paragraph of a review of _ Culture Wars: the Struggle to Define Ameri-
ca _ by James Davidson Hunter (Basic Books, 1991):  "Much of what is
going on in our country can be summarized by the phrase 'culture
wars'.  There is an active struggle for control of our culture be-
tween the (largely secular) progressives and the (largely religious)
traditionalists.  Those who paint the battle in terms of the fundies
versus the secular humanists are indulging in a gross oversimplifica-
tion."  I have seen other favorable reviews of this book.  When I
checked, I discovered that the library where I work has ordered the
book but it has not come in yet.  Therefore, I have not yet had a
chance to read it.  (If I were in a hurry I could buy it, but consid-
ering the piles of books I have to be read, I can wait unless I
suddenly develop a pressing need for the information.)  However, on
the basis of the reviews I have seen, I recommend it.

There is more to the right to life movement than political action.
Despite the popular sneers from militant pro-abortionists that pro-
lifers only care about children before they are born, many pro-lifers
are actively involved, with their own time and money, in helping women
with problem pregnancies both before and after they give birth.  Pro-
lifers are involved in educating people about the sanctity of human
life and the humanity of unborn children.  Pro-lifers are involved in
promoting chastity among teenagers, so the number of problem pregnan-
cies will be smaller.  However, just as urging slaveowners to recog-
nize the wrongfulness of slavery and to free their slaves voluntarily
was good, but legal abolition of slavery still was necessary, urging
people to recognize the wrongfulness of abortion is good, but legal
abolition of abortion still is necessary.

Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU