Don't Nibble Around the Edges of Abortion, End It!

A Public hearing was held on yet another bill that nibbles around the edges of the abortion debate. This bill is L.D. 1463, which would assign a degree of legal standing to unborn babies so that those who injure them could be charged with a crime. Many states already give unborn babies this legal standing. Maine is just now considering getting on board, and it would join other bills under consideration that would require informed consent.

The opponents, as usual, argue that this is yet another attempt to erode constitutionally protected abortion rights. Alysia Melnick of the Maine Civil Liberties Union stated, "This bill would clearly separate a woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law." Her argument is that to consider the baby as more than a blob of tissue attached to the mother would get people to thinking this blob of tissue with a beating heart and a unique genetic code was a person. If people began to think that way, they might get the idea that the person had a right to live.

Horrors! Thus they accuse the sponsors of the bill of wanting to erode abortion rights. Oh, no, they were told, implying that we would never do something as stupid as challenge a woman's right to choose. This bill's sponsor, Senator Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, assured them, "At no point is this intended to affect a woman's right to choose [abortion]." Apparently she doesn't want to be accused of that. But, why wouldn't we want to? Do you really believe, Senator Plowman, that our Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion? I've read the Constitution a number of times, and I can't find it. It's not there!

What I do find in the Constitution is that the fourteenth Amendment reiterates the Fifth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence by saying, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Our Constitution guarantees the right to life, not the right of a woman to choose death for her baby. Now the right to privacy has trumped that right to life, and abortion is the law of the land. As a result, 50,000,000 precious babies have been denied the right to be born.

Why would we not want to affect a woman's right to choose abortion? Why are we such cowards to say so? Are we afraid they will ridicule us? Why should we give up the debate over Roe versus Wade? Why do we accept the argument that Roe versus Wade is established, settled law? As established, settled law, they claim, it has somehow become sacred and untouchable. Hogwash!

Unfortunately, that was the same argument that was used to preserve slavery. The Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court was established law, and it allowed property rights of slave owners to trump the rights of the slaves to be free. It should have been the moral imperative of every decent citizen to oppose that wrong headed decision. It should be the moral imperative of every decent citizen to fight for the right to life for unborn children. To not argue for a total end to abortion is cowardice.

Can you imagine William Wilberforce standing before parliament arguing, "No, sir, we do not want to end the slave trade. We understand that it is established law. We merely want to pass some bills to make sure the slave traders are informed and can make an intelligent choice about whether to traffic in human lives." How ridiculous! does anyone actually think that would work? No!

Wilberforce had to attack the trade itself as evil. Yes, it was evil to trade in human lives, and the practice needed to be ended. There wasn't room for compromise. Yes, abortion is evil in that it destroys innocent human life, and the practice needs to be ended. Yes, Roe verses Wade needs to be reversed. Let's say it.

Let's have the guts to say, "Yes, we will do everything we can to overturn Roe versus Wade because it is bad law and was made through faulty reasoning." Yes, because of the currently political situation, we can work toward partial measures that will limit it, but we will not rest until it is overturned.