SCOTUS “inched” towards the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade by upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban???? SCOTUS did no such thing! The majority decision was more like a “how to” manual on approved methods for late term abortions. The decision will cause no babies to be saved. Go back and read the decision, and maybe you will see why there are many pro-life organizations and individuals who do not see that SCOTUS decision as cause for rejoicing.
The abortion law that you and I want to see in effect (protecting life from the moment of fertilization, and banning abortion at any time, with an exception solely for the unintentional death of the baby in a procedure to save the mother’s life) would not get anywhere close to majorities in both houses of Congress, and even if it somehow became law it would be struck down by SCOTUS so long as the “fifth conservative” is Anthony Kennedy. William Wilberforce wanted to end slavery but knew such bill could not pass Parliament, so he supported and achieved passage of a law that banned the slave trade (with certain exceptions, by the way, which subsequently were eliminated), and that prohibition eventually led to Parliament banning slavery altogether. Had Wilberforce refused to support a law that was flawed and would not give him 100% of what he wanted, the slave trade would have continued in the UK, and who knows when slavery would have ended there (or here, since the UK’s actions were an inspiration for abolitionist efforts around the world).
If the Franks bill becomes law, it will stop hundreds of thousands of abortions. It would also create greater consciousness that abortion—all abortion—stops a beating heart and ends a human life that is separate from that of the mother, with a separate DNA. This is the most that we can prohibit right now that would have a chance if being upheld by SCOTUS, and the elimination of the “health” exception, if upheld, would be a game-changer. Yes, I would rather that they hadn’t added exceptions for rape or incest—if anyone deserves the death penalty, it’s the rapist, not the innocent child—but that particular issue has been demonized so much afte Todd Akin’s stupid comments that it would have sunk the whole bill had it not been added.
As for the PBA case, while Congress passed and SCOTUS upheld merely a ban on a particular procedure, not other forms of abortion, it was the first time that SCOTUS had upheld any abortion ban without a “health” exception. You’ve got to start somewhere.
And you should read the words of Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, which campaignPete R-CT kindly posted, on how Catholics should deal with candidates who are not 100% pro-life but more pro-life than the alternative. It is also applicable to bills. Basically, it isn’t correct that supporting an imperfect candidate who is better than the alternative or an imperfect bill that is better than current law (or any potential law that could be passed and upheld) is not “choosing the lesser of two evlls (as cynics would have you believe), but choosing to reduce evil. Father Frank Pavone says that choosing to reduce evil is inherently a good act, and I agree.
We can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.