Posted on 08/13/2002 6:55:30 AM PDT by Boxsford
Marvin Olasky August 13, 2002
A little-noticed pro-life victory
Professor Hadley Arkes a dozen years ago made a terrific proposal to revive the faltering pro-life movement -- and his efforts finally paid off last week, although hardly anyone noticed.
In 1990, when many pro-lifers were still hoping for the home run -- a constitutional amendment to ban abortion -- the Amherst political philosopher proposed bunting for a single: Have Congress go on record as supporting the right to life of any child who is born alive following an "ineffective" abortion.
That's what now has happened, and the Austin American-Statesman was typical in giving the result one paragraph in a roundup of the Aug. 5 news: "Bush Signs Fetus Status Law. President Bush signed a bill that declares a fetus that survives an abortion procedure a person under federal law."
That description would be laughable were it were not so sad. Sometimes it's hard to avoid talking back to a newspaper: "The creature protected by that newly signed Born Alive Infants Protection Act could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What else could he be?"
But some judges in recent years did not grasp that elementary fact, and some doctors and nurses sadly left born-alive survivors of abortion to die in cold steel pans.
Ironically, the reluctance to come to grips with reality made passage of the Born Alive Act possible: Democrats agreed not to oppose the bill, and Republicans agreed not to give speeches about it. Democrats did not want to alienate their virulent pro-abortion backers when a high-profile discussion of just-born life turned to an examination of the same life several minutes earlier, but they also did not want to go on the record for infanticide.
For a time, it seemed that President Bush might sign the bill into law without comment. He came through on Aug. 5, though, saying, "Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family. ... They reflect our image and are created in God's own image. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights."
The president also thanked by name individuals who had made the act possible, including Arkes, who never gave up on the idea. I remember Hadley speaking at meetings of pro-life leaders, displaying his Jewish intellectual style amid a coalition of somber evangelicals and Catholics. With a mischievous glint in his eyes, he would pepper his talks with humorous, Damon Runyonesque remarks, and then arch his eyebrows like Groucho Marx.
The lines that could have come from "Guys and Dolls" kept Arkes' arguments from becoming arcane. The force of his logic was hard to dispute. He spoke then and has continued speaking about the "animating principle" behind what Congress (even if through a silent scream) has enshrined in law: "The child marked for an abortion is recognized now as an entity that comes within the protection of the law."
The next legislative step, of course, is for Congress to extend protection from the fully born to the three-fourths-born by passing a partial-birth abortion bill that will withstand judicial challenge. That should happen soon, and President Bush will sign it into law. Steps to help young women make better-informed choices between life and abortion also are needed. The president referred to the power of sonograms, and the administration and Congress should work together to help pregnancy centers purchase the equipment that will allow more women to see pictures of the babies they are carrying.
So Arkes' content and style have led to one victory and paved the way for bigger efforts. Unsurprisingly, none of the nation's news pages (judging by a Lexis-Nexis check) mentioned him the day after President Bush signed his bill into law, and most were like Austin's newspaper in almost entirely ignoring the development. But future historians should notice, and some abortion survivors certainly will.
Marvin Olasky is Editor of WORLD magazine, a TownHall.com member group.
Thank heavens Bush is president. Does anyone have any idea if Gore would have vetoed the bill, if he had been president?
By George Will, NEWSWEEK
George Will: A Question For Gore Next Week
Does a Woman Having an Abortion Have a Right to a Dead Baby, Even if it is Born Alive? :
Newsweek - October 2, 2000 edition
MSNBC.com
Glad to be of service.
I have seen and learned more than I really had ever wanted.
I sometimes wish I didn't know so much about it. It tends to make one feel very old. I see why God wanted men to stay away from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
"The creature protected by that newly signed Born Alive Infants Protection Act could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What else could he be?"
Indeed, what else could he be? :-)
You're absolutely right.
Pro-aborts are no longer doing the killing in dark "back alleys," but they still want to hide what they are really doing. They don't like pictures of the abortion procedures to be shown. They aren't even able to present a case for their goal of "abortion on demand" without resorting to twisted logic.
They say there is a certain age (or stage of life) someone must reach in order to be a person, but they don't want to provide the details that define that constantly shifting age.
They sure do like to keep things murky.
The gun grabbers have restricted our gun rights using incremental means. While I think abortion is a serious evil and mortal sin, I understand the political reality that we're not going to be able to ban abortion outright.
After we ban partial-birth abortion, I think that we should push for informed consent. Many women who have abortions really don't think that they are carrying a baby, especially in the first trimester when they aren't even showing. Informed consent should include the following:
* Viewing of the ultrasoundConsidering that the human heart starts beating 25 days after conception, I can't imagine that any but the most cold-hearted woman could kill their child when they see that heart beat. I had an early ultra-sound on my first pregnancy because the doctor couldn't hear the heart-beat, and when I saw at 10 weeks a little tiny minature baby, with arms and legs, but more powerful was the beating heart. My husband and I just started crying. It was an incredible experience.
* Warning that abortion may cause breast cancer and potential mental health problems
* Scientific facts on the development of human life (when the heart starts beating, when the "fetus" feels pain, etc).
*A detailed explanation of the abortion procedure and possible physical side-effects, including death, infertility, etc.
Finally, we need to do more to offer women assistance who find themselves pregnant and feel they can't afford the baby. I know of several organizations who help poor, pregnant women who choose life, with baby items, food and clothing, and finding a job after the baby is born, or help with adoption. Some also help mend fences with families. While out-of-wedlock births are not ideal, we can't condemn these women because they made one mistake. They more than made up for the mistake by making the right decision to allow their baby to live.
Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think it's important to repeat.
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.