Skip to comments.Buchanan: A decision built on deceit?
Posted on 06/21/2003 9:59:24 PM PDT by cgk
A decision built on deceit?
Pat Buchanan (archive)
June 22, 2003 | Print | Send
Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that created a woman's right to an abortion, was the most controversial of the last century. It divides us yet.
Any nominee to a federal appellate court or the Supreme Court who does not swear allegiance to Roe is disqualified in the eyes of the Democratic Party. To Democrats, ensuring a woman's right to abort her child has become a tenet of their party, a reason for its existence, an article of their faith.
But what if Roe vs. Wade was based on fraud, deceit and lies?
Comes now a woman who knows as surely as anyone whether that explosive charge is true. That is Jane Roe herself, the Texas woman whose plight and plea persuaded the high court to strike down every state law restricting a woman's right to abort her child.
Who was, and is, Jane Roe? She is Norma McCorvey, and she has just filed a petition in a Dallas federal court, as the litigant in Roe vs. Wade, to have the 1973 ruling overturned.
McCorvey contends that when she was a 21-year-old street person, she was ignorant of what abortion meant, made up her story about being raped, and was deceived and used by her lawyers. Those lawyers, McCorvey says, told her that the baby inside her was "tissue."
After Roe vs. Wade came down, McCorvey became the Rosa Parks of the feminist movement. And because of her fame, she was regularly offered jobs at the abortion mills. What she witnessed inside them changed her heart.
Here is an excerpt from the affidavit McCorvey just filed, describing what it was like in the "clinics" where she held the hands of women being aborted, as they dug their nails into her palm:
"But the most distressing room in the facility was the 'parts room.' Aborted babies were stored there. There were dead babies and baby parts stacked like cordwood. Some of the babies made it into buckets and others did not, and because of its disgusting features, no one ever cleaned the room. The stench was horrible. Plastic bags full of baby parts that were swimming in blood were tied up, stored in the room and picked up once a week.
"At another clinic, the dead babies were kept in a big white freezer full of dozens of jars, all full of baby parts, little tiny hands and feet visible through the jars, frozen in blood. The abortion clinic's personnel always referred to these dismembered babies as 'tissue.'"
This is a scene straight out of hell. Recoiling from it, in 1995, McCorvey became a Christian and resolved to do what she could to overturn the decision that has permitted 40 million unborn to be butchered, their tiny torn bodies discarded in the fashion described above.
Aiding McCorvey is human rights lawyer Allan Parker, founder of The Justice Foundation. Parker is constructing a case much like the one Thurgood Marshall built in Brown vs. Board of Education
Marshall argued that in the 57 years that had elapsed since Plessy vs. Ferguson, evidence had mounted to show that segregation did demonstrable harm to black children in public schools. Based on that evidence, and new advances in social science, Marshall argued, Plessy should be overturned.
Using the affidavit of McCorvey, Parker is calling for Roe to be reversed, whole and entire, on the following grounds.
First, Roe deprived women of all protection from the dangers of abortion. Parker provides affidavits from 1,000 women who testify to the physical, psychological and emotional damage they suffered as a result of their abortions -- damage of which they were never made aware. The harm and horrors of abortion were not considered in 1973. Now they are known.
Second, tremendous strides have been made in medicine and science to enable the Rehnquist court, better than the Burger court of 1973, to decide with certitude when life begins.
Third, the issue of a women's right to privacy and not to have to care for an unwanted child has been addressed by Texas. Under a 1999 law, Texas will provide an upbringing for every child, up to 18 years of age, no questions asked of the mother, whose privacy will be protected.
As the facts have changed, and the situation has changed, and the thinking has changed -- and the original Roe decision was based on claims rooted in deceit and lies -- Roe should be reconsidered.
That is Parker's case. It is a compelling one -- as compelling as the story of Norma McCorvey, a brave women seeking to right a horrible wrong that was done, in some measure, because of her. On Friday, a Dallas federal judge threw out McCorvey's plea. But, undeterred, Allan Parker intends to take it the next step -- and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where it belongs.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Contact Pat Buchanan | Read Buchanan's biography
in about a month. They started shooting the commercial this morning at St.Mary's Basilica in Phoenix, AZ. They're doing some more shoots tomorrow in Chandler, AZ, and some next week in Kingman. The commercial will be titled "Vanished".
Some things have changed. We now have DNA testing which, if used, would absolutely, positively prove that a mother and her fetus are in fact TWO separate human beings.
Another difference is viability. Though mostly ignored these days, the Roe decision was supposed to allow regulation of a viable fetus, and viability is moving steadily towards fertilization. At some point in the not too distant future, fertilization and viability will be the same event. At that point it'll be awfully hard for liberals keep abortion legal.
The real irony is that the majority of abortions are performed on poor black girls. The Democrats abortion agenda is a genocidal attack on their own constituency yet the race hustlers like Jackson, Sharpton, Hillary, Boxer, et. al. continue to cheerlead the whole program.
I don't get why this is a big deal. Of course we know that the baby is genetically distinct and unique. There's no need to do tests. But what follows from this? The woman's eggs and the man's sperm, because of "crossing over" between homologous chromosomes during their creation, are also genetically unique and distinct from the parent (even overlooking the haploid/diploid distinction), and even from one gamete to the next. So the gametes are living, human and genetically unique. Does this mean they can't be destroyed either?
I'm not necessarily arguing the pro-choice side of the debate here, but only suggesting that there is no purely factual or scientific "slam-dunk" argument that wraps up the pro-life position. There is no scientific answer, for instance, to the question, "when does life begin?" because life doesn't "begin" in any biological sense. Human life is always present and in process (allbeit with alternating haploid and diploid generations) at each and every stage in the reproductive process.
Reproduction is ultimately cyclical. In fact the cycles are even "nested," if I am corrected in recalling that a woman begins producing eggs while she is still in the womb. At best one can say that fertilization is the point were the creation of a genetically unique diploid individual (again the gametes are also genetic individuals) culminates. Now, that might be the proper point to extend the full legal protection of personhood to the developing life, but that case can only be made with arguments that go beyond the mere biological facts of the matter.
Another difference is viability. Though mostly ignored these days, the Roe decision was supposed to allow regulation of a viable fetus, and viability is moving steadily towards fertilization. At some point in the not too distant future, fertilization and viability will be the same event.
Viability of younger fetuses has been improved, but my understanding is that it's done so by approaching more closely and consistently a limit which is NOT apt to be surpassed in the "not too distant future".
It is at some point around the beginning of the third trimester (I don't remember exactly what week) that capillaries grow close enough to the terminal air sacs in the lungs for the blood to take up oxygen from the lungs. Before this the baby simply cannot get oxygen into its blood by breathing, even in an oxygen tent. It's blood must be run through a heart/lung machine of some sort. But even the most perfectly made machine will cause the blood to clot unless anticlotting factors are added. The problem with this is that, due to the development of the baby's circulatory system at this same stage, the thinned blood will cause internal bleeding, particularly in the brain, and this will kill the baby.
It's a catch-22 that may be surpassed at some point in the future, but not at present forseeably, and only with revolutionary advancement in techonology as opposed to the simple evolution of current techniques.
Besides, I don't think it's a good strategy for pro-lifers to even tacitly endorse the viability standard unless that's what they think the standard really should be (in which case they could probably be said to be adopting an intermediate position rather a distinctively pro-life one).
Those of us who were working in the NICU did NOT comprehend her words until she lifted the towel to reveal a tiny infant.
A "SPECIMEN"? I guess that's one way to ease a guilty conscience.
The Supreme Court should undo this deceit and merit their title of 'Justice'.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Because a human life is involved. But conservatives DO, in overturning Roe v. Wade, want to have law made by the legislature rather than the court, and (most) want the matter of abortion dealt with by the states rather than the federal government.
I think, not positive, but I think it was Mario Cuomo (one of them rats with a law degree anyway) who was saying, that abortion, while morally wrong is a legal right, but that the supreme court in its zeal to give that right, short cirucited itself in its rational by not taking there time in thinking it through on how to do it.
"you could not find 7 anti-abortionists, and force them to put together a law legalizing abortion that would be weaker in justification and law and precendent and the constituiton then Roe. vs Wade".
A large crux of the argument that is used to justify abortion is contradicted by this. I am sure you have heard the phrase, "a woman has to the right to do to her own body", this implies, and many pro abortionists outright state, that the fetus is equivalent to the other organs in a mothers body or is just "tissue".
If fetus or unborn child has different DNA (and it does), then its a unique and different person, in other words,Its in a womans body, but it is not a part of a womans body,. Its injects a legal question of does a person have the right to end life for another person?
Slowly eroding the crux of justifications that are used, is one phase. By the way, have you ever noticed that those who support abortion, never, ever use any of the reasoning or logic that is used by the justices in Roe vs Wade?
You asserted, "I'm not necessarily arguing the pro-choice side of the debate here, but only suggesting that there is no purely factual or scientific "slam-dunk" argument that wraps up the pro-life position." And of course, since you refuse to be consistent and rational (see the above deceit you tried to pull), there is absolutely no truth you cannot deny or fact you cannot disregard.
You offered, "Viability of younger fetuses has been improved, but my understanding is that it's done so by approaching more closely and consistently a limit which is NOT apt to be surpassed in the "not too distant future"." And you expect the truth of the individual human being to change when the viability can be achieved completely outside the body of a life supporting woman? What a bold dissembler you are! What devious transactionalist you show of yourself!
You informed (inaccurately), "It is at some point around the beginning of the third trimester (I don't remember exactly what week) that capillaries grow close enough to the terminal air sacs in the lungs for the blood to take up oxygen from the lungs. Before this the baby simply cannot get oxygen into its blood by breathing, even in an oxygen tent." At what month does the twentieth week arrive from conception? The twentieth week is the earliest, so far, that an alive individual human being has exited her mother's body and survived, so far, into late toddlerhood. I'm convinced you could not be making such bold assertions with so incorrect knowledge, so I conclude you are purposely prevaricating to serve an agenda.
You obliquely confess to which perspective on the unalienable right to LIFE you have sided: Besides, I don't think it's a good strategy for pro-lifers to even tacitly endorse the viability standard unless that's what they think the standard really should be (in which case they could probably be said to be adopting an intermediate position rather a distinctively pro-life one). We pro-lifers need more like you pro-infanticidist, because you are easily exposed for the secular humanists you are, and your denial of right and wrong, as standards for society to aim toward, makes for astonishing reading to most moderate, god-fearing Americans. Please, continue to obfuscate and prevaricate, we pro-lifers can use more irrational and absurd assertions by your ilk supporting and defending infanticide.
A law which can then be overturned, without having to worry about 9 jerks in black robes saying that a Constitution written by devout Christians somehow was set up to prevent any state legislature from doing just that.
Yeah, actually they are, at least arguably. None of us -- the big, genetically diploid, multicular critters that read and write and have jobs and civilizations and such -- would be here without those gametes. Just as in the lowly protists, our existance is dependent on a continual alternation of generations between genetically haploid and diploid forms of human life. Just because the haploid generation is not very noticable and remains unicellular does not change the fact that it is an essential stage of human life.
In any case the gametes are alive, and they are human. They are human life.
We choose not to extend the status of personhood to these unicellular forms, and it would indeed be absurd to do so. Maybe it is equally (or nearly as) absurd to extend personhood to a unicellular zygote, or a blastula of (what is it?) a hundred odd cells? At some point well before birth, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most Americans, that legal status or considerations approaching it should be applied. But good arguments toward determining how and when this should be done need to recognize that reproduction and development is a cyclical and seamless process; one in which human life is always present and in process at each and every point.
No, I don't. I think viability is NOT the correct criteria to apply in judging when to extend the status of legal personhood to the developing human life. This is why I disagree with Roe v. Wade, secondarily to the fact that there is no "right of privacy" in The Constitution. I believe the federal courts should leave abortion up to the states.
As to my own opinion, I would outlaw abortion in the third trimester, not because of viability but because this is when the brain first begins to function coherently. (I realize the brain exists before this, and the neurons are firing some before this, but they are not connected to each other.) I have no problem with sensible provisions (full disclosure, parental notification, etc) that would discourage abortions or make them more difficult to obtain before the third trimester.
Anyway, if you think fertilization is the proper place to draw the line, that's fine. Once we get rid of Roe we can work that out in the legislatures of the various states. You can even try persuading me that your view is best, but you won't make much progress with ad hominem.
I don't understand what you mean by, "The AMA saw through that one..." Please explain.