Ethics & Religion
A Column by Michael J. McManus
 

Home
Page

For Current Column
See the Home Page

 

About the
Columnist

 

Search this
Site...

 

Column Archives
List of all columns 
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

2011

2010

2009
2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

For 2003 and earlier
only the title is listed.
Use the Search Function
to find the article.

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

 

About The
Columnist

 

Email
Comments
to Mike

April 18, 2007
Column #1,338
Historic Abortion Decision
by Mike McManus

America was horrified by the largest mass murder in history this week that killed 32 people. However, the Supreme Court issued an historic decision to prohibit another form of killing, virtual infanticide, "Partial Birth Abortion,"   It is the first time in 34 years that the Court  banned any form of abortion.

The vast majority of abortions will continue. However, with Justice Alito replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, there is now a narrow pro-life majority on the Court, which ruled 5-4  that Government has a "legitimate interest in protecting fetal life."  The State "may express profound respect for the life within a woman." as long as there is no "substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

Congress said that the now-banned procedure had a "disturbing similarity to the killing of a new-born infant." Therefore, it was concerned with "draw(ing) a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide."

The Court agreed, and described the procedure in startling detail.  Of the 1.3 million abortions each year, 88 percent are performed in the first twelve weeks of gestation, the first trimester. They are not at issue here.  Nor are most of the abortions performed in the second or third trimester, in a procedure technically called "dilation and evacuation (D&E)."

The Court grimly described D&E: "The doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety."

What will be banned is a variation called an "intact D&E" in which "a doctor extracts the fetus intact...pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart.  In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull," the Court explained.

It agreed with Congress, that there is a "moral, medical and ethical consensus that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

How many such cases are there? There is no independent reporting, only what the Guttmacher Institute, affiliated with Planned Parenthood, belatedly calculates.  In 2000, it estimated there were 2,200 intact D&Es.

At most, that is the number of lives that will be saved. And since doctors can still perform  D&E dismemberments, perhaps no additional babies will be born.

"That is almost not the issue," argues Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "Now people are aware that abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that takes an innocent life. The Supreme Court has made a number of statements that exude a deep respect for human life."

She is right. This is the first time since the Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion in 1973, that a majority of the Court has expressed concern about life in the womb.

Kennedy argued eloquently  that "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child.  The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision...Some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who used to work for the ACLU, found the decision "alarming," and objected vehemently that "this way of thinking reflects the ancient notions of the woman's place in the family,"  ideas "long since discredited."

Hooray!  She's finally  in the minority..

What's the significance of the ruling?

Physicians often are intentionally vague about details of what an abortion involves.  The court said women must be "well informed" if they are not to "struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound"  when learning only after the event that "she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child."

State laws must require giving women considering an abortion, exact details of how her baby will be killed.  She then has a choice.  She might continue with the abortion.

Or she may decide to deliver her baby and give it up for adoption, which is very rare today. Of the 1.5 million babies born out of wedlock, only 22,000 are adopted.

The Supreme Court has become more responsible.  Churches should also become more responsible by praising the long-neglected virtue of chastity, and by urging unwed pregnant women to consider adoption. 

Hopefully, the long-term consequence of this decision is that more women will refuse  casual sex, so called, "hook- ups."
 

  30+ Years / 1700+ Columns
  LATEST ARTICLE
  August 17, 2017: Column 1877: Porn Harms Children & Marriage
  Recent Columns
  The Opioid Crisis: What To Do
  Sex Before First Date?
  A Marshall Plan For Marriage
  Don't Divorce - Part II
  Don't Divorce Part 1
  Can Euthanasia Be Justified?
  Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part I
  Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part II
  Texting While Driving - A Killer
  The Worst Valentine: Cohabitation
  Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
  Christianity Gives Women Equal Opportunity
  Sextortion Kills Teens
  Assisted Suicide Is Growing
  Recent Searches
  euthanasia, cohabitation, sexting, sextortion, alcoholism, prayer, guns, same sex marriage, abortion, depression, islam, divorce, polygamy, religious liberty, health care, pornography, teen sex, abortion and infanticide, Roe+v+Wade, supreme court, marriage, movies, violence, celibacy, living+together, cohabitation, ethics+and+religion, pornography, adultery, divorce, saving+marriages
©2017 Michael J. McManus syndicated columnist  / mike@marriagesavers.org
Ethics & Religion at http://www.ethicsandreligion.com
9311 Harrington Dr. / Potomac, MD 20854 / 301 978-7105
President & Co-Chair Marriage Savers / www.marriagesavers.org
Site Sponsored by enktesis.com