A Well-Intended, but Mistaken Approach

I want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, so the matter of regulating abortion will revert to the individual states.   I would like for the states to be able to regulate abortion so that this amoral practice will become more rare.

In recent months, however, a new trend has developed among a small handful of states.   Emboldened by recent pro-life successes, these states have taken steps to advance legislation banning most abortions.  The most recent of these is Louisiana, according to Focus on the Family.

There is one major problem with this approach.  When these new laws are challenged in the federal courts, the cases will work their way up to the Supreme Court.  And pro-lifers do not yet have five votes on the high court.  The state bans would be at risk of being shot down at the Supreme Court level; and then the Court may not choose to revisit the issue of abortion for many years. 

It would be better to wait until that fifth vote arrives at the high court, and then test the willingness of the justices to allow the states to resume their rightful place.

Comments

[sean coon]

"I want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, so the matter of regulating abortion will revert to the individual states."

here's an idea: keep it as is and let the individual woman regulate her own body.

unbelievable...

[chip atkinson]

Sean- where is your logic? Are you suggesting a mother has the right to destroy her own child?

[darkmoon]

And you being the neither father, nor mother, have the right to make that judgment for the woman?

Even if you were the father, you carry more weight than the mother who has to go through the labor etc?

Again, this goes back to what you define as a "child". And that's still up for grabs from both sides.

[Joe Guarino]

There is no ethical right to take human life even when the pregnant woman is carrying him or her. And as a matter of law, Roe vs. Wade is flawed. It is a huge stretch to suggest that the Constitution mandates this egregious practice be legal throughout the country. It is more properly handled at the state level under our federal, consitutional design of enumerated and delegated powers.

[Roch101]

You've confused me a bit, Joe. You write that decisions on abortion law should revert to the states, relying on a states' rights argument. But that seems to be betrayed by your contention that you don't want this to go to the Supreme Court yet, not because the court doesn't lean enough towards states' right, rather because, "pro-lifers do not yet have five votes on the high court."

Is your argument one really in favor of states' rights or is that an argument of convenience to get us to where you want us to be on abortion? Would you extend the states' right claim to marijuana laws or assisted sucicide laws? Would you maintain the position that state's should be able to make their own abortion laws if federal legislation outlawed abortion or if the Supreme Court ruled abortion illegal? If either of those should come to pass, would your states' rights argument fall by the wayside?

[Joe Guarino]

The states' rights argument is where I would prefer to be on most issues because I think the federal government has a limited constitutional role that has been expanded inappropriately. So I would, in fact, extend the states right claim to marijuana laws (except where it affects interstate commerce) and assisted suicide laws.

And I don't want the federal government to outlaw abortion, because it is not a federal matter. (It would be difficult to foresee a scenario in which the Supreme Court made abortion illegal outright).

And I would love to see the day when we have at least five Supreme Court justices who possess a judicial philosophy that exudes modesty from the standpoint of constitutional interpretation.

[Roch101]

Interesting. Most people who cite states' rights (on the left and right) find convenient exceptions when their "side" benefits from a federal role. I admire your consistency, even if I disagree with you on the matter of choice.

[Cara Michele]

Men talk laws, rights, politics. Blah, blah, blah. It's about babies. As I woman, I say this:

* * * * *

abortion is murder. child murder. by its mother. matricide. the “pro-choice” movement is based on lies, deception and evil. put that on a t-shirt, planned parenthood.

it is intolerable and nonsensical that any civilized society could condone the assisted killing of babies by their own mothers. the emperor is naked. america will not escape the consequences of our actions for abdicating our responsibility to our smallest and most vulnerable citizens. do not confuse silence for complicity.

God is grieved.

* * * * *

Also posted on Sean's blog in a thread about this post: http://www.seancoon.org/2006/05/yeah_a_woman_cant_regulate_herself.html

[Joe Guarino]

Thank you, Michele. And it turns out that legal abortion on demand serves the interests of men in at least several ways. It expands the pool of willing sex partners. It helps reduce the need to marry to have access to intercourse. And it eliminates the need to marry or support the child financially in the event of an unwanted, out-of-wedlock pregancy. The dimension of abortion being in the interests of young unmarried men is that which is less commonly discussed.

[Guilford Native]

This brings us to the Republican "Divide and Conquer" strategy that they have used so well in the past.

The key to this strategy is to pick one issue to focus on each election.

In '88 with Bush Sr. it was the Willie Horton issue

In '92 and '96, there was no real issue they capitolized on

In 2000, Rove decided to move on 'cultural conservatives' beginning with lies of McCain in the Primary, then worked over the southern churches in the General. Bush ran with a slogan, "I am a uniter, not a divider"

In 2004, the strategy was gay marriage.

Instead of Americans taking into consideration all issues that face this nation, the strategy allowed for 1 or two issues to make up their whole 'pie-chart' of evaluating who was best for the job.

In 2006, I feel sure that the immigration issue was to be the divide and conquer strategy, but with Rove having his point of view, and Congressman having an election year, this may have been not thoughtout too well before implementing the decision, and looks like could potentially backfire.

One must look at all the issues: jobs, economy, healthcare, environment, security of borders, education, etc.

Sad to say, but each election year, not all of these issues are taken a look at by the voter.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Native, for your comments. I agree that both parties sometimes tend to look for certain "wedge issues" during election years. (I am not sure immigration is one of them.)

For instance, do you remember "it's the economy, stupid", which, as a strategy, was taken in the midst of a brief recession?

Some of us, however, are quite serious about the pro-life issue.

[Sue]

"Some of us, however, are quite serious about the pro-life issue."

And some of us are quite serious about the pro-choice issue.

It grieves you that there aren't enough (male) votes on the Supreme Court but it grieves me that you count the Court based on men who vote to regulate women's lives.

No responsible person makes a decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly. Yet no responsible governing body should remove the possibility for women to terminate a pregnancy, a la South Dakota, where the life and health of a woman are excluded. No responsible state should force a pregnancy to continue, especially one due to rape and incest (no matter how it's defined by deranged legislators), and place women into a secondary class.

That's exactly where the "states' rights" argument fails me, Joe. Legislators who are not representing the will of the people take it upon themselves, often for political or religious reasons, to disenfranchise 50% of the population. You wouldn't tolerate it if they were black, or gay, or medically ill (3 unrelated categories). But you seem OK with it when it's women.

I fear my society -- represented by a small portion of the country's thinking -- finds nothing wrong with arguing against vaccines that cure cervical cancer, against safe abortions for those who need them, against the rights of adults to behave as they wish in their homes, and more. Many are outraged that we're being spied upon. Hordes of Americans are frightened about terrorist threats made in convenient conjunction with drumming up politics of war.

Yet you sit there and type that outlawing abortion across the land is a laudatory goal. I have yet to see you exhort government to pay for the children who are unwanted, who can't be afforded, who would be born into single-parent homes with -- as you've stated, I believe -- little chance of achieving any sort of American dream.

Where is the flip side of your draconian pro-life-ism? Where is the money to provide free and quality medical care to pregnant women? Who is paying for their education? Parenting skills? Healthy food? Social and educational preparedness?

I hear "entitlements are bad," but if you're "quite serious" about being "pro-life," does that stop after the baby exits the womb? Or do you simply blame the woman who couldn't afford, didn't want, or was forced into having a baby for not taking care of that child as you see fit?

How elitist. Yes, CM, G-d is grieved. And Jesus weeps.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

With respect to your statements regarding men on the Supreme Court and abortion jurisprudence, please understand I would be delighted if a female Supreme Court Justice voted to revert abortion to the states. And this is not unthinkable, because many women understand that the current legal framework for abortion rights is bogus; and many women are pro-life.

We respectfully disagree about what the individual states should do with respect to regulating abortion if it were to be reverted back to the states. But I do not accept your implicit argument that the ability to take a human life is integral to the enfranchisement of women. Women are fully enfranchised, and possess all of their basic rights, regardless of whether they have participated in the taking of human life.

The argument that taxpayers should pay for the health care, education, food, etc. of children that could not be aborted has already been won. In fact, we are already doing all these things. Now, when we do these things through entitlement, it provides positive reinforcements for the behaviors that lead to abortions and out-of-wedlock pregnancies; so the problems become self-perpetuating.

But if the pregnant woman (or teen) perceives she is unable to provide all the amenities you list, then adoption is an excellent alternative.

I have been serving on the board of the Rockingham Pregnancy Care Center for four years now, and have given of my time and money to help the young women in these situations. We have been successful in facilitating a number of adoptions, but it is difficult.

And I was interested in your comment that "Jesus weeps." I have studied the gospels for many years and it has been difficult to find evidence that He called for government to take income from some and redistribute it to others. And He was silent on the matter of abortion-- which is why some errant Christian denominations have seen fit to support abortion rights-- ignoring the overall theological framework.

But abortion is a grievous wrong, and affirmatively taking innocent human life should not be countenanced.

[Guilford Native]

Joe,

Regarding adoption in general, it seems that much of what we hear about in our communities, are stories of Americans adopting foreign born children.

There is nothing wrong with this, but does cause concern to me regarding the tremendous amount of children currently in foster care in the US.

Over the past 10-15 years, many well-to-do Americans take trips overseas to adopt a child, and those American born children are 'left behind' in a way.

In 2000, the adoption rate of foreign born children was 13% of all adoptions, and with the 2000 "Child Citizenship Act of 2000", it seems that these numbers could have increased since the 2000 census. (The Legislation allows automatic citizenship to all foreign born children who are adopted)

What is your take on this, and how are National adoption agencies looking into this?

Reference: http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/census-special-report-adopted-children-and-stepchildren-2000-12.html

[Woody Cavenaugh]

I think this whole abortion thing misses the real point. What you prolife types really want is the ability to choose who breeds and who doesn't. It has been a practice throughout history to try to out breed your enemies.

Don't be a coward, come out and say what you want to say. (not picking on you specifically Joe) You (Militant Pro-Life Crowd) want a world full of christian babies to choke out the heathen population. Plus there is that whole controling the destany of others thing...

[Joe Guarino]

Native, I only know on this what I have heard anecdotally. Foreign adoptions, from what I hear, may involve less red tape and less cost than local adoptions. Another reason these parents bypass foster kids is because they want infants; and foster kids sometimes have, various problems related to the circumstances from which they came.

Woody, I had not heard previously the interpretation that you have offered; and it never really occurred to me personally. But abortions occur disproportionately among African American women compared with the general population. So if he have less abortions, we have more African American babies born.

And conversely, my perception is that many Christian couples are contracepting and/or undergoing surgical sterilization at comparable levels to the general population, and tend to have limited family sizes. I am not sure a change in abortion law would necessarily change that dramatically. Yes, Christian women have sometimes had abortions, but I would be hard pressed to suggest it had been at a higher rate than the general population.