By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. Starting last week, as we were beginning to think about the approach of the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we began running articles from the past which relate directly [or even indirectly] to the somber realization that over 62 million unborn babies have paid the ultimate price for Justice Blackmun’s jurisprudential flights of imagination. This first ran in January 2019.
I’m penning this editorial the day before the annual March for Life, which takes place every January 22. This somber occasion commemorates the poisonous Roe v. Wade and virulent Doe v. Bolton decisions which were injected into our collective bloodstream 46 years ago come tomorrow.
We’ve been posting each day on the upcoming anniversary for some time at Nationalrighttolifenews.org. (If you are not a subscriber, you can receive our daily posts sent to your inbox without charge, Monday through Saturday, by taking 30 seconds to sign up here.
At the risk of oversimplifying dozens and dozens of stories—not to mention the entire January 2019 edition of National Right to Life News of which this editorial is a part—let me offer three thoughts.
*No one would ever accuse our benighted opposition of understatement. Last week NARAL cranked out its annual “Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States.”
Surprise, surprise. America never receives a passing grade, indeed never comes close! In this the 23rd edition, the nation as a whole received a “D.”
This is the usual hyperbole, but it also perfectly illustrates the central truth of the Abortion Establishment. There is never an abortion they will condemn. They will always find an exception that swallows the rule, including abortions that take place in the ninth month. On the question of whether to treat abortion survivors, it is deeply troubling that Democrats will not allow a vote but also equally revealing.
This love affair with abortion helps explain two other facts: why they (particularly NARAL) are on a secular crusade to harass women-helping centers and why there is NEVER enough “abortion access”—aka never enough abortions subsidized by unwilling taxpayers.
No pro-lifer, even for 41 seconds, thought that pro-abortionists like Bill and Hillary Clintons were sincere when they said they wanted ‘abortion legal, safe, and rare.’ The first two, yes, the third, of course not!
And, come to think of it, this also explains what is obvious to anyone who follows what pro-abortionists say at their preferred websites. To anyone who is not already a dyed-in-the-wool abortion absolutist, it is simply shocking to see how extreme they have become.
No doubt their crumbling fortunes explain part of their over-the-top rhetoric. But equally certain, they are simply saying out loud what they honestly believe in their little bitty hearts: abortion on demand without apology AND paid for by you and me.
For them. abortion as a negative right—freedom to do what they want, when they want, and to whom they want without restraint—is incomplete without the positive right—your and my money plus a willingness on our part to refrain from opposing abortion, if not actively approving.
We write all the time about how the new technologies make an interface with unborn children as easy as pie. That transparency grows almost monthly.
For us, this enhanced familiarity only builds more love. For pro-abortionists, increased familiarity only breeds more contempt.
There is another interface about which National Right to Life is educating the American people. At a certain gestational point, this little one whose “first photo” hangs on your refrigerator door or is found in her baby album has matured to the point where she is capable of feeling pain.
There is an abundance of anatomical, behavioral, and physiological evidence that unborn children can experience pain and suffering at 20 weeks, if not earlier.
The anti-life forces dismiss this increasingly undeniable truth as “junk science,” which is the two-word put down of every finding that challenges their view of the world. (That includes how abortion exacts a physical, emotional, and psychological toll on many women—findings that pro-abortionist must trivialize and mock.)
All this is premised on, built on, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and its legal progeny. “The Supreme Court should overturn Roe because it’s a lawless decision that snatched authority away from the American people,” as Paul Stark has written.
But Roe isn’t merely that. It also produced a profoundly unjust legal regime with morally catastrophic results. It banned the protection from lethal violence of a whole class of innocent human beings. Some 60 million of those human beings have now been legally killed.
Reversing Roe and returning abortion policy to the legislatures will enable much greater protection of unborn children. It will at least allow for the possibility of equal protection of the human rights of all members of the human family. It will, ultimately, save millions of lives.
If [as pro-abortionists lament] the end of Roe v. Wade is “the end of the world as we know it,” it’s also the beginning of a more inclusive one.