Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight
Light a candle for Roe on its 36th anniversary; much has been lost, and there is much to do
When George W. Bush took his flight from Washington, D.C., shortly after the swearing in of Barack Obama, he left behind a considerable legacy. His impact on one important issue, however, seems largely to have been replaced on the public agenda by other issues. Women's reproductive rights appear to have been lost along the campaign trail from the primaries through the general election. Little mention was given to abortion, and it continues to rank in the low single digits in poll after poll as an issue of importance to the American public.
Even what some call "the midnight rule"—a new regulation announced by the Bush administration in December to be put into effect (probably not accidentally) on Jan. 20, 2009—failed to garner much press. This new regulation, which appeared to be a final shot by President Bush at pro-choice activists after the appointments and confirmations of two ardently pro-life U.S. Supreme Court jurists—allows the protests of nearly anyone even tangentially related to the provision of women's health (receptionists, referral specialists, or even those who file insurance claims) to lead a public hospital to refuse to provide family planning services or abortions. (Late on January 20, the new White House chief of staff announced that the administration was putting all new Bush regulations "on hold" to allow them to be re-examined.)
Seeming public disinterest in abortion rights may have many causes. Continued access to birth control—in spite of its increasingly high price tag—the legalization of Plan B (the morning after pill), ongoing wars, and an economic depression may have caused abortion to cease to keep its place on the public agenda. As we look to the 36th anniversary of Ro e v. Wade , it is difficult to find print pages or media time when competing against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday or the inauguration of President Obama.
In many ways, it is interesting that pro-choice activists still celebrate Roe. Since 1973, scores of state laws, Supreme Court decisions, and presidential directives have, in effect, overruled its basic principles. In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that several of the rights contained in various amendments in the Bill of Rights, when coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of the laws, created a zone of privacy that prevented states from prohibiting physicians from counseling about or dispensing birth control to married couples. The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy—in consultation with her physician—the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun divided pregnancy into three terms. During the first term, the court put the decision to terminate a pregnancy as well as the reason for it clearly in the hands of the pregnant woman. In the second trimester, the interest of the state allowed for some regulation for the health of the mother, and by the third trimester, the court found the interest of the states sufficient to regulate or prohibit abortions except when they were necessary to save the " life or health of the mother. "
Roe quickly divided the country and mobilized interest groups and religious factions on both sides of the issue. In fact, by 1980, it led to a schism between the two political parties, forcing Republicans to the right and Democrats to the left. Roe also was the constant target of conservative groups, whether through the ballot box, legislation, or judicial challenges. By 1989, and then again in 1992, Roe experienced two major hits from the Supreme Court when a plurality of the justices ruled that abortion was no longer a fundamental right protected by a constitutional right to privacy. Instead, a majority of the court essentially divided pregnancy into semesters, ruling that states could enact abortion restrictions in the second trimester so long as they did not pose an undue burden to the woman. To date, the court has only found one "undue burden": states requiring a woman to obtain her husband's permission to undergo an abortion.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Choose to be a Life-Giver
(To R. L. Schaefer from CA, thank you for your comments about how many have been deceived into believing a lie or several lies, for that matter, instead of understanding the horrible truth about abortion.) Certainly, most people (if not all) would expect to be fully informed about any surgical procedure before consenting to being operated on by a surgeon. Why not get all the facts when it comes to another surgical procedure called abortion? Furthermore, with today's advanced technology, the unborn child can be seen and even operated on while in the womb. It is also encouraging to know that many physicians (including my husband) who are not afraid of the truth have refused to perform abortions, because this scientific technology has clearly confirmed the reality of the unborn who is growing and awaiting the time of birth. Sadly, the mother's womb which should be the safest place for a helpless human being has now become the most dangerous place because of abortion.
When I was expecting with our first child, I was made aware of the abortion issue. Having had a science background at the university level, I was knowledgeable about the developmental stages of the unborn human and knew from my physiology text that life begins when the egg and the sperm unite during the sacred act of marriage. Then the miracle of human development takes place hidden from the eyes of the world until that day about nine months later when the child is born.
Before our son's entry into the visible world, during the first few months of his life in utero, he was pretty quiet. But soon, our growing future son began to let us know what a very active child he was, moving around and doing somersaults in the womb - occasionally stretching his limbs and kicking me. My husband and I would marvel at how his antics could be seen and felt as my tummy rippled. We even talked to him through the abdominal wall assuring him of our love for him and how we looked forward to his appearing. Mine was a planned pregnancy and our child a wanted child, but even if he were not, he was still a human being deserving of the gift of life. We named our son Jonathan which means "gift of God".
It is my heart's deepest desire to see each mother (and father) experience the joy of holding their newborn child in their arms and seeing his trusting eyes looking deep into their own. In his own way, he is saying, "Thank you for giving me life, Mommy." There is no greater joy than being able to be a life-giver. And for my husband and myself, we have discovered that each one of our four children is a "joy-giver", for they have brought untold joy into our lives.
One day the womb will become the safe place that it was meant to be and each chiid will be someone's "joy-giver". And every man and woman can freely choose to be a "life-giver".
THE TRUTH OF ABORTION AND MILTANT FEMINISM
I too believe in a woman’s right to “choose” and exercise her “reproductive rights”. I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex. I believe a woman has the right to choose to abstain from sex during the few days per month she can be made pregnant. I believe a woman has the right to choose what type of birth control measures are taken by her and her partner. I believe a woman has the right to choose alternative sexual activities during which pregnancy is not an issue. But do I believe that a woman may choose to kill the unborn because she and her partner have acted irresponsibly and now the life she carries within her somehow interferes with her or her partner’s personal schedule or agenda? I do not. There is the 9 month and then adoption, “choice”.
Millions of women know that the life they carry in their wombs is sacred and that not wanting to kill the unborn does not somehow disenfranchise them from being women or even "feminists". Nor does it make them intolerant or radical. It simply shows them to be logical and caring individuals who know right from wrong.
Now, may I suggest a first step in this effort to reach common ground on the question of abortion? I would propose a 5 day "cooling off" period (kinda like there is when you buy a gun - Which, I might add, is also a Constitutional right...(similar to the Right to Privacy, which some judges believe, guarantees abortion rights). During this period the women should be required to attend 1 hour of counseling, during which she should be made to view her baby by ultrasound and watch a video of an actual abortion procedure in DETAIL FROM INSIDE THE WOMB. Again, in a way, like the required gun safety videos and classes required of some gun purchasers - Or like those traffic accident videos required in Driver Ed. and traffic school. After all, a human life is at stake - No just a gun purchase or driver’s license.
Additionally, all high school students should view a video showing the stages of human life in the womb - the video should end by showing these kids a mid-term abortion so they can understand exactly what abortion is.
Ok, there a first step to the "Common Ground" of reducing abortions - A five day period of reflection (remember, we’re considering killing a human being) and a 1 hour ultrasound and video session. And, High School kids watching a video and seeing an abortion. I can already hear the shrill, hysterical howling. The ugly truth of a thing is often hard to face... Especially when you’ve lied to yourself, or have been lied to, for so long.
So what’s the problem? I thought liberals and feminists were all for “reproductive education” and “openness”.
You know, it’s easier to kill the “unseen”... We can deny what’s really happening. Hitler and Himmeler knew that. That’s why they didn’t just simply shoot Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Slav’s and mental incompetents, etc. in the street. They were shipped to the country side for extermination in “special camps”... These victims needed to be invisible... German citizens needed the comfort of “plausible deniability” .
I say they should have made themselves turn their heads and look at the horrible truth- So should we.
advertisement
