Robert George and Patrick Lee have written a response to a new argument against the following position:
At fertilization, the ovum and the sperm cease to be and something new comes to be — an organism (the embryo) whose genetic constitution and epigenetic state orient and dispose it to develop in the direction of maturity as a member of the species.
This seems an uncontroversial statement to me, but when people think they can benefit by destroying life they craft some interesting arguments to justify their actions. So, the new argument is that if the technology exists to extract the sperm after it has penetrated the egg then the union of the egg and sperm cannot be the beginning of life.
The article is brief and needs to be read, but I will give away the ending for those in a hurry. The process of penetrating the egg irreversibly changes the sperm such that whatever could be extracted after the fact cannot be meaningfully considered a sperm cell. At best, you are claiming the capacity to interrupt the fertilization process and not redefine the new life that exists at the completion of fertilization. Once fertilization has occurred a new single cell human life exists with a distinct genetic identity and orientation and disposition “to develop in the direction of maturity as a member of the species.”
Meaning that the new human life has begun and will move through the stages that all human life must move through during the aging process. An embryo becomes a fetus becomes a newborn becomes a child and eventually becomes an adult who posts blogs and argues that his human brothers and sisters in the earlier stages of our development ought not to be destroyed because their deaths profit the rest of us.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Student responses following worldview class [Megan]
I wanted to share a few of the students’ end-of-the-year comments from the Christian Worldview class Jay Watts and I taught this semester. I’ll let them speak for themselves:
“I liked learning how to defend Christianity, learning how it’s true.”
“I learned that Christianity is more than just ‘because the Bible says.’ It matches up perfectly (with reality). And now I can back stuff up.”
“You have faith, but can back a lot of things up with fact. It’s not just a relationship.”
“I feel like I have more tools in my belt. I can talk with others and see what they believe, and talk about what I believe.”
“I’m excited to go to college. I won’t just sit there when others ask my about my beliefs. I can talk intelligently and give an answer.”
The students were asked to share something they’d learned this semester that impacted their thinking about Christianity. The following are a few of those responses:
“Truth excludes.”
“God isn’t an old guy with a beard.”
“The Trinity is complex.”
“God is immutable.”
“God reveals himself in general and specific ways.”
“Thinking about God is endless.”
“We know about God because he wants us to know about him. It’s all because of him.”
“God knows everything that’s happened, and all the possibilities of what could happen.”
Jay and I wrapped up the semester with an oral exam — after all, these young people need to be able to articulate this stuff. Their reactions to Jay’s questions and “objections” were completely different than they were last September when he challenged their beliefs on the first day of class to give them a taste of what they’d be learning. Instead of being flabbergasted into silence, they were asking questions, picking out fallacies, and responding with intelligent arguments. By no means were they able to pick out all of the fallacies and come up with all of the (big) words to respond, but they were able to make a stand and hold their own, and even help one another out from time to time.
They have truly grown into thinking Christians.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Laura Bush thinks Abortion "Needs to be Legal" [Jay Watts]
Laura Bush admitted to being effectively pro-gay marriage and pro-choice on Larry King Live this Tuesday. Being a normal human being who does not watch Larry King, and the ratings prove I am in the overwhelming majority on that, I completely missed this. I also generally don't sit around and worry about what First Ladies think about things. That said, I lost a lot of respect for Mrs. Bush today.
I told my wife, “Laura Bush is pro-choice.” After we listened to the interview my wife responded, “I wouldn't say she is pro-choice. She just sounds ignorant.” Given her hazy explanation of why abortion "needs to be legal" I get my wife's point.
I told my wife, “Laura Bush is pro-choice.” After we listened to the interview my wife responded, “I wouldn't say she is pro-choice. She just sounds ignorant.” Given her hazy explanation of why abortion "needs to be legal" I get my wife's point.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Narrative vs. Mission [Jay Watts]
Here is an excerpt from an article at Medical News Today:
An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]
Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.
But this troubling excerpt is what I wanted to focus on in this limited post:
"Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."
This disturbs me, but it is not surprising. To put it very simply, a non-profit organization must have a clearly articulated mission statement and then work to assure that the daily operations of that organization are actually serving that mission. This may seem like common sense, but it is very easy for a charity or a ministry to stop serving their mission and begin serving a narrative. Associations and relationships grow and become important and without even noticing it happened an organization is more concerned about what they and their friends believe about the world than what they are supposed to be doing.
What else explains why charitable organizations that exist to fight breast cancer would have no reaction to information that certain controllable behaviors have an impact on a woman's breast cancer risks? If they were clear on their mission, that they are solely against breast cancer, then any information that might be helpful to women in regards to that mission ought to be taken seriously. It is not necessary to jump full on board immediately with every published study that comes down the pike, but a minimal recognition of the new information and a word of caution that your organization is going to keep their eyes on this is easy enough.
But organizations begin to believe they serve a greater narrative and not a focused mission. Information that undermines that narrative must be discredited or ignored whether it impacts the mission or not. In this case the greater narrative appears to be that abortion and birth control are “A OK” and that the forces in the world that seek to moralize these issues are puritanical bad guys that want to ruin everyone else's fun because they hate sex and women. These breast cancer groups became part of a movement and a larger vision for society.
As a result, they failed to serve their missions because they forgot why they exist in the first place. They exist to help reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer or even the number of women that must endure breast cancer. If they still understood that they would not hesitate to pass along information that is possibly helpful in serving that mission. They would not worry about how that information impacts the narrative they prefer because the narrative is secondary to the mission. This may mean that they reassess certain alliances and associations based on new information but such is life.
We do not spend much time on the abortion/breast cancer link here at LTI. That is because we have a specific mission that involves teaching pro-life advocates how to articulate why abortion is wrong. Abortion is wrong because it unnecessarily kills innocent human beings. If it never contributed to a single case of breast cancer it would still be wrong, so we focus on that major point and try not to get distracted by other areas that are well covered by other organizations. We discuss certain points behind the scenes and when we are considering taking on a new idea we ask the questions, “Is this on mission? Does it serve our mission to address this? Is this the reason that people are financially supporting our work?” If the answer is yes then we move forward no matter what. If the answer is no then we reign ourselves in.
If the breast cancer organizations would practice that simple discipline they would find themselves liberated to serve the purpose for which they were originally constituted without fear of what other organizations might be hurt by serving their mission. Planned Parenthood, I am looking at you. But unfortunately so many disparate groups have thrown their hat into the ring with the despicable and vile Planned Parenthood that they appear hopelessly compromised at this point. So compromised that breast cancer organizations are hesitating to tell you that certain behaviors increase your risk of breast cancer. Bewildering.
Planned Parenthood isn't worth it, guys. And neither is a narrative that destroys life for that matter.
HT: Michael Martelli
An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]
Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.
But this troubling excerpt is what I wanted to focus on in this limited post:
"Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."
This disturbs me, but it is not surprising. To put it very simply, a non-profit organization must have a clearly articulated mission statement and then work to assure that the daily operations of that organization are actually serving that mission. This may seem like common sense, but it is very easy for a charity or a ministry to stop serving their mission and begin serving a narrative. Associations and relationships grow and become important and without even noticing it happened an organization is more concerned about what they and their friends believe about the world than what they are supposed to be doing.
What else explains why charitable organizations that exist to fight breast cancer would have no reaction to information that certain controllable behaviors have an impact on a woman's breast cancer risks? If they were clear on their mission, that they are solely against breast cancer, then any information that might be helpful to women in regards to that mission ought to be taken seriously. It is not necessary to jump full on board immediately with every published study that comes down the pike, but a minimal recognition of the new information and a word of caution that your organization is going to keep their eyes on this is easy enough.
But organizations begin to believe they serve a greater narrative and not a focused mission. Information that undermines that narrative must be discredited or ignored whether it impacts the mission or not. In this case the greater narrative appears to be that abortion and birth control are “A OK” and that the forces in the world that seek to moralize these issues are puritanical bad guys that want to ruin everyone else's fun because they hate sex and women. These breast cancer groups became part of a movement and a larger vision for society.
As a result, they failed to serve their missions because they forgot why they exist in the first place. They exist to help reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer or even the number of women that must endure breast cancer. If they still understood that they would not hesitate to pass along information that is possibly helpful in serving that mission. They would not worry about how that information impacts the narrative they prefer because the narrative is secondary to the mission. This may mean that they reassess certain alliances and associations based on new information but such is life.
We do not spend much time on the abortion/breast cancer link here at LTI. That is because we have a specific mission that involves teaching pro-life advocates how to articulate why abortion is wrong. Abortion is wrong because it unnecessarily kills innocent human beings. If it never contributed to a single case of breast cancer it would still be wrong, so we focus on that major point and try not to get distracted by other areas that are well covered by other organizations. We discuss certain points behind the scenes and when we are considering taking on a new idea we ask the questions, “Is this on mission? Does it serve our mission to address this? Is this the reason that people are financially supporting our work?” If the answer is yes then we move forward no matter what. If the answer is no then we reign ourselves in.
If the breast cancer organizations would practice that simple discipline they would find themselves liberated to serve the purpose for which they were originally constituted without fear of what other organizations might be hurt by serving their mission. Planned Parenthood, I am looking at you. But unfortunately so many disparate groups have thrown their hat into the ring with the despicable and vile Planned Parenthood that they appear hopelessly compromised at this point. So compromised that breast cancer organizations are hesitating to tell you that certain behaviors increase your risk of breast cancer. Bewildering.
Planned Parenthood isn't worth it, guys. And neither is a narrative that destroys life for that matter.
HT: Michael Martelli
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Quick Hits 4-27-2010 [Jay Watts]
Here are a couple of quick links I wanted to share. I may come back and try to comment more on a couple of aspects of these articles, but I am hopelessly behind right now on other posts I wanted to write and some needed study so this is probably the best I can do.
First is an article by Marisa Meltzer at The Slate on abortion doulas that I found particularly disturbing. Doulas generally work to serve an expectant mother as she approaches delivery, through delivery, and even afterward with recovery. The inspiration for pursuing the abortion doula project was that these people felt compelled to be a part of the entire pregnancy process. An excerpt from the article:
Abortion doula services were unheard of until three years ago, when pro-choice activists within the birth community decided that they should serve the full spectrum of pregnancy choices, whether it's birth, adoption, or abortion. Mary Mahoney and Lauren Mitchell created New York City's Doula Project, a volunteer-based service that provides free doula services to women in New York City. They work with pregnant women who can't afford doulas, expectant birth-mothers at a pro-choice adoption agency, and provide abortion doula services in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Abortion is the unnatural and violent end to pregnancy and not “a part” of pregnancy at all. It is a separate act. That it requires the precondition of a pregnant woman and the presence of an unborn child in order to have a human life to kill does not make abortion part of pregnancy. It just makes pregnancy necessary for this immoral act. This further confusion of two radically different decisions, to carry your child to birth or to have an abortion, as if they were somehow both natural occurrences that flow from pregnancy is dangerously misleading. That doulas are now serving both capacities seems a twisted and grim reminder of how morally confused our society has already become.
From that article, here is a link to an interesting piece at The Daily Beast by Stephen Farber about abortion in film especially its presence in a new Ben Stiller film Greenberg. I do not agree with Mr. Farber's analysis as a whole as to why abortion is largely absent from mainstream films (it is no great mystery, movies are made to make profit and abortion is not usually a profitable subject), but the article gives interesting insight on abortion in film.
One thing I truly appreciate is the recognition that Dirty Dancing is a movie that champions legal abortion. A fact that has always been so obvious to me that I have been stunned at the beloved standing that this movie still maintains with many of my friends and others my age. In fact, the film's creator acknowledges openly in this article that the movie was made to support Roe v. Wade at a time that she and others feared the landmark Supreme Court decision might be overturned.
Mr. Farber amazingly implies that the relative absence of abortion in films contributed to the majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life in last May's Gallup poll. The reasoning seems to be if we just saw more movies where women get abortions and it is "no big deal" we would all finally stop worrying about the humanity of the unborn and look at abortion as the “no big deal” that it really is. After all, we oppose abortion because we just don't see enough of it on TV and movies, right? What nonsense.
First is an article by Marisa Meltzer at The Slate on abortion doulas that I found particularly disturbing. Doulas generally work to serve an expectant mother as she approaches delivery, through delivery, and even afterward with recovery. The inspiration for pursuing the abortion doula project was that these people felt compelled to be a part of the entire pregnancy process. An excerpt from the article:
Abortion doula services were unheard of until three years ago, when pro-choice activists within the birth community decided that they should serve the full spectrum of pregnancy choices, whether it's birth, adoption, or abortion. Mary Mahoney and Lauren Mitchell created New York City's Doula Project, a volunteer-based service that provides free doula services to women in New York City. They work with pregnant women who can't afford doulas, expectant birth-mothers at a pro-choice adoption agency, and provide abortion doula services in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Abortion is the unnatural and violent end to pregnancy and not “a part” of pregnancy at all. It is a separate act. That it requires the precondition of a pregnant woman and the presence of an unborn child in order to have a human life to kill does not make abortion part of pregnancy. It just makes pregnancy necessary for this immoral act. This further confusion of two radically different decisions, to carry your child to birth or to have an abortion, as if they were somehow both natural occurrences that flow from pregnancy is dangerously misleading. That doulas are now serving both capacities seems a twisted and grim reminder of how morally confused our society has already become.
From that article, here is a link to an interesting piece at The Daily Beast by Stephen Farber about abortion in film especially its presence in a new Ben Stiller film Greenberg. I do not agree with Mr. Farber's analysis as a whole as to why abortion is largely absent from mainstream films (it is no great mystery, movies are made to make profit and abortion is not usually a profitable subject), but the article gives interesting insight on abortion in film.
One thing I truly appreciate is the recognition that Dirty Dancing is a movie that champions legal abortion. A fact that has always been so obvious to me that I have been stunned at the beloved standing that this movie still maintains with many of my friends and others my age. In fact, the film's creator acknowledges openly in this article that the movie was made to support Roe v. Wade at a time that she and others feared the landmark Supreme Court decision might be overturned.
Mr. Farber amazingly implies that the relative absence of abortion in films contributed to the majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life in last May's Gallup poll. The reasoning seems to be if we just saw more movies where women get abortions and it is "no big deal" we would all finally stop worrying about the humanity of the unborn and look at abortion as the “no big deal” that it really is. After all, we oppose abortion because we just don't see enough of it on TV and movies, right? What nonsense.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Further thoughts on a recent question [Megan]
I was recently asked about the Christian Worldview class I am co-teaching with Jay Watts each week at a home-school co-op in Peachtree City, Ga. We’ve had a few questions about curriculum for the class, what kinds of environments the class could be taught in, and how it might be incorporated into public schools. The first two questions have fairly straightforward answers, though a set “curriculum” is a work in progress. As for the question concerning public schools, a Christian Worldview class isn’t something we’re going to see on the agenda anytime soon.
But upon further reflection, I wanted to post a few more thoughts here in answer to that question. How do we get this “curriculum,” so to speak, into public schools? Or better yet — into the public square?
We begin by training up our children and youth with a firm grasp of truth and an intact and working Christian worldview. From birth. Christianity has basic tenets that even the youngest of us can understand.
One very basic example deals with a huge question, one of the questions we at LTI both answer and defend. What makes human beings valuable?
Imagine a world in which children navigate the ins and outs of every day with the understanding that humans are inherently valuable because they are made in God’s image.
When properly understood, such a view is a permeating force that touches every interaction, not the least of which is the way we view and treat unborn human beings. Young boys would understand why it’s wrong to think their value rests in who is the toughest kid on the playground, at least when it manifests itself in beating up the opposition. And young girls would understand that value does not rest in hair, makeup and a Cosmo body. Such a view makes sense of why it’s wrong for young girls to hide behind layers of makeup and strive to cover as little of themselves as possible.
The world will not come to a cataclysmic end (seemingly so, anyway), when one’s boyfriend or girlfriend breaks up with them, or when an exam is returned with a “C” instead of an “A.”
Please understand, I am not saying that hair and makeup are evil (I enjoy feeling like I look nice), or that we shouldn’t strive for the highest grade. Nor am I saying we should never feel disappointment over circumstances. But for the young person who understands that their true value lies in Christ, there is a dramatic perspective-shift that takes place, especially in terms of how other human beings should be viewed and treated, what suffering really is, wisdom in decision-making… The list is endless.
What does it look like to train your child up in this way? I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have a few ideas from what I’ve learned in bringing up my own daughter, and what I’ve seen as I’ve worked with the teenagers in class.
My daughter just turned 4. When asked what kind of thing she is, her automatic response is “I’m a person, made in the image of God.” I don’t actually think that she fully understands what that means, but my hope is that she’ll grow to.
When opportunities arise, she is reminded of what makes a person valuable — and they arise more often than you may suspect. A person without legs is still valuable, because he or she was made in God’s image. A person unable to see or speak is still valuable, because he or she is made in God’s image. We shouldn’t speak unkindly to another person, because he or she is made in God’s image, and when you tear that person down with your words, you’re tearing into the image of his or her Creator.
And on the flip side of the same coin, we should portray that image appropriately. She should obey Mommy and Daddy, who in turn should obey their authority — and understand that there are consequences — for her, and for us — for disobedience. We should choose healthy foods to eat and activities to do to maintain our bodies. We should strive to overcome challenges, to build up God’s image in ourselves and in others, to be more like Jesus (In the words of my little girl’s favorite children’s book series Fancy Nancy, “That’s fancy for sanctification.”)
As for the teens we’re working with, the greatest strides I’ve seen in them come from expecting great things from them. Several of the students are challenged by the class because it forces them to leave scratching their heads, and — more often than not — frustrated over the depth (and height) of the material. I’m often reminded of the thought-provoking and often convicting questions Jesus asked his disciples. As if he didn’t know the answers! Ha! But he did know that his questions tapped into the heart of the issue(s), and that his disciples — by being challenged to grow in wisdom themselves — would learn lasting, gut-level lessons.
I think we do something very similar when we ask the students questions like, “How does the fact that God is immutable (unchanging) affect you on a personal level?”
The exciting part is that such questions lead into enlightening conversations (and further though-provoking questions) on how God’s immutability assures us we can find ultimate rest and satisfaction in Him, and makes sense of why satisfaction in worldly things (such as the latest fashion trend) is shallow and short-lived. Another Christian worldview truth test-driven and road-ready as these students prepare to navigate the world. Another small battle won.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Nebraska Bill Now Nebraska Law [Jay Watts]
The Nebraska Fetal Pain Bill (discussed here) is now law, officially signed by Governor Dave Heineman on Tuesday . Starting in October, it will be illegal to perform an abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy except where the mother's life or permanent physical health are directly threatened by the pregnancy. The legal challenges are already being planned and so let the court cases commence.
I wanted to highlight one particular aspect of the discussion that interests me again. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights is quoted as saying the following:
"It absolutely cannot survive a challenge without a change to three decades of court rulings,"
This sort of indignation is silly as she knows very well that this is exactly the point of the legislation in question. It intends to challenge previous court rulings. But Ms. Northup's statement misrepresents the facts as well. You see, we are not looking at three decades of unmodified legal language as to when the state is allowed to restrict abortion in the interest of the protection of the unborn human life.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already revisited this and modified its stance before. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter wrote the majority opinion and overturned the strict trimester language used in Roe v. Wade (1973) as to when states might be allowed to restrict the practice of abortion. Justice Harry Blackmun had written in Roe that a state could not restrict abortion at all in the first trimester, and then could restrict second trimester abortions in balance with the health of the mother, and could prohibit third trimester abortions with exceptions to the health of the mother. The “health exception” in Doe v. Bolton (1973) made all of this language meaningless because it so broadly defined the criteria for health of the mother, but the supporters of Roe/Doe never seem to acknowledge that. So these restrictions were felt as genuine, or at minimum have been repeatedly championed as legitimate in abortion debate. The plurality in Casey, while insincerely wringing their hands about “stare decisis” and a need to abide by precedent forcing us to accept unpopular decisions, threw out the trimester language altogether and established a broad right to an abortion up to viability without any “undue burden” being placed upon women by the State. This was a change that is celebrated by the abortion rights supporters, but it is undeniably a change.
So this proves that the Supreme Court can review its previous decisions and modify its language if given compelling reason. Any claim that three decades of established law on when it is permissible to restrict abortion stands against this new law is just flat out wrong. This law challenges the restriction limits of Casey which challenged the restriction limits of Roe.
In addition, as I said in my previous post the reasoning behind the throwing out the trimester criteria was because they wanted to establish a single, recognizable, and non arbitrary line. They reasoned that viability was that line because it is “the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman...” So the basis for restriction must not be arbitrarily set and it must arguably establish that the independent existence of the second life can reasonably be the object of state protection beyond the rights of the mother. Will the 20 week limit based on the ability of a fetus to experience pain meet that criteria? Who knows? But there looks like there is room to work in my opinion. Supreme Court cases on abortion routinely appeal to the latest evidence in consideration of the rights of the unborn, so introducing new evidence to them for consideration is certainly legitimate.
Keep in mind as well, that even in Casey, there is a peculiar line that indicates women are consenting to restriction from the state when they wait too long to obtain an abortion. “In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child.” This is certainly not language that closes the door on reasonably argued restriction at a later point and further fuzzies our understanding on what “undue burden” objectively means.
Legal language on abortion is weird and unclear. Justice Scalia discussed that at length in both his dissent on Casey and his dissent on Stenberg v. Carhart(2000). In the latter he wrote:
“In the last analysis, my judgement that Casey does not support today's tragic result can be traced to the fact that what I consider to be an 'undue burden' is different from what the majority considers to be an 'undue burden' – a conclusion that can not be demonstrated true or false by factual inquiry or legal reasoning. It is a value judgement... There is no reason for anyone who believes in Casey to feel betrayed by this outcome. It has been arrived at by precisely the process Casey promised – a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject... but upon the pure policy question whether this limitation upon abortion is 'undue' - i.e., goes too far.”
So what will happen when this law is challenged should it reach the highest court in the land? Your guess is as good as mine. The problem is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven that they are capable of and willing to bizarrely rationalize any and every decision they make in reference to abortion. I could say more, but I would rather end with one more excerpt from Scalia in his dissent on Stenberg:
“ I cannot understand why those who acknowledge that, in the opening words of Justice O'Connor's concurrence, '[t]he issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society,' persist in the belief that this Court, armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If for only the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people – where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it – and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.” (emphasis his)
So while I find the moral principle undergirding this law tragically flawed, that human life ought to be protected because it can feel pain, I am optimistic whenever a legitimate shot can be taken at the status quo. I look positively on any and all assaults by the State's on Casey & Roe/Doe, as I do any opportunity to hear our opponents defend their grisly position in the public square. The Supreme Court through judicial fiat took something that did not belong to them. Our right to decide locally what kind of moral community we wish to craft. They took that right while smugly acknowledging that they haven't the slightest clue what the unborn humans truly are. (more on that in a later post) It was not their's to take, and we must wrestle it back. So I say let the challenges continue and never let them be left alone.
I wanted to highlight one particular aspect of the discussion that interests me again. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights is quoted as saying the following:
"It absolutely cannot survive a challenge without a change to three decades of court rulings,"
This sort of indignation is silly as she knows very well that this is exactly the point of the legislation in question. It intends to challenge previous court rulings. But Ms. Northup's statement misrepresents the facts as well. You see, we are not looking at three decades of unmodified legal language as to when the state is allowed to restrict abortion in the interest of the protection of the unborn human life.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already revisited this and modified its stance before. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter wrote the majority opinion and overturned the strict trimester language used in Roe v. Wade (1973) as to when states might be allowed to restrict the practice of abortion. Justice Harry Blackmun had written in Roe that a state could not restrict abortion at all in the first trimester, and then could restrict second trimester abortions in balance with the health of the mother, and could prohibit third trimester abortions with exceptions to the health of the mother. The “health exception” in Doe v. Bolton (1973) made all of this language meaningless because it so broadly defined the criteria for health of the mother, but the supporters of Roe/Doe never seem to acknowledge that. So these restrictions were felt as genuine, or at minimum have been repeatedly championed as legitimate in abortion debate. The plurality in Casey, while insincerely wringing their hands about “stare decisis” and a need to abide by precedent forcing us to accept unpopular decisions, threw out the trimester language altogether and established a broad right to an abortion up to viability without any “undue burden” being placed upon women by the State. This was a change that is celebrated by the abortion rights supporters, but it is undeniably a change.
So this proves that the Supreme Court can review its previous decisions and modify its language if given compelling reason. Any claim that three decades of established law on when it is permissible to restrict abortion stands against this new law is just flat out wrong. This law challenges the restriction limits of Casey which challenged the restriction limits of Roe.
In addition, as I said in my previous post the reasoning behind the throwing out the trimester criteria was because they wanted to establish a single, recognizable, and non arbitrary line. They reasoned that viability was that line because it is “the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman...” So the basis for restriction must not be arbitrarily set and it must arguably establish that the independent existence of the second life can reasonably be the object of state protection beyond the rights of the mother. Will the 20 week limit based on the ability of a fetus to experience pain meet that criteria? Who knows? But there looks like there is room to work in my opinion. Supreme Court cases on abortion routinely appeal to the latest evidence in consideration of the rights of the unborn, so introducing new evidence to them for consideration is certainly legitimate.
Keep in mind as well, that even in Casey, there is a peculiar line that indicates women are consenting to restriction from the state when they wait too long to obtain an abortion. “In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child.” This is certainly not language that closes the door on reasonably argued restriction at a later point and further fuzzies our understanding on what “undue burden” objectively means.
Legal language on abortion is weird and unclear. Justice Scalia discussed that at length in both his dissent on Casey and his dissent on Stenberg v. Carhart(2000). In the latter he wrote:
“In the last analysis, my judgement that Casey does not support today's tragic result can be traced to the fact that what I consider to be an 'undue burden' is different from what the majority considers to be an 'undue burden' – a conclusion that can not be demonstrated true or false by factual inquiry or legal reasoning. It is a value judgement... There is no reason for anyone who believes in Casey to feel betrayed by this outcome. It has been arrived at by precisely the process Casey promised – a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject... but upon the pure policy question whether this limitation upon abortion is 'undue' - i.e., goes too far.”
So what will happen when this law is challenged should it reach the highest court in the land? Your guess is as good as mine. The problem is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven that they are capable of and willing to bizarrely rationalize any and every decision they make in reference to abortion. I could say more, but I would rather end with one more excerpt from Scalia in his dissent on Stenberg:
“ I cannot understand why those who acknowledge that, in the opening words of Justice O'Connor's concurrence, '[t]he issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society,' persist in the belief that this Court, armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If for only the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people – where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it – and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.” (emphasis his)
So while I find the moral principle undergirding this law tragically flawed, that human life ought to be protected because it can feel pain, I am optimistic whenever a legitimate shot can be taken at the status quo. I look positively on any and all assaults by the State's on Casey & Roe/Doe, as I do any opportunity to hear our opponents defend their grisly position in the public square. The Supreme Court through judicial fiat took something that did not belong to them. Our right to decide locally what kind of moral community we wish to craft. They took that right while smugly acknowledging that they haven't the slightest clue what the unborn humans truly are. (more on that in a later post) It was not their's to take, and we must wrestle it back. So I say let the challenges continue and never let them be left alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)