To The Daily Sun,
The recent election was contentious on many fronts and one of the issues that took away more votes from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party than anticipated was abortion. Surprising, since at least half of the voting age population supports a "Woman's right to choose," and this stand was assumed as a plus for Hillary and other Democratic candidates in this election. There is a major problem with this now long-standing assumption and its simplified catch-phrase, which dismisses the depth and ramifications of the whole process. No one, especially the staunch "pro-choice" supporters, are willing to listen to a detailed description of what is done during the abortion process. They are even less willing to view pictures or videos of the results.
Hillary helped to bring this thought process home to many for consideration who before had not fully comprehended the true nature of the matter when she stated publicly that an unborn "person" or "child" has no constitutional right to life. None. In a subsequent interview, she expanded her thoughts and made it clear that the unborn are not entitled under law to the right to life at any time in the gestational process — up to the last second before birth. She caught flak from the right, of course, but also from the left because as the assumed presidential carrier of the Democratic liberal banner, it was a no-no to even hint in any way that human personhood applies to the unborn.
Hillary stated that the authority for her stand on unrestricted abortion on demand is the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. This is the up-front unyielding precept of the Democratic Party Platform, Obama and his administration, such people as Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holter, John Kerry, and others, plus institutions such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, and countless liberal women's groups, among others. But the authority for unrestricted abortion on demand cannot be found in Roe.
It strikes me as pathetic that these people show ignorance of what the Roe decision permitted. It seems reasonable to expect that those who are adamantly passionate about abortion rights should know where the authority for their passion comes. They do not. Roe does not give authority to practice what all these functionaries demand. Roe was a Texas petition on behalf of Norma McCorvy (Jane Roe) for abortion during the first trimester only. The court upped the ante and granted abortion up to "viability," which they were unwilling to define. There was no precedent, so the court invented the implied right to a woman's "privacy" as the basis for the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. The court also stated that if personhood could be established for the unborn, the case law sanction would collapse under the weight of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, we have the case law precept that a pregnant woman is not nurturing a living human being. I suggest that a strong majority of pregnant women would reject this idea.
The authority for abortion beyond "viability" comes from Roe's sister case Doe. This decision, Doe vs Bolton, was released simultaneously the same day with Roe on January 22, 1973. Doe was a petition on behalf of Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) for relief from several Georgia restrictions on abortion. The court stepped beyond the petition and granted abortions beyond viability to full term for what amounted to any reason that contributed to the privacy and health of the mother. Interestingly, both McCorvy and Cano (Roe and Doe) both unsuccessfully petitioned to have their cases overturned and became adamantly pro-life.
Restrictions now come from individual states and these statutes have been subject to scrutiny in the courts, often modified or rejected. Any restrictions on abortion are on shaky ground because of the overall rejection of personhood in Roe and Doe. These case law precedents have caused major miscarriages of justice when someone has caused injury or death to a pregnant woman's unborn child. In the absence of legislated protection, the perpetrator has escaped culpability for injuring or killing an unborn child. One example among far too many uncovered by the author follows:
A pregnant Tracy Marciniac was attacked by her estranged husband in 1992 in Wisconsin just five days before her due date, causing the death of unborn "Zachariah," her perfectly formed full-term little boy. Her husband was prosecuted, convicted and served time for this assault on his wife, but there was no penalty for killing his son, and he walked free after serving time for the lesser assault charge. There was no "son" or person or anything of value lost in the eyes of Supreme Court case law. As Hillary has reminded us, the unborn have no constitutional right to life and thus do not represent human personhood.
Tracy's saga was brought before Congress and legislation was submitted as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Tracy's picture holding her son Zachariah was prominently displayed in the halls of Congress, but the legislation was rejected during the Democratic terms of Bill Clinton but later passed under President Bush. This federal law clashes with Roe and Doe in that it recognizes the personhood of the unborn and provides Fourteenth Amendment protection at any stage of gestation as if they were living, breathing humans like you and me. But this legislation is valid only for federal cases and the military. Over time we have had state action in this regard. Twenty-seven states have legislated full unborn victims of violence protection, nine have passed partial protection, most of these valid after "viability," and 14 states have no protection. New Hampshire is among the latter, and so in N.H. no one can be prosecuted for killing someone's unborn child.
All restrictions on abortion are in the crosshairs of the left. It is the avowed goal of Obama, the Clintons, their minions, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and countless liberal functionaries to clear all restrictions to unrestricted full term abortion on demand. This would apply against any legislation or judication that gives any right to life to the unborn in any circumstance under any condition. If one or two new liberal Supreme Court justices, like Obama appointees Kagan and Sotomayor, were to be seated the way would be clear for any vestige of humanity for the unborn to be struck down. This is what would have happened under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Hillary's historically codependent partner, former President Bill Clinton, vetoed legislation that would have abolished partial birth abortion.
In my opinion, those responsible for sanctioning or participating in the dismemberment and killing of God's creation in the very crucible that He has made and intended to nourish and protect the most innocent and vulnerable of human life must ultimately stand before God's judgement seat and explain their reasons for their actions. The reader may ask, "Who does the author think he is to pass judgement on others in this matter?" The answer is, my judgement is nothing. The problem is, God's judgement is just and true.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 545