joyfulchristian

Even one is a tragedy

... but this is still good news.

U.S. abortions at lowest rate since 1974 - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK - The number of abortions in the United States fell to 1.2 million in 2005, down 25 percent from the all-time high of 1.6 million in 1990 and dropping the abortion rate to its lowest level since 1974, according to report issued Thursday.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Huckabee is wrong

Mike Huckabee says that abortion is not an issue that should be left up to the states:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.

"If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong." he said on Fox News Sunday.

The problem with this convoluted thinking is that it proves too much. If you accept his reasoning, that anything that is morally wrong is automatically a federal issue, then you must also believe that murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, armed robbery, and, indeed, most felonies should also be federal crimes. But their not.  Yes, if you kill a federal official or law enforcement officer you've violated federal law and yes, robbing a bank is a federal crime but that easily falls under the commerce clause.

The problem with saying that abortion should be a federal issue is that I simply don't see how you can justify that position on the federal level. I once had an online discussion about this issue with Joshua Claybourne which I can't seem to turn up just now. My recollection is that Josh believed you could justify an abortion ban at the federal level under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It seems his argument was that if the states failed to protect their unborn, that under the 14th, the feds could do it.

The liberal objection is that the 14th only protects "persons" and the unborn don't count. I've seen a case that actually ruled in favor of the liberal position. I, of course, believe that this was wrongly decided.

However, I'm not at all certain I buy the idea that the 14th amendment gives Congress the right to pass a law just because it believes the states should have and failed to. I'm not aware of any other argument for federalizing this issue that actually looks at the text of the Constitution. Most of them are basically like Huckabee's :Abortion is wrong so the federal government should ban it.

I know Fred Thompson has been attacked on this issue. Some people say that if he refuses to endorse either a federal law against abortion or insist that all the states pass abortion bans, then he isn't really pro-life.  My view is that he says Roe was wrongly decided and that this issue is for the states to decide.  The fact that he hasn't explicitly stated what decision he thinks the states should make makes perfect sense as he isn't running for governor of all 50 states, or even one of them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Well, there's a reason for that

The editors of National review have weighed in on Fred Thompson. In general, they praise him for laying out detailed proposals on many issues that both show that he understands the problem and that cling to conservative principles. I do have one quibble though. Towards the end, they say:

The big news concerning Thompson this week, of course, has been the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of his candidacy. Ironically, this is one area of policy where Thompson has not expressed his views clearly. He has stated that he thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but he hasn’t taken a position on what he thinks the states should do about abortion if and when Roe is overturned.

Without taking the time to search the web, my understanding is that Fred Thompson has spoken very clearly on many issues indicating that he believes that things that are state issues are NO BUSINESS of the federal government. My recollection is that he has previously stated that he believes abortion law falls in that category. (A stance I would tend to agree with. However, I do believe it should be a Federal crime to take a minor across state lines to help them circumvent their own state's parental consent statutes.)

Given that Thompson believes (and has stated) that if we were able to get rid of Roe, this would become a state issue, why would he then weigh in on what he believes states should do? In his view, if he were President, this would be outside his purview; why should he opine on it while running for President?

Methinks I detect some fair-weather Federalism from our dear editors.

Powered by ScribeFire.

This article may not be terribly helpful

... but it reminded me to bring up the issue.

Local anti-abortion activists defended their use of graphic images of aborted fetuses on Baltimore’s busiest streets Thursday afternoon, saying the pictures provide a face to a glamorized practice.

“The images cut through the rhetoric,” said Chrissy Walsh. “Those that support abortion hide behind the term ‘pro-choice.’ They don’t want the country to ask itself what they are choosing.”

The argument about whether pro-life activists should use graphic images, or sometimes even actual fetuses, in their protests have gone on for some time.  This article doesn't give much detail about what these activists were actually doing so it's hard to analyze their specific acts. 

It does give me an opportunity to discuss my view on the subject.  There's no doubt that abortion activists tend to describe the process in as clinical manner as possible to try to remove the natural emotional reactions we feel regarding children.  Many people, when faced with graphic descriptions or images of the process reconsider their position.  Graphic images do make a difference.

Of course, so do sonograms.  I've seen many stories about how the more modern sonograms have convinced women who were considering abortions to change their minds.  They simply made it impossible to think of what they were carrying as anything other than a child.

I don't think there's any doubt that the major reason abortion activists object to graphic images in protests is that they work.  That being said, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a great idea.  There's no doubt that there's also a percentage of the population who will only be offended and will immediately turn you off.

Graphic images can certainly have a place in protests, but they are not a tool that should be used in all circumstances.  I worry that some activists use them purely for shock value without any thought given to whether they are the best tool for the given circumstance.

 

Let's try this again

There's a bill before the State House in South Dakota to ban abortion:

PIERRE, S.D. - Abortion should be a crime in South Dakota if states are given the right to outlaw the medical procedure, a House panel recommended Friday.

The State Affairs Committee unanimously approved HB1249, which would make it a felony to do abortions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is overturned. The bill would allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant woman's life is at risk.

Those who do abortions could face up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The committee changed the bill to remove a provision that would have made it a crime to advise women to seek abortions.

I've seen bills in which  legislatures attempted to find a way around Roe v. Wade.  This measure is different.    Instead of trying to get around  Roe or precipitate a Supreme Court battle, this  bill anticipates  Roe being overturned.  I find this a very interesting strategy, but I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to accomplish.

Of course, Planned Parenthood isn't happy:

Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood said the bill is one of the most extreme measures she has seen. The measure would tie physicians' hands and ignore women's ability to make decisions for themselves, she said.

"Making abortion illegal never has and never will stop women from having abortions," Looby said, urging the committee to reject the bill.

She acts like this is an argument.  Making murder illegal never has and never will stop people from killing each other.  At least, not entirely.   The fact that if an act is made illegal some people will still do it  is not, in and of  itself, an  reason not to ban any activity.

How will this shape up?  I have no idea.

This sounds about right

After blasting John Kerry for his morally incoherent stance on abortion (which boils down to "abortion is murder, but i support a woman's right to do it), Mark Brumley writes:

We have here a classic case of someone who seems so worried about "not imposing religion on people" that he doesn't even impose it on himself.

Different ways of looking at it

Even among pro-life groups, there is disagreement about whether the abortion bill in South Dakota is a good idea:

Mary Spaulding Balch, a spokeswoman with the National Right to Life Committee, supports the essence of the bill, but says this is the wrong time.

"If this type of a bill was to make its way all the way to the Supreme Court, we don't have the votes for this to be upheld as constitutional," Balch said.

She said a loss will simply send legal fees to pro-abortion lawyers. But others say it's worth making the attempt.

"Unless there are good laws challenging current federal Supreme Court rulings, we're not going to go anywhere," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family. "The bill in South Dakota reminds us of the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement, and that is to outlaw abortion, because it's not good for women and it kills their children."

Balch's position seems to be an entirely political calculation. She seems to be saying that we shouldn't fight a battle until we're absolutely sure we can win. But as Earll points out, we can't possibly win if we don't fight.

I assume that Bach is saying that as the Court stands now, we would probably lose; therefore we shouldn't try now because if we lose it will just make things that much harder in the future. While I understand that way of thinking, I disagree.

First, it is a mistake to start counting the Justices before you pass legislation. Some justices are notoriously unpredictable so its possible, even on issues like abortion, that you might actually be in a better position than you think. (This is especially true when, as in this case, the bill is based on a unique legal argument.) Further, even if your count of the justices is correct, that may not mean anything. For a bill to go from signature to the Supreme Court usually takes several years. A lot can change in that time. Justices retire, change their minds, or even die while serving on the bench. Even if your count is accurate today that may bear no relation to the circumstances that will exist when the law actually reaches the Supreme Court.
.
The other reason is far more fundamental. Paul said, "... preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." For Christians who oppose abortion because we view it as murder, the theft of one of God's greatest gifts, how can we do any less than to oppose it in season and out of season.

A new approach

I don't know if it's intentional or not, but opponents of the South Dakota abortion ban seem to be either missing, ignoring, or glossing over an important aspect of this bill. The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, glossed over the issue of when life began and ultimately came up with an argument that didn't depend on deciding this issue. Subsequent decisions have pretty much left this issue aside.

What makes this bill different is that it bases the ban on a finding that life does, in fact, begin at conception. If nothing else, this will force the court to address the issue and might cause it to reach a different result. Further, this bill has been carefully crafted. It may not work, but it is a different approach and those behind it think they've done pretty well.

This story touches on that. I'd pull some quotes but for some reason I can't. Don't know what that's about.

One house down

... one to go:

After fiery debate, the South Dakota House passed a bill 54-15 Tuesday that would outlaw most abortions in the state.

Supporters hope the measure will prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to finally decide when life begins. The bill proclaims that life starts at conception.

"There is quite simply no justification for taking a guiltless human life," said Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, chief sponsor of the bill.

All life, both born and unborn, should be protected, he said.

"There is a wrong in society, and that's the intentional taking of human life," McCaulley said, adding that he has worked on the legislation for a year.

I haven't seen a lot speculation about how well this will do in the Senate, but passage in the house is encouraging.

I want to respond to something in this story:

Olson, who is the House Democratic leader, said abortion has been ruled constitutional, and legislators who vote to make it illegal would be violating their oaths of office. Lawmakers are required to uphold the entire constitution, not just the parts they agree with, he said.

The last part of this Olson's argument is absolutely correct. Lawmakers are bound to uphold the entire constitution. The first part of his argument is absolute bupkis. Just because the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court's decisions create legal precedent, but they're neither absolute nor permanent. For one, the court can be wrong. Also, the court sometimes changes its mind.

As far as I know, all oaths of office are pretty much the same: "Preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. (State oaths usually say state and US constitutions.) But those oaths don't require them to preserve and protect someone else's interpretation of the Constitution. When you take into account that the Court can make mistakes, it becomes evident that many legislators may believe that their oath requires them to go against the Court's decision. Further, the Court will never have a chance to change it's mind if people don't challenge their rulings.

I'm not sure how clear that was and I wasn't talking specifically about abortion, but courts and legislatures in general. Just something I wanted to get off my chest.

More on the South Dakota abortion bill

South Dakota's governor says he's not sure if he'll sign the bill if it passes.

South Dakota's governor is pro-life, but he is unsure if he would sign a ban on virtually all abortions and is concerned that it would likely be declared unconstitutional.

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is wrong," Gov. Mike Rounds told the Associated Press on Friday. "I believe we should do everything we can to eliminate abortion within this country."

Rounds said he wants to further review the legislation before signing it.

[...]

Rounds told the Associated Press that he is concerned the bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota, confirmed that her group would challenge the legislation in court if passed.

The legislation would likely make its way through the judicial process and the bill would likely wind up at the Supreme Court. One there, a pro-abortion majority will almost assuredly strike down the law.

"It's one of the concerns that I would have, but it would not necessarily lead to a veto," Rounds explained.

If he wants to do everything possible he should ask for any changes he thinks would improve the chances that it would survive a court challenge. Then, he should sign the bill. If you believe that the bill is a) the right thing to do, and b) constitutional than the danger of a court finding otherwise should not affect your actions.

If you believe that the law is right, but unconstitutional¹ you should be working to change the Constitution.

¹ There are millions of people out there who would be convinced that that phrase constitutes a contradiction of terms. Way to many people out there have come to believe in the formula wrong=unconstitutional. Yes, something can be right, but not allowed by the constitution. Something can also be wrong, but constitutional.

Looking good

While he hasn't said for sure, South Dakota Mike Rounds is hinting that he would likely sign a bill currently in the SD House that would ban abortion.

Gov. Mike Rounds won't comment yet on a bill to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, but he said abortion should end.

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is wrong," Rounds said Friday. "I believe we should do everything we can to eliminate abortion within this country."

Rounds said he could accept abortion in cases when it is necessary to save a pregnant woman's life.

"You do everything you can to preserve and protect life. In some cases if you have the possibility of losing the life of the mother, you do what you can to protect the life of the mother," the governor said.

This is a good development.

Unfortunately, this story isn't getting much press at all. A state legislature is taking action on of the most important, and controversial, issues of our time and for some reason the press has pretty much ignored. I think Joe Carter deserves a lot of credit for refusing to let this story stay buried.

Will the South Dakota abortion ban pass?

I don't know, but it certainly has impassioned legislators on its side:

Rep. Chris Madsen, R-Sioux Falls, said no price is too high to pay.

"I feel a great injustice and scourge is upon this land. I will vote for this bill irregardless of the cost, because I think it is the right thing to do," Madsen said.

Rep. Bill Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, said "For those of you thinking only about the money, ask: What is the value of one human life?"

The question came down to a moral one for those both for and against HB1191.

Looby protested that HB1191 makes no provision for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. In 2002, that was 20 women, according to the state Health Department.

"Those women would be forced to carry the progeny of their rapist or close family member to term," Looby said. "Twenty might not sound like a very big number until you are one of those 20."

Rep. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion, said he could not vote for the bill because he finds it disingenuous.

"I do not believe this is going to prevent one single abortion," Nessulhuf said.

Others said they felt obligated to challenge the law of the land that has stood for 30 years.

"The question in front of us, when it's all boiled down, is: Is this right, or is it wrong?" Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said. "We can't try and compromise. We have an opportunity as a state to take back some of the 10th Amendment rights, and we have a responsibility to do so."

It's interesting to see this cast as a state's rights issue. It is, of course, but that's an angle rarely used. I've always believed that state legislatures were the most appropriate place for this debate.

Progress marches on

The South Dakota bill banning abortion has been reported out of committee.

I want to take this opporunity to point out one part of this story:

Opponents warned legislators that passing the measure would be a costly mistake. South Dakota will wind up in court, and the legal fees will be huge, they said, reminding state lawmakers that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1973 ruling that abortion is legal.

The bill would not survive a constitutional challenge, opponents said.

Rep. Bill Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, acknowledged that the attorney general has estimated it would cost $500,000 to defend such a lawsuit. If the state would lose and have to pay attorneys on the other side, that could probably boost the expense for taxpayers at $1 million, he said.

"How much is the value of one human life?" Peterson asked, adding that he believes life begins at conception.

If the measure does nothing else, perhaps it will prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to finally define the beginning of life, Peterson said. If modern medicine and science can more definitely say that life begins much earlier than previously thought, many abortions can be prevented, he said.

Instead of passing the bill, Rep. Mel Olson, D-Mitchell, suggested that South Dakota press for a constitutional convention of states to decide if abortion should be banned.

Arguing against the bill, Olson said legislators should at least include a $1 million appropriation in the measure to cover the cost of a legal challenge. "If in fact we're serious about this, we should put our money where our mouth is."

Committee members rejected the proposal, which would have put a two-thirds vote requirement on the measure instead of a simple majority in both the House and Senate before it could be sent to Gov. Mike Rounds.

I'm not sure if the people raising the cost issue really expect to change people's minds. What I suspect they're after is an attempt to change this into an appropriations bill which apparently require a super majority.

However, if they really expect this to change people's mind, then they're barking (I hope) up the wrong tree. The people who support a ban on abortion do so because they believe abortion is murder. If that's the case, then it stands to reason that they believe it's worth the cost.

If it's the right thing to do, it doesn't matter the cost. If it's not right, the cost doesn't matter either.

South Dakota moves closer to banning abortion

I found this article on the website of an ABC affiliate in South Dakota:

The State Legislature continues to tackle a wide range of issues in Pierre. One of the most controversial bills will be heard this week. House Bill 1191 - known as the Abortion Bill - is an attempt to declare when human life begins and how it should be protected.

HB 1191 has bi-partisan support, with more than 60 co-sponsors. "I think we've got 2/3 in the House of Representatives and we have a majority of the Senators that also believe that as a state, it's our responsibility to finally say...let us define life," said Representative Phyllis Heineman of Sioux Falls. She explains: "The bill is basically two parts. It's saying let's try to define when we as a state, see that life begins. And then, let's put a prohibition on the termination of that life."

Apparently the bill goes to committee in the house tommorrow. The supporters of the bill believe they've got the votes.

They're taking an interesting way of getting to the abortion ban. The Roe court was a little vague on when life begins (despite a long discussion of the history of this issue). The South Dakota legislature begins with a finding that, based on available medical data, life begins at conception. Some have stated that they're calling the court's bluff. If the court accepts the legislature's finding, the rest flows automatically because a) the Supreme Court has already ruled that the state's do have a legitimate right to protect life and b) the 14th Amendment requires equal protection of all peoples. (If life begins at birth and other lives are protected by murder statutes, then they all must be protected.)

Further, this bill provides punishment only for the doctor (and then only under strict guidelines); the mother could apparently not be punished. This will allow them to get out of charges that they're trying to victimize scared women.

I don't know whether they'll succeed, but we'll never know if we don't try. The state legislatures were always the appropriate place to decide the issue. This law's time has come.