I recently was reading an article at the Badger Herald which left me at a loss for words. I read it 5 or 6 times before I could must up the energy to post this article.

The focus of Christensen’s presentation was the testimony of a woman who said she bore her daughter in 1961 because the law prohibited her from having an abortion.

“It was an extraordinarily difficult time,” said the woman, who wished to remain anonymous. “It changed my life forever.”

The woman even traveled to Mexico in an attempt to bypass the abortion laws in the United States, but she returned home immediately upon seeing the dangerous conditions under which the abortions were performed.

“I am thankful that my daughter is alive and well and happy,” the woman said. “But each and every day I am reminded of the fact that she exists. My life would have been much different if I would have been able to [have the abortion].”

Since her daughter’s birth, the woman has been active in Planned Parenthood, co-founding a program aimed at helping girls better understand how their bodies function.

“It was very frightening to be a part of Planned Parenthood at that time,” the woman said. “But we need to recognize [that] a young woman’s life is what’s important.”

I did not know wether to laugh or be angry after reading this woman’s statements. I want to laugh at this woman because she states “I am thankful that my daughter is alive and well and happy,” however she is an advocate for killing the unborn. However at the same time it angers me that this anonymous woman is helping other young women to kill their children. It also angers me when she states “a young woman’s life is what’s important”. Well what about the life of the child?

On the bright side, I find myself more and more having discussions about this matter with people who are adamantly against abortion. It used to be that those who were for abortion carryed signs and wore T-shirts, while those against it would remain quiet as not to appear to be “anti-woman”. Well times have changed and people are beginning to realize that the abortion issue is one that needs to be addressed on a public stage, with both sides debating. On that note, here is my 2 cents.

To begin, it would be impossible to discuss the issue of abortion without first discussing Roe v. Wade. Abortion advocates claim their right to kill the unborn is protected by the Constitution, and as we all know, in Roe, the Supreme Court did indeed say that. “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term”.

Ironically the clause the Supreme Court used to invent the “constitutional protection” is the one which says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

Now in the case of Roe, we have an instance in which the State made a law denying the right of a woman to deprive the unborn of life (with an exception in place in the event the pregnancy threatened the mother’s life). Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion summed it up pretty good:
“The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, ” 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [*175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting [**738] abortion. n1 While many States have amended or updated [*176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. n2 Indeed, the Texas statute [**739] struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [*177] and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.” Ante, at 119.”

However it is actually Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion which needs to be paid more attention to:
“I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.”

As you can see from Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion, when he ruled in favor of Roe, he did so under the presumption the most doctors are ethical, and would only perform these procedures if there were a medically viable reason for it. As orginizations like Planned Parenthood and doctor’s like George Tiller have shown us, this is not the case!

Since it is clear that the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion in the matter of Roe did not intend to make abortion an inalienable right, I feel it is time to re-address the issue on a Judicial level.