View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by John Jakubczyk, Esq. |
March 15th, 2006
This fellow has no clue about what it is like across the country to care about protecting life. As I said before, we, pro-lifers, are not going to quit. We are not going to give up. We intend to win this war.
I use to have some respect for Bruce Fein and his opinions on Constitutional law and the courts. After all he is a highly respected Washington insider, writes columns for the Washington Times and appears on news programs to discuss current events. But his piece in the March 14, 2006 Washington Times is about the worst form of convoluted reasoning that I have seen in recent years. I would expect this from some apologist for abortion, or from some liberal Ivy League professor who has nursed his students on the legal positivism of Roe and fed them on the meat of substantive due process. But I expect more from those who take the Constitution seriously.
Perhaps Fein represents the establishment in Washington D.C. that does not want to end the killing of a million children a year. After all he is right when he implies that certain powers in the Capitol are afraid to tackle the issue head on. And he is right that there is an “abortion” mentality in this country that considers “disposal” of people or property to be a perfectly acceptable means of solving a problem. Yet his proposed solution will only ramp up the controversy, not end it.
Lets be very clear. There will never be an end to the abortion issue until all unborn children are protected in law. Period.
Those of us who have spent the last five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five years fighting to end abortion are not going to quit until we have ended this holocaust.
Further, our children are taking up the banner and they are less patient than those of us tempered by years. They know that they themselves could have been easily aborted. They refer to themselves as the “survivors’ and as they become more adept at the political game, they will be a force with which to reckon. Please note: it has been the pro-lifers who have been having the children for the most part. When you are wondering who is going to be paying into social security, thank us for the next generation.
Now onto Fein’s convoluted logic: Roe was poorly decided. Well there is no argument there. After all, Blackmun skirts the only relevant questions, to wit, what happens in an abortion and is the “fetus” a “person” in law. We know what happens in an abortion. The abortionist kills the unborn child or “fetus” for those of you who prefer the Latin word for “young one.” We also know that Blackmun himself admitted in the decision that if the “fetus” were considered a human being, the 14th Amendment would apply and the argument to legalize abortion would fail. Fien, however, wants to have the same result for “practical” reasons. Since when should a court reason the law only on the basis of a practical consideration? Fien would have the court ignore a critical reality. An abortion kills a human being.
As for political prudence, again he misses what has been at play for the last 33 years. Fein also has a poor recollection of history. Abortion was being debated in the state legislatures and in state courts long before Roe was decided in 1973. Certain states had “liberalized” their state laws; others had rejected such efforts. A very young pro-life movement was starting and responding to the already entrenched pro-abortion forces. Yet to the surprise of the pro-abortion dominated media, the rights to life groups were able to defeat efforts to legalize abortion in Michigan and North Dakota in November 1972. Even liberal New York had repealed its 1970 abortion law, only to have the repeal vetoed by the governor. Certain state courts had upheld the legality of their state abortion laws. Even Ronald Reagan admitted that his signing of the bill in 1967 was a mistake. When he realized that it helped open the gates to abortion in California, “he was very upset”, according to William P. Clark, a national security adviser and secretary of the Interior Department under Reagan. Clark noted that Reagan believed “it was the biggest mistake he made in government. He tried to square it away as time went on."
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote for the Human Life Review. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right."
Had the court not acted in Roe, the Right to life movement would have stopped the overall legalization of abortion. But the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, took it out of the hands of the states and for the last 33 years, has acted as a super legislature on the subject of abortion. As for the republican form of government that decides issues democratically, one may argue that this has been forever placed in a state of suspension, given the court’s penchant for taking such matters and ruling on them regardless of the lack of constitutional implication.
Fein wants to uphold the central finding of Roe as it applies to he first trimester. Yet, where in the constitution does Fein determine this constitutional right to obtain an abortion exist? In my reading of the constitution, I can find no right to an abortion. Neither can any honest scholar. The only people who find a right to abortion are those who want to be able to kill children in the womb. They are similar to the folks who want to be able to kill old people, disabled people or people with “lives devoid of meaning.”
He supports this argument to allow the killing to continue by pointing out the failure of Republicans in Congress to be more aggressive in curtailing the effects of Roe. Let me get this straight: because the congress has failed to act, we should let the children die. Because Bush has not been more out front on the subject (frankly something he ought to do), we should give up the fight.
The fellow has no clue on what it is like across the country to care about protecting life. As I said before, we, pro-lifers, are not going to quit. We are not going to give up. We intend to win this war. And it is a war for the soul of the nation. No one liked it when Buchanan mentioned the culture wars in 1992, but he was right. The battle over abortion is about defining the future of America. All of the fights over the court nominees came down to the abortion issue. The abortion issue has played a large part in the demise of the Democratic Party as it became the party of abortion. The growth of the Republican Party has been in no small part because it adopted a pro-life plank in its platform. And just because the politicians have not been as zealous as they should be does not mean the right to life movement, the new abolitionists, are going to stop the battle. Yet Fein considers that the right to life has no power to get things done.
True, The abortion industry does have more money than the right to life movement. The abortionists do control the establishment media for the most part, i.e. The New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc. The abortion mentality controls much of the thinking in the university system. And the abortionists get a lot of money from the government. But throughout the country, there is a growth influence and a change of attitude. The Pro-Life movement still represents the grassroots and the heartland of America. The Pro-Life movement represents the future in its membership, its ideas and its dreams. We are about life. The other side represents death. Most people just need an excuse to join the pro-life cause. Seeing the pictures of an ultrasound of an 11-week-old baby gives people just the reason to choose life. And then there is the Internet.
There is also another trend that mainstream Washington does not hear or see. This is the number of women who are publicly speaking out in remorse over the abortion they procured. Groups like “Silent no More,” Women Deserve Better, ” and “Operation Outcry” are all raising awareness that abortion is not good for women. Should they ever get some serious publicity, this growing outcry against abortion could be the tipping point to galvanize public opinion against abortion.
Perhaps Fein reflects the fear factor in Washington. After all once the issue of legal abortion is addressed with a finality, that is, there is a law protecting people from conception until natural death, the folks in Washington will be asked to provide support for those programs to assist mothers and children. Perhaps there will be a focus on what kind of education promotes a greater respect fro the human person. Once activated many of these pro-life political activists are going to demand that all aspects of government treat the human person with respect for his rights as a person. Of course, it is always a good thing for the populace to have a real say in the affairs of government. After all it is a government not of elites, but a government of the people; people created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life.
Mr. Fein, read your Constitution. There is no right to abortion found in the document, but there is a right to life. That right to life applies to all persons, born and unborn.
jakeslaw@ionet.net
Visit their website at: http://www.azrtl.org/
Responses to "Bruce Fein should be totally overruled: A Response to an absurd proposal"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
While I could not agree more with the author, I do believe that the general, highly moral population of this country, have been intentionally confused by the somewhat ambiguous labeling assumed by the opposing sides of this issue. Why don't we start calling like it is: Pro-life means For-life; Pro-choice means For-death.
Comment by JFS | March 16, 2006
I cannot tell you how tired I am of reading/hearing men pontificate about their views on abortion. I firmly believe that if men could become pregnant, there would be no restrictions on abortion, and the right of a man to choose whether or not to carry a child to term would be sacred.
Further, I ask that you remember who suffers and dies when abortion is made difficult or illegal to obtain: think of the young women (children, really) who risk getting pregnant while their male partners do not. If those female children discover they are pregnant, they are faced with a very serious decision.
Do you know why the symbol of the women's movement is a coat hanger? Do you know how many of them die from attempting to induce a miscarriage, or from an illegal or amateur abortion attempt? Do you know how many are physically and/or emotionally scarred for life? Yet men like you go on and on about the sacredness of the "life" of a tiny bunch of cells which have only the potential to become human. I cannot understand how you could consider abortion to be murder if the embryo is not viable outside the mother's womb; or that the "rights" of an embryo supercede the rights of the woman.
I can't even begin to describe my disgust at irrational people who think the solution is to murder doctors who perform abortions, or to bomb abortion clinics.
I agree that the Supreme Court making law via the Roe vs Wade decision is not the "right" way to address the issue; but what the court wrote is still a darn good law and should be allowed to stand. The only better way to address the legality of abortion would be with an amendmant to the U.S. Constitution.
Comment by Lynn | March 17, 2006
I also cannot believe the amount of sheer nastiness I read in ther eader comments on this and other sites. I fully expect to read truly nasty responses to what I just wrote. How 'bout is you all surprise me & keep your comments civilized for once?
Comment by Lynn | March 17, 2006
I commented on this topic a month or so ago, and I'll do it again.
As a Christian, I could never say I believe in abortion; as a father, I can think of nothing more precious than the gift of new life. However, as an intellectual human being, I have to say I can never support the overturning of Roe V. Wade.
Making abortion illegal will not stop it. It will return women to the days of the back alley abortionists and surely open new traffic from this country to Canada where there are absolutely no restrictions on abortion. What we have to do is direct our energies to educating women to the options available to them other than abortions, rather than trying to change a law. We will not make our world a better place by outlawing abortion, while doing nothing to change people's hearts.
Where I'm sure I'll part company with many conservatives and definitely others in the Christian community is here: In the case of a fetus conceived where he/she will be born into an environment of crime, probable sexual abuse at some point in time, the eventual joining of street gangs justg to survive once reaching an age, and a situation where they just plain were not wanted in the first place, I'd rather see such a fetus sent back into the hands of God rather than born into a world of virtually no hope for a quality of life as long as they live. Of course all this would be providing that we are talking about a newly conceived embryo, not a third trimester case.
It would be easy for me to preach against the evils of aborting babies; but then I was born into a cushy, blessed world where I always found love and support.
Comment by Dan Killman | March 17, 2006
“The battle over abortion is about defining the future of America. All of the fights over the court nominees came down to the abortion issue. The abortion issue has played a large part in the demise of the Democratic Party as it became the party of abortion . . . There is no right to abortion found in the Constitution.”
In addition, abortion has to be rationalized.
The debate over abortion has taken on all the earmarks of the debate over slavery:
- Slavery treated people as property . . . abortion treats children as the property of the mother to do with as she wills (in fact, they are considered the property of the mother even after they are born);
- The battle over slavery was about defining the future of America;
- All of the fights over the presidency and the admission of new states came down to the slavery issue;
- The slavery issue played a large part in the demise of the Democratic Party as it became the party of slavery;
- There is no right to slavery found in the Constitution (although in the case of Dred Scott, Justice Taney felt in his heart there was);
- Slavery had to be rationalized
Comment by G of Sedona | March 18, 2006
Lynn, to prove you wrong, I am a female and have always been against the barbarity that is abortion. This is even after seeing my sister get pregnant while she was young and unwed. She showed the courage and character necessary to respect life and give up her baby to adoption rather than killing her.
You are excusing government-sponsored murder because they would just do it anyway? Using that logic, let's legalize rape and drunken-driving while we're at it.
You excuse it because it would be traumatic to the mother? What about trauma to the baby or the baby's father?
You say it's not a baby, but rather a ball of tissue? It is made up of the same things you are made of. It is growing and changing like you do. Most importantly it is ALIVE, and to be more specific, it is indisputably HUMAN. In other words it is a human live being deliberately ended, i.e. killed. Need more intellect?
Legalized abortion is a cowardly disgrace.
Comment by Yvette | March 18, 2006
I agree with Yvette. Let's legalize all crimes; i mean, what's the difference if they're going to do those things anywho?
Lynn, I'm a college freshman and I agree that were I to find myself pregnant next week, I would be traumatized; but then I would proceed to take responsibility for my actions, and act like an adult, like Yvette's sister did. Abortion is wrong and that is not my opinion; that is a FACT!
And you're complaining about people not behaving in a civil manner? That's an interesting comment coming from somebody who believes in murdering innocent children if they stand to inconvenience their own mother!
I would love to see your poorly-reasoned attempt at a response to Yvette's or my comment.
Comment by nicole | March 19, 2006
All,
I did not use the word "traumatized". I asked if we know how many (female) children are physically and emotionally scarred as a result of an amateur abortion. I have a relative who did go through that, and was never able to conceive a child again.
Nicole,
What do you say when a woman has a miscarriage? Do you assume that she somehow "murdered" the fetus?
Thank you all for your civility in this discourse. Too often, I read slurs & nastiness directed at people who politely express an honest, different opinion, and that is what I was complaining about.
I disagree with the position that "abortion is murder" because I believe the fetus needs to be viable outside the mother's womb to be counted as a person.
I don't accuse any of you of poor reasoning or stupidity: you have a right to your opinion. I would never try to force anyone to have an abortion. But, I also believe the most basic right of a child is to be loved, wanted, and taken care of by his or her parents. If a female cannot commit to provide that for her child, she shouldn't be a mother. And yes, carrying a child to term and putting it up for adoption is certainly an option, but the pregnant person should get to decide. Girls can get pregnant so young - I read recently about a 38 year old grandmother, who had a nineteen year old daughter with a 10 year old child!
Comment by Lynn | March 20, 2006
There can be no reasoned argument against Yvette or you, Nichole. Sperm hits egg and a miraculous chemical reaction occurs, creating a separate and distinct pattern of DNA from the child bearer or the sperm donor. Amazingly, a life is created!
Even if the woman was raped,
Even if the woman was inconvenienced,
Even if the woman would make a horrible mother,
The child is a separate and distinct human being that should be recognized as a person. Unfortunately, like the slaves, fascist forces (this time, feminism) try to cloud the two real questions that only need to be asked.
1) Is the embryo (conception to 8 weeks), fetus (8 weeks after conception to birth) or child (after birth) a human life?
The science is back on that…yes, all three are human.
2) Is the life of the child worth more or less than nine months of temporary inconvenience to the child bearer?
To say the child is worth less is to see all humanity not created equal. To say that a baby, simply because it is weaker and smaller, is not worth the inconvenience of the child bearer puts all women in jeopardy, because they are now saying they are worth less than a larger stronger man.
Comment by Ruslfish | March 20, 2006
Ruslfish,
Science does say that an embryo is of human ancestry; but science does not say an embryo is a human being. An embryo cannot think, communicate, or take action as an independent entity.
Making forced comparisons of the "worth" of an embryo as compared to a human action or human decision, is like trying to definitively state that apples are intrinsically more valuable than the ability to sing. Such a comparison is logically absurd.
An embryo and a baby human being also are not the same as each other; an embryo has only the potential to become a baby; is not yet one. Therefore they cannot logically be said to have the same "worth".
Before you refer to nine months of pregnancy as "nine months of temporary inconvenience to the child bearer", try it! My argument (see above) is that denying legal abortion to pregnant female children has caused many of them to make decisions they are not mature enough for; some have made the poor decision to try to cause a miscarriage or to get an amateur abortion - and have died as a result.
Attempting to equate the "worth" of a child to the "worth" of being pregnant is not valid; that is trying to compare the value of an activity or state of living to a human child.
Writing of the "worth" of adult, baby or child (human beings) invites the question of how do you assess their "value" - as if you think they can or should be bought and sold.
Comment by Lynn | March 21, 2006
1)Lynn, obviously I don't consider a miscarriage murder. A miscarriage is an unintentional tragedy that couldn't have been prevented. When a woman has an abortion, she is inttentionally putting her own child to death because she is unwilling to take responsibility for her actions. You did not make an apt comparison.
2)Ruslfish is correct: at the moment of conception, a genetically unique person is created. This is not an opinion; this is a BIOLOGICAL fact that cannot be disputed.
3) You said in response to Ruslfish's comment that a fetus is not a person because he or she does not have the reasoning/communication/action skills of an adult. By that logic, I could, free of guilt, kill or brutalize people with severe brain damage/severe mental retardation/physical disability/in a coma???? Is that what you're saying? I don't think it is, but that's what your theory would imply.
4)You are incorrect when you say that the most basic right of a child is the right to loved and cared for. The most basic right of a child, and you, and any other person in the world, is the right to life. Without this right, no other rights can be excercised.
5) Another point that makes murdering babies socially acceptable, in your opinion, is that, upon the outlawing of abortion, women would resort to dangerous, or self-performed abortions. Well,to draw a parallel, the outlawing of crack has resulted in a dangerous drug-smuggling system including the use of women from South America being employed as drug mules (I assume you know what a drug mule is), resulting in much death and violence as well. Should we legalize crack? Just some food for thought.
6) Ruslfish also makes another interesting point: you argue that a woman is more important than a child essentially because she is bigger, stronger, and more powerful. By this logic, all human worth should be determined by physical robustness. So, men should inherently have more worth than women? Male superiority is a pretty archaic theory that doesn't seem to go hand in hand with the ideals of modern feminism.
I'm trying to understand your side, but I, a nineteen-year-old kid, just keep finding glitches in the pro-choice theory. Please try to explain it again.
Comment by nicole | March 21, 2006
Well said Nicole.
It seems to me that we're playing God if we think we have the right to kill unborn children, the elderly, or those in a coma or mentally retarded. This is the slippery slope to what is already legal in the Netherlands, killing infants.
Because hey, infants can't speak, think or take action anymore than the unborn can.
Comment by Yvette | March 22, 2006
Lynn,
In discussing the notion of women dying because of "coat hanger" or "back alley" abortions, there are several matters to consider.
First of all, what is required to have a woman face a decision to have an unsafe abortion? It would mean that she is likely being pressured by an irresponsible father unwilling to be a man and willing to let his woman risk her life. Therefore, he's a jerk and she made a stupid choice to give herself over to him.
Second, she would have parents who are clearly absent.
She feels excessive shame for her situation which isn't the baby, but the fact that sit is like wearing a neon sign saying "I slept around."
Any abortion, legal or not, is not the solution because the problem lies in the people around her and her sense of desperation. Rejecting a woman carrying life inside her is backward and is similarly not stigmatized as it was. The problem is in our disposable view of relationships and pursuit of recreational sex. Whether or not such a desperate woman seeks an abortion, she will continue to have a miserable existence.
Telling women that abortion is no solution; instead we should insist that both the man and woman live up to their parental responsibilities. When you speak of the unborn as a collection of cells, that is emotion, not fact. It suggests a great deal of disdain for an innocent life, which is the only one not guilty of failing anyone.
There is no need to put men and women or women and their unborn on opposite sides of the fence. We don't allow people to kill their creditors because the financial reality they spent themselves into creates a burden that is overwhelming to them. Abortion is only excusable if it stands up under scrutiny and has practical merit. It doesn't.
If we want to claim independence in a sexual revolution, we are at liberty to do so, only if we live up to the commensurate responsibilities. We need to either re-evaluate our lifestyles, or start acting like adults. Our most vulnerable members should not pay the freight for our selfish choices.
Tom
Comment by Tom | March 23, 2006
Your arguments about the backstreet abortion are the typical misleading "horror stories" put forth by the "pro-death" crowd. Notice:
1. In any abortion one person dies. Does doing this in a sterile environment make it right? How many more persons have been killed since abortion was legalized as compared to before?
2. You ignore the supressed statistics of the women who die or are seriously injured through legal abortions. This more than equals the previous injury through the "coathanger."
On another note, please explain the difference between an unborn "fetus" 8 months old and a baby born after an 8-month pregnancy.
Comment by Mark | March 30, 2006