An
article in USA Today July 23 entitled, "Abortion fight is 'enduring
divide,'" began like this:
During confirmation hearings for Supreme Court
nominee Sonia
Sotomayor, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, asked whether she believed court
rulings on abortion had ended the national controversy.
In a departure from the oblique answers that marked
the hearings, Sotomayor paused, then answered bluntly: "No."
The incendiary debate over abortion rights endures
and can be
jarring, as when abortion opponents interrupted at several points the
Senate Judiciary Committee session with Sotomayor. The controversy has
boiled up in other ways in the days since then.
Thursday, a day after President Obama's prime-time
pitch for an
overhaul of the health care system, Americans United for Life and other
abortion opponents accelerated their resistance to Democratic
proposals. A day earlier, abortion rights supporters presented members
of Congress with a report, tied to the killing of KS abortion doctor
George Tiller in May, documenting harassment, threats and physical
assaults on physicians who provide abortions.
Nearly 4 decades after the Supreme Court made
abortion legal
nationwide and nearly 2 decades after the justices reaffirmed the
right, the political saliency of abortion persists.
"The enduring divide represents the reality that
there are
fundamental religious differences on the issue of abortion that do not
exist on, say, campaign finance or even on health care," says Nancy
Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which issued
the report Wednesday about threats at clinics that provide abortions....
To relegate the debate over abortion as one of "religious differences"
is to say it is esoteric and unsolvable.
But this is a legal debate, a constitutional debate, a scientific
debate, as Northup full knows unless she is totally ignorant, which I
don't think she is.
Supreme
Court Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, when writing for the
majority in the Roe v. Wade decision, wrote this:
The appellee... argue that the fetus is a "person"
within the
language and meaning of the 14th Amendment.... If this suggestion of
personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,
for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by
the Amendment.
35 years ago one could not watch human fertilization under a microscope
or view early preborn life with 3D and 4D ultrasound. Were personhood
to be an issue before the US Supreme Court today, as Blackmun stated,
the other side's argument would "collapse."
I'm quite certain Northrup knows all this and is just jive talking. I
spotlight this so pro-lifers can stop pro-aborts in their tracks when
the attempt this deflection.
[HT: proofreader Laura Loo; attribution for photo of pro-lifers and
pro-aborts protesting outside the Sotomayor hearings: USA Today]
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish
Date: July 24, 2009
Link
to this article.
Send
this article to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.
|