The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner


Abortion
The Shame of America

Part 5

Michael A. Wallace

mwallace@americasvoices.org      
biography
archives


June 18, 2001


"Legal"Basis for Abortion 11

With abortion there is almost no ground for compromise.  The blame for this predicament in our society rests first on those who foisted this into our judicial system, and secondly, most squarely on our elected and appointed officials who condoned its establishment in "law" and have perpetuated its existence.  Their culpability is as great and evil as that of those who perpetuated slavery.

On May 1, 1971, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in two cases dealing with abortion.  Most Americans have heard of Roe v. Wade; fewer know that Doe v. Bolton shares in the infamy.

Fewer still know that Norma McCorvey (Roe) claimed she was a victim of gang rape, which she later admitted was a lie.  Further, she gave her child up for adoption – never obtaining her abortion the case was supposedly brought to obtain.

Doe v. Bolton is confusing because of the deception involved.  Doe was originally Sandra Kay Race Bensing.  She was encouraged by Legal Aid of Atlanta, Georgia, to file suit in return for free help in obtaining a divorce and for help in regaining custody of two children.  Like Norma McCorvey, she had no intent to obtain an abortion, and in fact did not.  Legal Aid and the National Organization for Women (NOW) saw an opportunity and pulled a deception.  Another woman, Sandra Cano, had come to Legal Aid, also wishing to obtain a divorce, also with children, and also pregnant.  NOW lawyers promised help in the divorce and custody issue; in return, Sandra Cano would become the anonymous plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton.  Sandra Cano is the real Doe.  Small mistake though!  Like Roe, Doe didn’t want an abortion!  In fact, Sandra Cano ran away from the Georgia Baptist Hospital where NOW lawyers had made an appointment for her to obtain the abortion.

The Supreme Court of the United States found for both Roe and Doe, but in neither case did the plaintiffs obtain an abortion.  Neither case was founded on fact.  They were based upon lies.  What pro-abortionists wanted was a venue to obtain abortion on demand.  Sandra Cano stated, "I was told this suit would help me to get my children back and I signed papers as they were put in front of me with that explanation – I was led by the nose and never told that the price they intended to exact from me was to legalize the murder of little children!" 12

These women were used.  So much so that Legal Aid and NOW never bothered to help Sandra Cano with her divorce or with the child custody issue.  Legal Aid and NOW got what they wanted.

Despite the mongrel pedigree of the Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, pro-abortionists are adamant that Courts abide by following principles laid down in previous legal decisions (the doctrine of stare decisis).  This perpetuation of illegal law occurs because even though some on the Court believe the cases were bogus, Americans are habituated to the "right" of abortion.  Justice Blackmun, the author of the Roe decision, however, could not even point where in the Constitution the new "right" to abortion on demand could be found. (Which may explain why NARAL frames their most recent propaganda in terms of "human freedoms" and "founding principles".) 13

Government Culpability

Pro-abortionists rant the mantra that government doesn’t have the right to control a woman’s body.  True.  Government has no right to control your right arm either, except if you use it to commit crimes against others.  Legal prohibitions on abortion would not prevent a woman from having sex, no more than legal prohibitions against assault prevents you from using an axe, a baseball bat, or a handgun.  In all cases the control is not on the free will of the individual, but on the expression of that free will should it be used to harm others.  The control arises through the promise and swift delivery of severe sanction.

The logic of the pro-abortionists who cry that they are being controlled is seriously flawed.  As Bastiat succinctly explains, "When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation.  They oblige him only to abstain from harming others.  They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property.  They safeguard all of these.  They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all." 14

What then is the purpose of government and law if not this selective anarchy for pro-abortionists?  Law, devolved from government, which itself arises from consent of those governed, and not courts, has a solemn purpose. 15  The law, as Bastiat explained, "…is the substitution of a common force for individual forces.  And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do:  to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." 16  Jefferson stated quite clearly, "The care of human life and happiness, and not its destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." 17

The Federal government’s responsibility is to offer alternatives to abortion that protect human life, not defend and support abortion.  The former is in keeping with the purpose of government to protect its citizens.  Supporting abortion is contrary to that responsibility.

Government, acting in the interest of all citizens, has the right and obligation to control behavior that is inimical to the interests of society.  Irresponsible choices are suppressed for the good of society.  Abortion is an irresponsible choice and is inimical to the interests of society and thus warrants prohibition; however, the Federal government is condoning the willful killing of those who would be State citizens.  The States are therefore simply not protecting their citizens.  Why have not the States challenged the Federal government on the abortion issue?

The effects of Doe v. Bolton, expanding upon Roe v. Wade, ties the States’ hands.  Roe found that the state may only enact laws that regulate abortions in ways reasonably related to maternal health, thus they may not restrict abortion access.  Doe expanded the definition of maternal health such that a woman may have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy as long as she can convince the abortionist it is in her own best interest.  It is impossible for a State to protect the unborn child at any time during pregnancy. 18

State governments must defend their citizens from the abusive power of the Federal government, whose power was originally granted by the States.  And the Federal government must prevent disunion by implementing and enforcing only just, moral law that applies to all citizens.  To do less is to risk sacrificing their loyalty.  To do less invalidates the explicit and implicit contract between citizens and their Federal government.

Using Laws to Promote and Protect Immorality and Create Disunion

The law has come to be an instrument of injustice.  Pro-abortionists and their supporters have used the law to secure the ability to do what would otherwise be illegal.  They are using the law to put the cloak of respectability on immorality – which is plainly wrong.  They are subjecting the innocent to the taint of their immorality.

A passage from The Law, again written over 150 years ago, is illuminating.  First, it shows that human motivation has changed little through the years, if at all.  Second, it shows the insidious manner in which evil is rooted in society and accepted.  I have taken the liberty to insert one word in brackets, twice, to point out relevancy to the topic of abortion.

"No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree.  The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable.  When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.  These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.  The nature of law is to maintain justice.  This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing.  There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate.  This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so.  Thus, in order to make plunder [abortion] appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.  Slavery, [abortion,] restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them." 19

"Free Choice" is not free.  It comes with a terrible price.  Decent Americans are being forced to sacrifice their integrity or risk sanction of a repressive and unjust government.  To oppose is to risk the wrath of the coercive power of the government apparatus, the very same government charged with providing for their common defense.  People are slowly being forced into extreme positions because there is no justice in the law to protect all human life.

Protest Suppression

Simply because a law is passed by a majority or groundlessly fabricated by a Court does not make it lawful.  Citizens have no more responsibility to support and obey immoral law than has a member of our Armed Forces to obey illegal or immoral orders of superiors.  In fact, members of our Armed Forces have an express duty to disobey – no matter the personal price he or she must pay.

Conscience is good enough to supposedly guide the behavior of pro-abortionists, yet repressive law is applied to pro-life adherents.  The peaceable expression of their conscience is denied them in many cases, whereas no restriction is placed on the pro-abortionist camp.  It is wrong that people peaceably protesting the taking of an innocent’s life are subjected to the abusive power of the Federal government and compliant State governments.  People have been arrested and herded from public view simply because they have the audacity to offend the guilty with the truth.  Protest must necessarily offend them whose actions cause the protest.  Being offended by protest does not present legal justification for suppressing it.

When Americans cannot peaceably protest, government forces them to more drastic measures.  Suppressing protest may be encouraging those who would do worse.  Violence and disunion are but thoughts, yet only a breath away from reality.  Those who practice abortion and defend it have no respect for human life.  Why should they be allowed theirs?  The dilemma facing many decent people today is they feel compelled to act with force, but appreciate the complexity of ensuring only the guilty suffer.

It is a personal, internal battle of faith, and belief in the grace of God, that prevents direct action against abortionists on large scale.  It is a testament to faith that God’s will is being done.  The stage is being set. 20

11  Clowes, Pro-Life Library.  The legal history of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are extensively documented in Chapter 89, Supreme Court Decisions.

12  Ibid., Chapter 89

13  The Court found, perhaps in the Fourth Amendment, a right to privacy which supercedes the right of another human being to live.

14 Bastiat, The Law

15  This is a "democratic" view.  From a religious standpoint, especially Christianity, human law devolves ultimately from God, and this law is the expression of His principles.

16  Bastiat, The Law

17  Jefferson quote to Maryland Republicans, 1809.

18 Cloyes, Pro-Life Library, Chapter 89.

19 Bastiat, The Law

20  Marshall and Manuel, Sounding Forth the Trumpet, 67 and 47.  Pro-abolitionists in pre-Civil War America fell into two camps.  One favored an immediate end to slavery, the other camp a gradual approach brought about by working on the conscience of the slaveholder.  The difference between the two camps was not in objective; it was in the pace of forgiveness of sin.  The camp favoring immediate emancipation believed that enough was simply enough.  Those in sin (slaveholders) knew they were in sin and would not turn from it.  The gradual approach, though appearing to be morally superior, was causing the continuing misery of millions of innocent people and death in captivity.  The authors also expressed this dilemma regarding slavery in the following way.  "Those who know Him either decide on their own what His purpose is and set out to accomplish it, or they wait upon Him to reveal His plan and their role in it, then pray for the grace to fill the task He has set before them."  These two related explanations have great relevance to the pro-life movement today.

 

 

Copyright © Copyright © 2020, 2003, 2004 by Michael A. Wallace & America's Voices, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Michael A. Wallace is a registered Republican, a former Eagle Scout, a Lifetime Member of the National Rifle Association, a strong believer in Second Amendment rights, a retired Marine officer, and a pro-life advocate –- all things liberals seem to dislike.  In addition to his affiliation with America's Voices, Mike is a founding member of ConservaVets, a conservative veteran's organization (which has since become Rally4America).  Mike uses thorough constitutional and historical research to analyze and explain key moral and political issues of the day.  He particularly enjoys debunking the myths and lies perpetrated by the many liberal groups who claim to speak for most Americans and by those who misrepresent Constitutional principles to further their own agendas.  E-mail Mike at mwallace@americasvoices.org.

 

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner

Awards

D-Day inaugural
feature article

www.americasvoices.org
publisher@americasvoices.org
editor@americasvoices.org
webmaster@americasvoices.org

Disclaimer

Editor's Mailbag
Publishing Guidelines

Copyright © Copyright © 2020, 2003, 2004 by America's Voices, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio.  All rights reserved.

America's Voices, America's Voices University, americasvoices.org and www.AmericasVoices.org are service marks of America's Voices, Inc. a not-for-profit educational organization.